Andrew Kolvet Breaks Down Day One of Tyler Robinson's Preliminary Hearing in Charlie Kirk Murder Case

[05:52] preliminary hearing recap that we're

[05:55] going to be doing every day to break

[05:57] down what happened in the preliminary

[05:59] hearing of Utah, state of Utah versus

[06:02] Tyler Robinson. Um, and we've got

[06:05] myself, Blake Nef here. And now we have

[06:07] Joe Bob, which is fantastic. Joe Bob,

[06:11] welcome. Uh, there you are. And we've

[06:14] also got uh Joe Bob does amazing work uh

[06:16] for us. Uh, he's got a great show.

[06:19] Amazing. Joe Bob for just for the

[06:21] audience, you've been on the show

[06:22] before, but just in case people don't

[06:24] realize, you've been with Turning Point

[06:25] for years. You opened for Charlie. You

[06:27] traveled with Charlie at all the campus

[06:29] events. um and you do a great uh show on

[06:32] Real America's Voice. So, um God bless

[06:35] you, man. Thank you for joining us

[06:36] today. Uh it's been a heavy day and I

[06:38] think that's where I'm just going to

[06:40] quickly start. I have a whole breakdown

[06:42] of all the facts and we have Graham

[06:43] Allen joining us and then we have um

[06:46] Andrea Burkhart who's a legal

[06:48] commentator. She's going to join us for

[06:49] the second half of the hour. So, but I

[06:51] just want to start there. Um, I can't

[06:55] stress to you enough of how much this t

[06:59] day has affected me, has affected Joe,

[07:01] Bob, Blake, everybody in this office,

[07:03] everybody at Turning Point. It's so it's

[07:06] so um excruciating actually to have to

[07:10] be reliving all of this and to have it

[07:12] like up front and in our faces again.

[07:14] Um, so Joe Bob, maybe just tell tell

[07:17] what it's like for you, my friend. You

[07:20] know, I actually appreciate you starting

[07:21] it off like that because coming into

[07:23] this I this is uncharted territory for

[07:26] everybody. Like I don't know if are we,

[07:27] you know, supposed to break it down like

[07:30] you know these super sophisticated legal

[07:32] minds that of course we all are or or

[07:34] are we supposed to be vulnerable about

[07:36] the fact that this was a tough day? I

[07:38] was walking around the house earlier

[07:40] this morning and my wife is like, "Hey,

[07:42] is something wrong?" And it's like,

[07:45] "Yeah, there is." and it just was one of

[07:49] those days where she could tell

[07:50] something was wrong. Um, but it wasn't,

[07:53] you know, it was just this sinking

[07:56] feeling that you you had. And I I was

[07:58] there last week at HQ and we're talking

[08:01] with some people around there about what

[08:04] this was going to be. And I same sinking

[08:08] feeling when I, you know, kind of

[08:09] realized the gravity of of Erica and

[08:12] Charlie's parents being in the room and

[08:14] what they were going to have to see

[08:17] during this whole process that is is is

[08:19] of course necessary to get justice. But

[08:22] the very fact that you have to endure it

[08:24] is is doesn't make it better, doesn't

[08:26] make it good. It's it's still terrible.

[08:28] And so, you know, while there's the the

[08:31] kind of the the progression of this, the

[08:33] proceeding of all of this is encouraging

[08:35] in in the quest for justice, again, I'm

[08:39] glad you started off like that cuz it is

[08:41] a sinking like heavy feeling has been

[08:43] around here all day.

[08:44] >> It's so heavy. Yeah. Blake, I know

[08:46] >> it's sinking in just this was a heavy

[08:48] day, but with the knowledge this is day

[08:50] one of a preliminary hearing that we

[08:53] talked to various people. They said they

[08:54] think it'll go at least three days. It

[08:55] could go all five. And then that's the

[08:58] preliminary hearing. We'll talk to

[08:59] Andrea again and see what she thinks.

[09:01] But she says the trial might not hit

[09:04] until 2028. And then who knows how long

[09:06] that will go and we might have to sit

[09:08] through appeals for this. This is we

[09:10] were getting a lot of well wishes. I

[09:11] know you were. I was. And what I was

[09:14] telling everyone telling people who

[09:15] emailed is this is it's going to be a

[09:19] long process and we are here to see it

[09:21] through all the way to the end.

[09:24] >> Um let's get into this. Um, I just want

[09:28] to, it's a brief primer. Keep it on all

[09:30] three of us so we can all chime in uh

[09:32] intermittently as we go through. I'm

[09:33] just going to go through a couple facts

[09:35] since this is day one. I just want to

[09:36] reiterate. So, Erica was in court today.

[09:39] She was seated next to Charlie's father,

[09:42] Rob, and his mother, Cath uh Kathy.

[09:45] Katherine, I call her Catherine. Um,

[09:48] they sat together. They did enter

[09:50] through different entrances for security

[09:52] purposes, but inside they sat together

[09:55] and all the news reporting that I've

[09:57] read is that they were comforting each

[09:59] other, crying on each other each other's

[10:01] shoulders. Um there was also um Erica's

[10:06] sister, uh Erica's niece and nephew

[10:09] representing the full extended family on

[10:11] both sides, including uh many relatives

[10:14] that uh couldn't be there, but they're

[10:15] there in spirit with them. Don Jr. was

[10:18] there. uh obviously a close friend of

[10:20] Charlie's uh his wife Patina. Uh you

[10:23] also had Jack Pobic, Brandon Tatum, and

[10:25] Graham Allen who is going to be joining

[10:27] us in just a second. But to reiterate,

[10:30] this was the this is day one of the

[10:32] preliminary hearing, not the trial. As

[10:34] Blake said, there's no jury. The purpose

[10:37] is for the state to present enough

[10:38] evidence uh to the judge, Tony Graph, to

[10:42] meet the probable cause threshold. uh

[10:45] and if that threshold is met, then it

[10:47] will go to a trial. Okay? So, during the

[10:50] hearing, you see the state call

[10:51] witnesses and the defense may

[10:52] cross-examine them. Then, we saw that

[10:54] today. The defense may also call

[10:56] witnesses and the state may

[10:57] cross-examine them, too. And there's a

[10:59] lot of you'll hear a lot of mention of

[11:01] hearsay. Well, the evidence governing a

[11:04] preliminary hearing is different in uh

[11:07] this case than a trial, right? So, the

[11:09] standard of proof is lower. The purpose

[11:12] um is you can you can admit what they

[11:15] call credible hearsay. Okay. Blake's not

[11:18] a lawyer, but he does play one from time

[11:19] to time on on TV. Do you do you have any

[11:22] like

[11:23] >> it's just classic there's usually in a

[11:26] normal criminal trial. You have the

[11:28] right to confront your accusers. And so

[11:30] a long established principle in our

[11:32] legal system, I don't know about those

[11:33] around the world, but certainly in ours

[11:34] is you generally can't go, "Oh, this

[11:37] offic you know a police officer will say

[11:39] this person told me that." And in

[11:41] reality, you could bring that person in

[11:42] and instead you just have this secondary

[11:44] hearsay. You can't have someone testify

[11:48] that they heard something from someone

[11:49] while that guy's denying it and say,

[11:50] "Well, we just believe this officer is

[11:51] telling the truth." Uh, and so the

[11:54] example here where it's coming up, for

[11:55] example, is they asked uh one of the the

[11:59] second witness today what was in the

[12:01] medical examiner's report, and he's just

[12:03] saying, "Well, I saw this in the medical

[12:05] examiner's report." And

[12:08] that's a credible hearsay in the sense

[12:09] this is a police officer who's

[12:11] describing a document that he read while

[12:13] they were preparing this case. In the

[12:15] actual trial, we will be having the

[12:18] actual medical examiner. Yeah. Exactly.

[12:20] >> As a witness who will say, "I performed

[12:21] this autopsy. This is what I found."

[12:23] They can be cross-examined, but for the

[12:25] case of for this sort of probable cause

[12:28] thing, it's totally acceptable for them

[12:29] to have a police officer say, "We have

[12:32] this and we generally trust this

[12:34] person." Unless there's an obvious

[12:35] reason to believe that and it Judge

[12:37] Graph has been very disciplined. He's

[12:40] sort of balls and strikes kind of guy. I

[12:42] think he's very cognizant of the fact

[12:43] that he doesn't want to make a misstep

[12:46] that could make it appealable or

[12:47] whatever. Right. The defense has fought

[12:50] very hard to prevent cameras in the

[12:51] courtroom. Okay. They previously filed a

[12:54] standing objection to the state's

[12:55] preliminary hearing exhibits. Today,

[12:57] they stated additional objections as

[12:59] each exhibit was introduced. And that

[13:02] was one of the big storylines today.

[13:03] every single exhibit they would object

[13:05] to. Uh so this why we saw a whole lot of

[13:08] I would say theater trial theater from

[13:12] the defense today regarding those

[13:13] objections. The judge has been very

[13:15] straightforward balls and strikes like I

[13:16] said and it seems like the defense's

[13:19] strategy has been to blur the focus,

[13:22] right? They they're delaying. They want

[13:24] to kind of slow things down, which is

[13:27] not surprising given everything that

[13:29] we've seen from this far. But you know,

[13:31] at least that's my view, right? that

[13:33] this blurring of the focus so they can't

[13:35] lay out the details in a so as you as a

[13:37] watcher and Joe Bob I'd be curious your

[13:39] perspective just watching this

[13:41] preliminary hearing trying to sort of

[13:43] keep track of the details is difficult

[13:45] because it's it's bogged down in so much

[13:47] procedural back and forth so last week

[13:50] on the turning point tonight show we

[13:52] broke down to to the best of my ability

[13:54] right I'm not an attorney but the

[13:56] procedural process kind of like what

[13:59] Blake had laid out kind of what you guys

[14:00] have been talking about on the show

[14:02] pretty consist consistently in that

[14:04] there are different procedural rules for

[14:06] the pre-trial and the actual trial. He

[14:07] hearsay can be admitted. All of these

[14:10] things uh the defense seem to be uh

[14:14] trying to add the pre or had the actual

[14:18] trial to the pre-trial, right? They they

[14:21] tried to have all of the uh the rights

[14:23] of the defendant that exist in the trial

[14:26] to the pre-trial with just the constant

[14:28] objections over and over and over again.

[14:30] And I I hope my terminology is correct

[14:32] there, but that's how I understood it.

[14:34] But what I think was really interesting,

[14:36] and I recognize people don't have, you

[14:38] know, the full day to sit here and watch

[14:40] this. But I I I would encourage people

[14:42] to to watch a big chunk of it if they

[14:45] can because what I saw as an observer

[14:49] was prudence and discernment from the

[14:52] judge. Every single thing, he took it

[14:55] in, considered, decided whether or not

[14:57] it was going to get played for the

[14:58] courtroom and for the media. decided if

[15:00] that was, you know, good or bad or or

[15:03] uh, you know, obviously evidence

[15:05] admissible and in inadmissible and you

[15:08] really got to see the process of thought

[15:10] that goes into it. It's not just like

[15:12] this haphazard. And again, I don't know

[15:14] why people would assume that it would

[15:15] be, but it was really good to see that

[15:18] reiteration of discernment on the bench

[15:22] to go, here's what we're considering.

[15:24] Here's all the processes laid out. And

[15:26] and again, as more or less a lay person

[15:28] when it comes to the the legal system,

[15:31] it was good to see that

[15:33] >> through the throughout the entire day.

[15:35] Really?

[15:36] >> Yeah. And I I'm told that we now have

[15:39] Graham. Graham again, Graham Allen, he's

[15:41] going to be we're going to be letting

[15:42] him in. We um Graham was actually in the

[15:45] courtroom all day. So, I'm going to

[15:46] while the studio gets Graham uh checked

[15:50] in here, I'm going to keep going with

[15:51] some of these breakdown. We prepared a a

[15:53] point by print point breakdown just

[15:55] keeping notes all day. So um so all in

[15:59] all the state is going to call four

[16:01] witnesses and admit 40 to 50 exhibits. I

[16:04] believe we do have the images of the

[16:06] exhibits if we could throw those up.

[16:08] Those are pieces of evidence. They

[16:10] called two of those witnesses today and

[16:12] admitted about a dozen exhibits. So, the

[16:15] big big big takeaways and I'm and then

[16:18] I'm just going to stop here with the big

[16:19] takeaways and then I'm going to bring

[16:20] Graham in is I think first Agent Hall

[16:24] testified that Robinson was seen on UVU

[16:27] surveillance video on campus a total of

[16:29] four times. Four times

[16:30] >> on September 10th before, during, and

[16:32] then after the shooting that uh and so

[16:35] that was a big one. Four times. Now,

[16:36] we're going to get into the video

[16:38] issues. I think we'll talk about that

[16:39] with uh Andrea. The internet's I think

[16:42] tempted to run away with that one, but

[16:44] it there's nothing. So, um, and then

[16:47] also that the medical examiner's report

[16:50] listed Charlie's cause of death as

[16:51] homicide by gunshot wound to the neck.

[16:54] So, no exploding mic, no none of that

[16:56] stuff. It the medical the straight

[16:58] medical examiner's report says gunshot

[17:01] wound to the neck. All right. And then

[17:02] the other big takeaway is officer

[17:04] Baggley confirmed that the roof of UVU's

[17:07] Loi Center was accessible by public

[17:10] stairway and testified that he climbed

[17:11] to the rooftop immediately after the

[17:13] shooting. There he saw a red and black

[17:15] screwdriver and a disturbance in the

[17:18] gravel which he described as markings

[17:19] consistent with someone lying in the

[17:21] prone position with a line of sight to

[17:23] where Charlie was speaking. So I think

[17:25] those from just an evidence standpoint,

[17:27] those were were the big takeaways. Uh

[17:29] Graham Allen joins us now. Um, Graham,

[17:32] uh, so grateful to have you, man. And

[17:35] from the bottom of my heart, thank you

[17:37] for being in that courtroom and

[17:39] supporting Erica and her family, Rob and

[17:41] Kathy.

[17:43] Um,

[17:44] I I couldn't do it if I'm just going to

[17:46] be honest. I I think I would have I

[17:48] don't know how I would have reacted. And

[17:50] uh, it

[17:50] >> was a weird day. Weird day.

[17:52] >> What was it like?

[17:54] >> Uh, well um,

[17:58] weird day. Tyler Robinson was maybe six,

[18:01] seven feet in front of me the the the

[18:04] entire day. Um, you know, I I've seen a

[18:08] lot of people recirculating an, you

[18:10] know, an old clip on the internet of him

[18:13] laughing uh and things like that. What

[18:15] what I can confirm, what I did see that

[18:18] all of us saw that was on that front row

[18:20] especially is Tyler Robinson was uh very

[18:24] very active in wanting to see evidence.

[18:27] But when he would speak to I I I saw the

[18:30] back of his head when he would speak to

[18:32] his lawyer, I could see his lawyer's

[18:34] side profile and she was giggling and

[18:37] she was laughing and so that that was

[18:39] hard to see uh in the courtroom. Um, a

[18:43] couple things I can put to bed. All this

[18:45] crap about um, Erica and Charlie's

[18:49] parents, not being on the same page or

[18:51] they don't like each other, it was

[18:52] complete garbage. I was on the same row.

[18:55] It was It was uh, Erica, Charlie's

[18:58] parents, uh, it was Jack Basobic, me,

[19:01] Dawn Jr., all in the front row the

[19:04] entire time. Uh when when we all got

[19:07] went on recess and were in the holding

[19:09] room, Erica's was with Charlie's parents

[19:12] the entire time. Charlie's parents were

[19:15] speaking to all of us and they were

[19:16] talking to all of us. So all this

[19:18] garbage that um Erica and the the wife

[19:24] of Charlie Kirk and his parents that

[19:27] they are not on the same page with each

[19:29] other. That's that's total total lunacy.

[19:32] Total garbage. I've also seen a couple

[19:34] things again that you know they took our

[19:35] phones from us so I'm I'm catching up to

[19:37] what the internet is saying. Um I would

[19:40] encourage everybody to watch as much of

[19:43] the trial as they can because what a lot

[19:45] of bad actors are doing is they're

[19:48] taking clips of them introducing one

[19:51] piece of evidence. For example, the

[19:54] gravel at the top of the building where

[19:56] the shot was taken. there's this there's

[19:58] one picture that they put into evidence

[20:00] and they're like, "It's kind of hard to

[20:02] see the impressions that you saw that

[20:04] day. Uh, is it not?" And the officer

[20:07] says, "Yes, that's kind of hard to see

[20:08] the impressions I saw." Well, people are

[20:10] just clipping that and they're like,

[20:12] "Oh, this is a this is a clown show."

[20:14] Like, like, "Oh, just trust me, bro."

[20:16] All this. But then the very next piece

[20:19] of evidence that they introduce is an

[20:22] even better picture showing obvious

[20:25] indentations of of a of a grown male

[20:28] that was in a prone position to take a

[20:30] sniper style shot with a rifle. Like so

[20:34] I encourage as many people as possible

[20:37] to watch as much of the trial as they

[20:39] can. I would also say that if you're

[20:42] watching this and you're on a side that

[20:45] that believes and I said this on my show

[20:47] today, this is about getting justice for

[20:49] Charlie, but if you're on this friend

[20:51] side that's all about these conspiracies

[20:52] and things, it appears to be the defense

[20:56] that doesn't want any evidence

[21:00] seen by anyone in any way, shape, form,

[21:02] or fashion. it seems to be the defense

[21:04] that is against anything being admitted

[21:07] as evidence, being shown as evidence,

[21:11] uh, all of those things. And so that was

[21:12] that that was pretty shocking to me. I I

[21:16] expected Anyway,

[21:17] >> that's you can't you can't underscore

[21:19] that point enough though, Graham, is

[21:20] that uh the I I saw the same thing on

[21:24] social media where people were like,

[21:26] "Oh, they don't want to show any

[21:27] evidence." And it's like that's the

[21:29] defense. The defense is the one pushing

[21:32] not to show evidence. The state has been

[21:34] consistent like we want cameras, we want

[21:35] to show all the evidence. And every time

[21:38] the defense has come in with an

[21:39] objection about it can't be on that

[21:41] monitor or it can't be

[21:44] published, which I guess is means

[21:46] visible in the courthouse because it

[21:49] hasn't been submitted as eving

[21:50] technicalities to sort of limit the

[21:53] publishing or exposure of said evidence.

[21:54] And it just should be said uh you know

[21:56] who someone was saying that today was

[21:58] the start of a show trial and the real

[22:01] truth is is everything about today has

[22:03] indicated this is one of the most

[22:05] methodical criminal justice proceedings

[22:08] any of us ever have ever seen. It took

[22:10] us 10 months to get to this point of a

[22:13] preliminary hearing. Something that is

[22:14] waved in a very large number of murder

[22:17] trials. Something that happens within a

[22:19] handful of days in plenty of other not

[22:22] just robberies but murders. big cases

[22:24] like this one here. They've taken ages

[22:27] to get here. They have litigated every

[22:29] single point about evidence, about

[22:31] cameras, about timing, about

[22:33] representation, and they will continue

[22:36] to do so. And I think it was very

[22:38] telling that other than those claims for

[22:41] a lot of these people, uh, they weren't

[22:42] even engaged today. They were picking

[22:44] other fights.

[22:45] >> Well, and I had I had a um somebody

[22:47] who's not connected with Turning Point

[22:49] and not connected like at all with the

[22:51] trial, but he was just watching. He sent

[22:53] me a text. He said, uh, the defense's

[22:55] hear objections were legally ridiculous

[22:58] and summarily overruled by Judge Graph.

[23:01] The court was fully briefed on the

[23:02] matter in advance of the hearings and

[23:04] ruled, but the defense continues to

[23:06] raise this objection. Anyway, so that

[23:10] was some that's like a third part,

[23:11] completely unrelated, but this is a a

[23:13] guy that's a prosecutor and that he was

[23:15] just like filling me in and I thought,

[23:16] okay, that's interesting. And there were

[23:18] definitely Go ahead.

[23:19] >> Go ahead. Sorry.

[23:20] >> No, no, no, please. Well, there were

[23:22] definitely conversations about that. How

[23:25] long is the judge going to allow, you

[23:28] know, uh, you know, code 1102, section

[23:32] 12 to be, you know, repeated over and

[23:35] over

[23:36] >> to block the publishing of evidence.

[23:38] Yeah,

[23:39] >> correct. And there were a couple of, you

[23:40] know, prior defense attorneys in there

[23:42] that that that, you know, we were able

[23:44] to have not in the court obviously when

[23:46] we were, you know, in recess or whatnot,

[23:49] you know, that would say that that's,

[23:50] you know, it's it's not a good sign. You

[23:53] know, obviously everyone's innocent

[23:54] until proven guilty. Obviously, that's

[23:57] the way our court system is done. But

[23:59] but it's never a good sign when the

[24:01] defense is just stalling like that over

[24:03] and over. If I can talk about the video,

[24:06] if you would call it any type of uh, you

[24:10] know, small bump in the road, I I want

[24:13] to put away any type of things because

[24:15] we were also briefed on this as well.

[24:18] Uh, the video is not dead that they

[24:22] wanted to submit into evidence that the

[24:24] judge said, well, you know, it's been

[24:26] enhanced or whatever it is, like zoomed

[24:28] in or circled around.

[24:30] >> Yeah, I want to get to actually Graham.

[24:31] Graham, watch this. Uh so we have this

[24:34] clip and just it helps to kind of bring

[24:35] some of this home. This is the this is

[24:37] the clip. So this is uh when Judge Graph

[24:41] rejects the admittance of the state's

[24:43] compilation of videos. Now again we're

[24:45] we're referencing when the state

[24:47] presented uh was I think ex uh

[24:50] questioning the witness and they said

[24:53] four times and they had a compilation

[24:55] where they put together those four

[24:57] videos. This is that clip uh S 55.

[25:02] This is a compilation video that was put

[25:04] together from a bunch of different

[25:06] sources by the county attorney's office.

[25:10] Um, this individual did not create this

[25:12] compilation. Um, can't testify to the um

[25:18] accuracy of the actual um materials that

[25:22] it was taken from. And furthermore,

[25:26] um, Mr. Olsen himself is just referred

[25:30] to by Agent Hall. He specifically says

[25:34] people have altered these recordings.

[25:37] They've zoomed in when the when the

[25:39] actual recording isn't zoomed. They've

[25:41] added little circles to people they want

[25:43] you to pay attention to. They've blurred

[25:44] people's faces out. So, I mean, it's

[25:46] been clearly altered and it's not I

[25:49] mean, they admit it's been altered. So,

[25:51] we have real concern about authenticity

[25:53] of it.

[25:54] >> I'm going to go ahead and I'm sustaining

[25:56] the objection.

[25:58] All right. So, Graham, go ahead. Now,

[26:00] now that the audience all caught up.

[26:02] >> Yeah. So, so what the judge actually

[26:05] like said, okay, to in that was not this

[26:10] grand slam dunk like, oh, the, you know,

[26:13] the the the state didn't get their

[26:15] evidence. That's not what's happening.

[26:17] Well, the judge, what he did in that uh

[26:21] was he didn't have from the person on

[26:24] the state side who actually zoomed in in

[26:27] certain areas or put red circles around

[26:30] to make it more easy what you were

[26:32] seeing. It's kind of like telling John

[26:33] Madden back in the day that he he

[26:35] manipulated the footage that he's

[26:37] replaying, showing you.

[26:39] >> That's a perfect That's a perfect

[26:40] analogy that this so it wasn't altered.

[26:43] It wasn't like AI. What they did is they

[26:47] to they used a John Madden style exactly

[26:49] right where you know you he'd freeze

[26:51] frame the NFL clip and he'd circle like

[26:53] look what the ball's doing here and it's

[26:54] going to shoot this way and watch

[26:55] they're going to move this way. So they

[26:57] were trying to spotlight different

[27:00] things they wanted to draw attention to.

[27:02] >> Correct.

[27:02] >> And the the the video will be uh

[27:05] resubmitted as evidence. The only

[27:07] question is and it will make it into

[27:08] evidence. It's only a matter of question

[27:10] of in what form. Will it be the raw

[27:12] original

[27:14] form or will they cuz they're going to

[27:16] resubmit the this this video as evidence

[27:18] when the court's back in session

[27:20] tomorrow morning.

[27:21] >> Um however, we just don't know what the

[27:23] judge is going to rule if it has to be

[27:25] the rob. Either way, the evidence is

[27:27] what the evidence is that they saw him

[27:29] four times on campus.

[27:30] >> Correct. from my understanding is it was

[27:33] someone inside the state, you know, the

[27:35] the prosecutions team that did it, but

[27:38] they just didn't have a signed I think

[27:41] they called it an 11:02 or something

[27:43] like that. Yes, I did it. I I edited

[27:47] this. Yeah.

[27:48] >> Yeah. I didn't I didn't, you know, uh

[27:50] edit or or redact anything. So, I from

[27:54] my understanding, the plan is they're

[27:56] going to submit both. They're going to

[27:59] submit the un, you know, unenhanced

[28:03] version along with the version they

[28:05] wanted to yesterday. And from the way it

[28:07] sounded with the judge, he's going to

[28:09] watch both of them then at that point.

[28:11] But you're right, it's going to be

[28:13] submitted tomorrow officially in as

[28:16] evidence.

[28:17] >> Joe, Bob, you have something you want to

[28:19] talk about,

[28:20] >> Graham. So, one of the big uh social

[28:23] media clips that

[28:26] moving, I don't know is the right word,

[28:27] but got a lot of attention was uh Judge

[28:30] Graph watching the explicit video and

[28:34] his reaction, which and probably is way

[28:38] more tame than most people would react.

[28:41] One, were you in the courtroom for that?

[28:43] And two, what can you describe what that

[28:46] was like watching those those videos?

[28:49] And we have that clip here, Graham, if

[28:50] you want me to show it. We I mean, it's

[28:53] got the m It's the same one you posted,

[28:54] Graham, on on X, so it's got a music bed

[28:57] to it. But 56.

[29:02] [music]

[29:08] [music]

[29:16] Yeah, it's wild to watch. It really is.

[29:19] >> I was I was there. Uh we all were there

[29:22] and so every one of the the the videos

[29:26] that were graphic in nature were were

[29:29] were admitted as evidence, but both the

[29:32] the state and the defense

[29:35] did not want it to be seen publicly uh

[29:39] due to the graphic nature of it. because

[29:41] we've all well the vast majority of

[29:45] people saw the the horrific social

[29:49] media, you know, iPhone images of uh

[29:54] what happened to Charlie, but but

[29:55] especially when the uh you know, the 4K

[30:00] videos were were were put in there. Um

[30:05] that was Yeah, that that was a tough

[30:07] moment. That that was a really tough

[30:08] moment.

[30:09] So be to be clear though, Graham, these

[30:12] were the videos that were rolling like

[30:16] >> of the event. These are event these are

[30:19] the 4K cameras that were around Charlie

[30:23] >> and that were submitted that were handed

[30:26] over to authorities the the the moments

[30:28] after it happened, I guess.

[30:30] >> And so they've never been publicly

[30:32] viewed.

[30:33] >> Correct. Yes. And so, you know, those of

[30:37] us that were in the Rose, I mean, you

[30:39] know, the audio is playing and we all

[30:41] know exactly when when it happens. I

[30:44] mean, you know, we've all heard the

[30:45] moment, the question Charlie was asked

[30:48] and his beginning to answer. And so, you

[30:51] know, I looked around, you know, kind of

[30:53] my left and my right, and everybody kind

[30:54] of had their hand kind of clenched

[30:56] because we all knew exactly when the

[30:58] moment happened. and did

[31:00] >> uh but but but on that video

[31:02] specifically, I was looking right at the

[31:03] judge when that happened and and so

[31:05] yeah, it was um

[31:08] >> yeah, I mean it's tough. It's tough to

[31:09] look at and so uh his reaction is a real

[31:12] reaction.

[31:13] >> Um

[31:16] you mentioned you were looking around to

[31:18] people to your left and your right. Who

[31:20] did I I know that Erica and her family

[31:23] got the opportunity to leave during the

[31:27] >> Yeah. I guess demonstration of certain

[31:29] exhibits. Um were they able to leave

[31:31] during that or were they still there

[31:33] because the judge was just How did that

[31:34] work?

[31:35] >> Yeah. So so so they briefed us on that

[31:37] when we were in a recess that because uh

[31:40] but obviously Erica and and Charlie's

[31:43] Charlie's [clears throat]

[31:44] family, they did not they did not want

[31:46] to see see that. A and so so we knew

[31:50] that they were going to let us know when

[31:53] that moment was going to happen. And so,

[31:56] yes, Char or excuse me, Charlie,

[31:58] goodness, Erica and Charlie's family

[32:02] left. And so, the the only people left

[32:05] on the very front row was Jack Bobic was

[32:10] on my left and Don Jr. and his wife were

[32:13] on my right. And that's all that was

[32:14] left on the front row when Erica and and

[32:18] Charlie's family left. And then, um,

[32:20] Brandon Tatum and and others were were

[32:23] behind us on the next row. Uh, so yes,

[32:25] they did get an opportunity to leave,

[32:26] but but it was kind of a a known leave

[32:29] because they they didn't they didn't

[32:31] want to see that, nor nor should they

[32:34] have to.

[32:34] >> No. And even the even just being able to

[32:36] hear it. Um,

[32:38] >> correct. Right.

[32:40] >> Um,

[32:41] yeah. I like I said, I'm just so glad

[32:45] you were in there.

[32:46] >> Something I didn't see people talking

[32:48] about, and I wonder if you saw it. Did

[32:50] you see people outside the courthouse?

[32:53] um either

[32:55] >> protesters uh people trolling them, you

[32:57] know, making trying to make fun of it

[32:58] the way we saw at our women's event or

[33:02] even

[33:03] >> maybe what's fringe YouTubers. Yeah.

[33:05] What's it what's it like in the

[33:06] vicinity?

[33:08] >> Yeah. So, so where they have us all

[33:10] entering in at it's it's pretty it's

[33:12] pretty locked down. um that there is a

[33:15] little bit of what looks like a parking

[33:17] structure up on top and you have some

[33:19] news crews that are like, you know,

[33:21] pointing down and things like that. It

[33:24] was mainly just media when we were

[33:26] walking in. I mean, there's there's a

[33:27] lot of videos on the internet of us

[33:29] walking in to to the courtroom and

[33:32] things like that. Um

[33:35] I didn't see any protesters per se in

[33:38] that exact moment. There were some

[33:40] people that were trying to get Don Jr.

[33:42] like to to to comment and things. And he

[33:44] respectfully said, "No, I'm I'm here for

[33:46] I'm here to support a friend. I'm I'm

[33:48] not I'm not doing any on the record

[33:50] stuff and things like that, which I

[33:52] thought was very classy of him. You

[33:53] know, he he's simply there for Charlie

[33:56] and for Erica." And so I I thought that

[33:58] that was a a really big thing because

[34:01] it's not easy to sit in that courtroom

[34:03] all day and listen and and just the

[34:07] mundane of all of it. Um uh you know

[34:10] there was another moment where that I

[34:13] saw some people chattering about online

[34:15] where uh you know Charlie's either Erica

[34:19] and Charlie's parents or Charlie's

[34:20] parents got up abruptly and left or

[34:22] something like that. Uh from what I

[34:24] understand uh Charlie's mom got a nose

[34:26] bleed. You know it's dry weather here. I

[34:29] don't think it was anything serious and

[34:30] she was fine the rest of the day. Like I

[34:32] said Charlie's parents were were great.

[34:34] They were talking to all of us in the

[34:36] recess rooms uh with Erica right there.

[34:40] And so again, when I see all these

[34:42] things and again, I was playing catchup

[34:44] with my phone. Uh it's just it shows

[34:47] shocking how many people have no idea

[34:49] what they're talking about.

[34:50] >> Well, and that's that's been my whole

[34:52] experience of the last 10 months,

[34:54] Graham, is you know, it's like

[34:56] >> totally out of the loop.

[34:57] >> The the the disconnect between re

[35:01] [laughter] real life and like where the

[35:03] internet will go for it. That's one of

[35:04] the reasons we're doing this daily recap

[35:07] because I want people to have somewhere

[35:09] where they can just get the actual facts

[35:10] from the case. Graham, um, and Joe Bob,

[35:13] I want to work you in here, too. And

[35:15] then we've got Andrea Burkhart. She's

[35:16] actually standing by already, which is

[35:18] great. Um, but Graham, what about uh

[35:20] Tyler Robinson's family? Did you see

[35:23] them? And did you know which ones they

[35:26] were kind of? [clears throat]

[35:27] >> I didn't know who they were initially,

[35:29] but they were pointed out to me. So, the

[35:32] way that we were lined up is it it's not

[35:35] it's not like the courtroom like you see

[35:37] on TV, you know, like where there's like

[35:40] two distinct sides and there's like this

[35:42] side and then that side. It was um four

[35:46] rows horizontal to the actual courtroom

[35:49] that most people saw uh you know from

[35:51] the camera position. So the front row,

[35:54] like I said, was was Erica and Charlie's

[35:57] family, and then it was Jack Bobic, me,

[36:00] Don Jr., his wife. The next row, Stacy

[36:02] Sheridan was in there, Brandon Tatum, uh

[36:05] several other people were on the back

[36:07] row, and then the I I believe Tyler

[36:11] Robinson's family was on the third row,

[36:13] and then that fourth row was for just

[36:17] some random public people that got, you

[36:20] know, a seat in there, apparently. How

[36:21] many people are we talking about,

[36:22] Graham?

[36:24] >> All in.

[36:25] >> I think that were viewing it or in total

[36:28] like just

[36:29] >> like in total like how many people were

[36:32] guests in that courtroom? I'm just

[36:33] curious.

[36:34] >> Oh, guests. Maybe maybe 40 maybe 50

[36:39] people when it was all said and done.

[36:40] >> Small still. It's

[36:42] >> Yeah. And that's including the media.

[36:44] And the media was sitting where normally

[36:47] the jury would sit, I would imagine.

[36:49] >> Got it. Graham, could you get a feel for

[36:52] what the media might have been talking

[36:54] about, chattering about, prepared to put

[36:56] out? Was there any sense of that? Did

[36:59] you get or did you not really interact

[37:00] with the the media that was there too

[37:02] much?

[37:03] >> I You guys know me, I'm not a big fan of

[37:06] the media. So, so, so I didn't I didn't

[37:08] have it on my radar to to to like talk

[37:11] to them specifically. I did note that a

[37:14] lot of them were looking our direction a

[37:17] lot of the time. It seemed like maybe

[37:20] that was toward Erica or Charlie's

[37:22] parents. Maybe that was towards Tyler

[37:25] Robinson's parents. I I I don't know.

[37:27] But but I did but I did note that they

[37:30] were looking our direction an awful lot.

[37:34] >> Graham, final thoughts here. We're uh

[37:37] please uh any any final, you know,

[37:39] things that you noticed or want to make

[37:40] sure that we hear from you and then

[37:41] we're going to take a quick twominut

[37:43] reset break and bring Andrea Birkhart in

[37:46] uh next. So, Graham, any final thoughts?

[37:49] >> Uh, just just continue to pray for

[37:51] Erica, for Charlie's parents, for for

[37:54] for the family. Uh, this is day one,

[37:58] right? And so, so it's just getting

[38:00] started. Um, forensics and all that

[38:03] stuff haven't even been introduced. I I

[38:05] mean I mean, there's so much more to do.

[38:08] >> Um, just continue to pray. And then I I

[38:11] I said this on the show this morning,

[38:12] when all this is said and done and and

[38:15] justice has been served and all this, my

[38:18] biggest hope and prayer is that

[38:19] Charlie's legacy is what you know is is

[38:22] the life he lived and not how he died is

[38:26] is is my biggest hope and everything.

[38:28] And so um we just want the truth and

[38:32] this is actually how you get it and how

[38:34] you actually get actual justice. So

[38:36] >> yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Sunlight's the best

[38:38] disinfectant. We want full transparency.

[38:40] We want everything to be visible and

[38:43] viewable for the I mean, not the graphic

[38:45] stuff, candidly. I don't know. I mean, I

[38:48] don't think anybody needs to see Charlie

[38:49] being, you know, in 4K. I don't I don't

[38:52] need to see that. Um, but either way,

[38:55] Graham, I just want to finish with this

[38:56] and say thank you again. Means a lot to

[38:59] us on a very personal level, right? Like

[39:02] everybody's, you know, you got your

[39:03] show, we got ours and and influencer

[39:06] blah blah blah, all that stuff. No, like

[39:08] on a on a very personal level, it means

[39:11] the world to us that you were in there

[39:13] supporting Erica and Rob and Kathy and

[39:17] um the whole family. So, thank you, man.

[39:21] >> Least I could do.

[39:23] >> All right, we're going to take a quick

[39:24] break here. Um three I'm told it's three

[39:27] minutes. So, three minutes. We're going

[39:29] to do a quick reset, bring in Andrea

[39:31] Birkhart, and uh we'll be right back.

[42:25] All right, welcome back. Here we are at

[42:27] the uh our preliminary trial day one

[42:30] recap episode here. Got Blake Nef,

[42:33] myself, Joe Bob is looks like we lost

[42:36] Joe Bob actually. [laughter]

[42:37] Uh but we have Andrea Burkhart, legal

[42:40] commentator. Uh she's a trial and

[42:42] appellet litigator. You can find her at

[42:44] Substack. Andrea Birkheart.substack.com.

[42:49] Andrea, welcome and uh thank you for

[42:51] making the time. You've been covering

[42:53] this um trial. Really, I've you've been

[42:56] a source of information for me, too. You

[42:57] have a way of looking at things and

[42:59] insight because you've done this before.

[43:01] Uh big picture, what do you make of

[43:04] this? And then I want to get in of day

[43:06] one. Then I want to get into what we can

[43:08] expect tomorrow morning and and and

[43:11] coming up next based on the exhibit list

[43:13] that we that has been made public.

[43:16] >> Yeah. So, so far there's nothing that's

[43:18] happened that uh has has struck me as

[43:20] particularly surprising. Uh every

[43:22] jurisdiction has their their own rules

[43:24] and their own ways of doing things and

[43:26] so there can be a lot of variation in

[43:28] kind of the specifics of of how things

[43:30] happen. Uh but by and large just in

[43:33] terms of what's being presented, how

[43:34] they're presenting it, uh the volume and

[43:37] nature of the objections that we're

[43:38] getting from the defense as well, these

[43:41] are all things that uh to my view uh as

[43:44] as somebody who's handled these in in

[43:46] similar kind of hearings before. Um

[43:49] appears to be going largely according to

[43:51] script uh consistent with the

[43:53] expectations that uh that the parties

[43:55] would have had for how a hearing like

[43:57] this is expected to go. My I think the

[44:00] big question that a lot of people have

[44:01] and Blake and I were debating it and we

[44:03] were talking to some other people trying

[44:05] to figure out why uh I think I texted

[44:07] you about it and I I think it's a you

[44:10] had a great answer so I want you to

[44:11] share it here. Why is the defense

[44:15] basically trying to object to every

[44:17] single exhibit? Right. What is the

[44:20] tactic here? What is there anything to

[44:22] read into it?

[44:24] >> Well, I I think that is it is normal.

[44:26] Uh, as always in a death penalty case,

[44:28] you you you just do expect to see a

[44:31] little bit more vigorous of a defense

[44:33] than you you might in cases that don't

[44:35] have quite as much at stake. Uh, that

[44:38] said, it's always a bit of a strategy

[44:40] call and maybe to some extent a style

[44:42] issue as well. Um, h how attorneys to

[44:45] decide uh to manage things like like

[44:48] objections in a case. Uh what we saw

[44:51] today was um just repeated objections.

[44:55] There's there's already a standing

[44:57] objection on the record that's that was

[44:59] filed in writing. Uh but the defense is

[45:02] taking the opportunity to reiterate that

[45:04] objection, explain it uh multiple times.

[45:08] Uh and so it it can perhaps come across

[45:11] as a bit repetitive to be hearing the

[45:14] same uh

[45:15] >> Yeah. But can't that eventually sort of

[45:17] backfire if you start frustrating the

[45:19] judge? if you start sort of I don't know

[45:21] just becoming coming off like

[45:23] obstructionist

[45:24] >> it can I mean that is the trade-off it

[45:26] is a style choice to be aggressive like

[45:28] that that that can be off-putting the

[45:30] the risk is that uh if you simply flood

[45:33] the judge's attention with everything

[45:36] possible that that you could raise as an

[45:38] objection then you run the risk that

[45:40] when there's something really good and

[45:42] really really strong it's going to be

[45:44] lost in the fog of everything that

[45:46] you've already thrown at him and he's

[45:48] not going to realize ize, you know, oh,

[45:50] this time, you know, they they really

[45:52] mean it and there's there's really

[45:53] something uh substantive here. Uh so it

[45:55] is a little bit of a risky play. Uh but

[45:58] just given their position and the fact

[45:59] that they do have an obligation to make

[46:02] the best record they can, looking down

[46:04] the road and anticipating future appeals

[46:06] and and future postconviction processes

[46:09] to make sure that they're not waving any

[46:11] possible objection that he could make uh

[46:13] at any point of this process. uh that's

[46:16] going to be a big driving factor for why

[46:18] they are behaving the way they are.

[46:21] >> Really fascinating and I do think it's

[46:23] interesting especially if they try that

[46:25] strategy in a trial which I know you've

[46:27] warned us could be as late as 2028 which

[46:30] I'm still like smarting from to be

[46:32] perfectly honest. Um

[46:35] >> but if they try that in a jury trial I

[46:37] can imagine that would be very

[46:39] frustrating for a jury. That would be

[46:41] very frustrating for the entire legal

[46:43] process. probably Judge Graph. Um, so

[46:46] that's I think that's important to kind

[46:47] of keep in mind. So I'll I'll I we

[46:51] mentioned this in the first part of the

[46:52] hour. Um, and I want to ask you this one

[46:55] question, then we'll get into the

[46:56] exhibit list and what we can expect

[46:57] next. The I think the big bombshell

[47:01] today, if there was one, I I certainly

[47:03] took note, is that they've they the

[47:05] state is claiming that they have

[47:07] evidence of him of Tyler Robinson being

[47:09] on campus four times the day of

[47:11] September 10th. two times in the

[47:13] morning, one time during the actual

[47:14] shooting, and then one time in the wee

[47:17] hours of the night that even bled into

[47:19] September 11th. Uh, but then there was

[47:21] this controversy about the video and

[47:24] judge actually did sustain that

[47:25] objection because the video has been

[47:27] altered. Please explain how you perceive

[47:30] that. I I know that the evidence is

[47:32] going to be resubmitted tomorrow

[47:33] morning. They're going to submit

[47:35] apparently both the raw and the uh

[47:37] edited. It's not AI edited. It's not

[47:39] enhanced. It's not changed. They just

[47:41] John Madden style zoomed in, drew

[47:43] circles around certain things to draw

[47:44] your attention to what they wanted you

[47:45] to pay attention to. But what how did

[47:47] you perceive that?

[47:50] >> Well, I perceived a lot of this as a

[47:52] little bit of a feeling out uh by

[47:53] everybody to get a sense of uh what the

[47:55] parties are going to try, what types of

[47:58] uh limits, rules they're they're going

[48:00] to try to to impose, and then what the

[48:02] judge's tolerance is is going to be uh

[48:05] within that within that playing ground.

[48:07] Uh so what the prosecution was trying to

[48:10] do is really not unusual. It's trying to

[48:14] uh prepare an exhibit in a way that

[48:16] maximizes its helpfulness. It's very

[48:19] common particularly with things like

[48:20] video evidence that there's a lot of

[48:22] dead time and you don't necessarily want

[48:24] to watch the whole thing. Uh it's just

[48:26] wast wasteful and

[48:28] >> yeah and you're not even sure where your

[48:29] eye is supposed to be looking sometimes

[48:31] if it's grainy or whatever. those little

[48:33] aids can help like be like, "Hey, look

[48:35] here." Because this is where the suspect

[48:36] walks through the frame, you know, that

[48:38] that to me makes a lot of sense. And but

[48:41] they're saying it it adds bias or

[48:43] something. Is that their argument?

[48:44] >> Oh, no. The the only the sole issue that

[48:47] came up really with this is that because

[48:49] they didn't have the person who actually

[48:51] prepared [laughter] those edits

[48:53] available to testify or, you know,

[48:56] submit a statement that explains what

[48:58] they did and exactly what the

[48:59] alterations were. uh that they weren't

[49:01] sufficiently authenticated for purposes

[49:04] of admission in court. Uh they are

[49:06] basically resolving that problem by uh

[49:09] as you said they're they're intention is

[49:11] now to just present the the unedited uh

[49:14] compilation of of the different video

[49:16] clips that they collected. And so then

[49:19] they'll be able to show the judge that

[49:21] and that will enable him to then see

[49:23] when he looks at the edited version what

[49:26] exactly they did to revise it and to

[49:28] draw it to his attention. So there won't

[49:30] be any confusion about what was the the

[49:32] raw video and what was added by somebody

[49:35] uh for editorial purposes.

[49:37] >> Okay. No, that makes a lot of sense.

[49:39] Okay. So I want to um Yeah. Okay. So we

[49:43] do have that clip. All right. Um 54 just

[49:46] to underscore your point here, Andrea.

[49:48] Stop 54.

[49:49] >> We're going to resume with Mr. Hall

[49:51] tomorrow morning.

[49:52] >> Tomorrow morning. And let me explain to

[49:54] to and I was going to explain this, but

[49:55] let me explain why. Judge, our intent is

[49:57] to prepare an un

[50:00] an original version of the video that

[50:02] has been in dispute today uh without the

[50:05] circles, without the blur, and without

[50:07] the uh the zooming in. And our intent is

[50:10] to introduce that tomorrow as a

[50:12] different exhibit.

[50:14] Um and we just can't prepare that in the

[50:17] next hour or so.

[50:18] >> For today, uh agent Hall, you may step

[50:20] down and uh we'll resume with your

[50:22] testimony tomorrow morning.

[50:24] >> All right. So that just just to sort of

[50:26] bring it home, um I want to take our

[50:28] attention to the exhibit list that's

[50:30] been made public. And if I'm reading

[50:32] this, right, so we got four witnesses

[50:34] that they're planning to bring up. The

[50:36] first two we've we've now met. Uh we're

[50:39] we're halfway through with the first

[50:40] with the second. It seems like we're

[50:43] about to enter the phase of the

[50:45] preliminary hearing where we start

[50:46] getting into forensic, when we start

[50:48] getting into DNA, and probably maybe uh

[50:52] we might see that video from Lance

[50:53] Twigs, who's uh Tyler Robinson's uh

[50:56] lover. So, I I am am I reading that

[50:59] right or do you think that the the

[51:01] defense is slowing things down to the

[51:03] extent that we're not going to get that

[51:04] far tomorrow?

[51:06] um where I expect we're going to go. Uh

[51:08] it it appears to me that the state is uh

[51:11] telling basically a chronological story.

[51:13] They're they're putting this in in order

[51:15] in in terms of the timeline. If that's

[51:18] correct, then we won't probably get the

[51:19] forensics until close to the end. Uh and

[51:22] what we would instead get is uh leading

[51:25] into the process of we've started uh the

[51:28] identification of Tyler Robinson as the

[51:30] suspect. We've introduced uh the topic

[51:33] of his surrender, but we haven't tied

[51:35] those pieces together. How Tyler

[51:37] Robinson became known to the police, uh

[51:40] how he came to be in custody, how some

[51:42] of these pieces of evidence were

[51:44] obtained. You know, how they were able

[51:45] to get Tyler's DNA in order to do this

[51:47] comparison in the first place. Those are

[51:49] all going to follow on uh the story of

[51:52] the identification, the surrender, and

[51:55] then the arrest and taking into custody

[51:58] se seizure of of additional evidence. I

[52:01] think it's just looking at this. It's

[52:03] exhibit 16 is the recorded statement

[52:05] from Lance Twigs.

[52:08] >> Uh which if you remember there was that

[52:10] back and forth whether or not he was

[52:11] going to be subpoenaed to come in. The

[52:13] judge said he did not need to be

[52:14] subpoenaed that the video would suffice.

[52:16] Um but if you're talk if you're talking

[52:19] chronological order then we probably

[52:21] would get 16. It's right. I mean, I

[52:24] would think maybe that could be

[52:25] tomorrow, but that really makes sense to

[52:26] me what you just said.

[52:27] >> Although they seem to have followed this

[52:28] significantly through chronological

[52:30] order almost of

[52:33] practically the order they got the

[52:34] information in because they started with

[52:36] you're at the scene, these are videos

[52:38] that we obtained at the scene and then

[52:40] here's the video we obtained from UVU

[52:43] and then eventually maybe I'm totally

[52:45] >> That's actually an interesting wrinkle

[52:46] there. When you say chronological order,

[52:49] Andrew, do you mean the the order by

[52:50] which they got the in in at the evidence

[52:53] and the or is it the as the events took

[52:56] place that day on the 11th and so so

[52:58] forth?

[52:59] >> Yeah. No, I I think that's that's a good

[53:00] good correction by by Blake. That's a

[53:02] very good point. It's the story of the

[53:04] investigation because that's really what

[53:06] the probable cause hearing is focused on

[53:08] is uh did the investigation produce

[53:11] reasonable suspicion to believe that

[53:13] that this person likely committed this

[53:15] crime? Uh and so the the story of the

[53:17] investigation is kind of a common way to

[53:19] to frame that particular issue uh for

[53:22] the court to understand what police

[53:24] learned when they they learned it, how

[53:26] it fit into their investigation, and

[53:27] then from that what are the reasonal

[53:30] reasonable inferences that you can draw

[53:31] at each step along the way. So, because

[53:34] this is kind of a check on the the the

[53:36] police and the prosecutor's reasoning in

[53:38] how they conducted the investigation, uh

[53:41] the the chronological story of how they

[53:43] conducted that investigation just tends

[53:45] to be an easy way uh to to follow that.

[53:48] >> We asked uh Jay Town this earlier. Um

[53:52] but I wonder if you're going to give the

[53:53] same answer as him. I just asked, so we

[53:55] have the statement, this interview they

[53:56] did with Twigs. It's

[53:59] >> videotaped.

[54:00] >> They're going to obviously introduce it.

[54:02] Is it likely, you think, that we will

[54:05] hear the whole thing played for us

[54:07] tomorrow? Will they merely maybe show a

[54:09] screenshot of it that it exists,

[54:11] introduce a transcript? How much are we

[54:13] likely to get of new information?

[54:14] Because right now, we essentially only

[54:16] have that this that this recording

[54:18] exists.

[54:20] >> Well, that's the million-dollar

[54:21] question. Uh if I were going to uh you

[54:24] know go go to the prediction markets on

[54:27] this one just based on what we've seen

[54:29] from Judge Graph so far, I would expect

[54:31] that we are going to at least hear it uh

[54:34] possibly see it as well. But um the

[54:37] reason I say that is because while he

[54:40] has certainly shielded uh some of the

[54:43] exhibits from public view so far, those

[54:46] have largely been grounded in concerns

[54:48] about the dignity of the victim and just

[54:51] kind of the common sense. There are

[54:53] certain things that don't need to be on

[54:55] TV blasted everywhere for uh you know

[54:57] everybody to see for all eternity. Uh

[55:01] this is not that. Uh that said, the

[55:03] defense is going to have extremely

[55:05] strong objections to this. They're going

[55:07] to argue this is highly prejuditial to

[55:09] the defense. It's the kind of thing that

[55:12] um is going to people are going to form

[55:15] opinions of guilt based off of it. And

[55:17] so because of the potential to prejudice

[55:19] the jury pool, uh it should not be be

[55:22] made public. So far, that argument has

[55:24] had uh really only limited success with

[55:27] Judge Graph. uh his his view has been

[55:30] that number one there are other

[55:32] mechanisms that exist to deal with

[55:34] pre-trial publicity. We call in large

[55:36] jury pools. We do big jury

[55:38] questionnaires. We do a lot of uh

[55:40] individual questioning and and things

[55:42] like that to root out people that have

[55:44] either too too firm opinions about the

[55:47] case or just know too much about it and

[55:48] and can't put that aside. Uh but also

[55:51] because you know this is I guess the

[55:53] upside of the trial potentially being so

[55:55] so far down the road uh is that the pre

[55:58] prejudice has time to mitigate. Um you

[56:00] know it's it's not like we're having

[56:02] this hearing and then we're going to go

[56:03] have trial tomorrow. So everything that

[56:05] happened is is going to be fresh in

[56:06] everybody's mind. There's a lot of time

[56:08] for new information uh for memories to

[56:11] fade and and things like that. So, uh,

[56:14] if I were going to to predict it, I I

[56:16] would predict that we are going to, uh,

[56:18] be able to see that one. And that's

[56:20] certainly the the outcome I'm hoping

[56:22] for.

[56:22] >> Yeah. So, the way this works, just to

[56:24] bring everybody back into sort of a

[56:26] procedural mindset,

[56:29] the state goes first there. We they've

[56:32] allotted five days for this, but it this

[56:34] could and by it's like four and a half

[56:35] because Wednesday is scheduled to be a

[56:36] half day. So, do you if you're just

[56:39] looking at how much progress we're

[56:41] making, do you see the state going up

[56:43] until taking up all that time until

[56:45] Wednesday and then the defense taking

[56:48] Thursday, Friday, or are you getting a

[56:50] read of how this is going to work?

[56:51] Because again, the state presents, the

[56:54] defense is going to cross-examine, then

[56:56] the then the defense gets to call their

[56:57] witnesses, and the state will

[57:00] cross-examine. So, just want to make

[57:01] sure everybody's still tracking with us

[57:03] on the actual uh Tik Tok here. uh

[57:06] thoughts.

[57:07] >> Yeah, I I think that's probably in in

[57:10] about the ballpark that I would expect

[57:11] the state to be done at this rate uh

[57:14] probably by the end of Wednesday or

[57:16] maybe partway into the day on Thursday.

[57:18] It just depends on uh some of some of

[57:20] the details of how these things flesh

[57:22] out. Uh we are expecting the the three

[57:25] forensic experts that uh the the defense

[57:27] wants to call, the state did not object

[57:29] to them doing that. So, these are going

[57:31] to be uh analysts likely from the FBI or

[57:35] the ATF. Um, and so I'm not really

[57:39] expecting that to be uh extensive. They

[57:42] they're not going to offer the same kind

[57:43] of like long background testimony that

[57:47] we're getting from these witnesses like

[57:48] Officer Bagley and uh and agent Hull uh

[57:52] who participated, you know, extensively

[57:54] in different parts of the investigation.

[57:56] So, there's just a lot of time and

[57:58] material for them to cover. Uh the

[58:00] forensics tend to be much more discreet.

[58:02] Uh and so they do tend to go a little

[58:04] bit faster for that reason.

[58:07] >> Um okay. The So we've got I'm trying to

[58:12] make sure we dealt with all of the

[58:13] things I saw online. Erica was actually

[58:16] sitting next to Charlie's parents. We

[58:17] dealt with that. Graham did that. Um

[58:21] the issue of the defense. It was

[58:24] actually the defense that was trying to

[58:25] block the presentation of the evidence,

[58:28] not the not the state, not the

[58:29] prosecution. And just to be expressly

[58:31] clear, we are in favor of max

[58:33] transparency here. We are um and then uh

[58:37] you know the online chatter about the

[58:39] compilation video that's going to be

[58:40] resubmitted tomorrow. If you're now I

[58:45] had there's a I have all these lawyers

[58:47] in my life that I didn't realize that

[58:49] are like texting me out of the blue. I'm

[58:50] like, "Oh, hi. Nice. You know, I forgot

[58:51] about you from high school." And you

[58:53] know, like, but I [laughter] had another

[58:55] one of these guys text me and he was

[58:57] basically saying that he think his

[59:01] basic understanding of the defense's

[59:04] tactic here is sort of the the dog that

[59:06] didn't bark, right? It's it's almost

[59:08] like a a tell that they don't have a

[59:10] better defense strategy that they're

[59:12] going straight obstruction.

[59:14] I mean, it am I reading too much into

[59:16] that or is this person who gave me that

[59:18] uh take?

[59:20] Tell me if I'm wrong. All right. You're

[59:22] the you're the bearer of good and bad

[59:23] news. You call balls and strikes.

[59:26] >> Sure. Well, look, uh, I did this job for

[59:29] almost 20 years. Uh, so everybody has a

[59:32] little bit of a different style and a

[59:33] little bit of a different approach, but

[59:35] there there are some pretty common

[59:36] grounds, particularly with the folks

[59:39] that I I relate to, which is the

[59:41] professional public defenders uh, here

[59:42] on this on this defense team. And so

[59:45] there are certain things that I expect

[59:47] to be the case given that uh I expect

[59:50] that if there is a strong case for

[59:52] factual innocence, the defense is going

[59:54] to be asserting that. They are going to

[59:56] assert it early. They are going to

[59:57] assert it often. And that's because it's

[00:00] just kind of routine. It's normal that

[00:04] uh anytime somebody is charged with a

[00:06] crime, uh there's a high volume of

[00:09] information from the state side, from

[00:12] the prosecution side about why the

[00:14] charges are are being are being laid. Uh

[00:16] but the defense side, you know, often

[00:17] doesn't get heard. And so, you have

[00:20] something that corrects some of that

[00:21] information. You're going to bring that

[00:22] out early. You're going to bring that

[00:23] out often to try to correct some of that

[00:26] uh just public opinion, public

[00:29] impression about the case. Make sure

[00:31] that they understand. there's there's

[00:32] more to the story here. Uh, also just

[00:35] seeing what has been focused on in the

[00:37] litigation that's happened in in the

[00:39] trial so far. Uh, some things stand out

[00:42] to me. One is the absence of discovery

[00:45] disputes. Uh, one of the online chatter

[00:48] things that that happens periodically,

[00:50] there have been some complaints, some

[00:53] statements made about the record about

[00:54] what the defense has or has not received

[00:57] through the discovery process. Uh the

[01:00] defense has by their own account

[01:02] received a massive volume of

[01:04] information, hundreds and hundreds of

[01:06] terabytes of information, raw video

[01:08] data, raw cell phone data, digital data,

[01:11] uh lot a lot of this type of

[01:14] information. And so there there may be,

[01:16] you know, things around the edges that

[01:17] the defense is unhappy with. Uh but so

[01:19] far, none of that has risen to the level

[01:22] of actually moving for a court order to

[01:24] compel that it be produced to you. Uh

[01:27] there may be reasons for that. Uh it may

[01:29] be because they're just waiting till

[01:31] this preliminary hearing is over. Uh it

[01:33] may be because they don't actually have

[01:36] a strong right to get what it is that uh

[01:38] that they're that they're asking for. It

[01:40] may be that some stuff has been able to

[01:42] be resolved.

[01:43] >> That's a really good point. So just

[01:44] because so because I I'm just always

[01:46] predicting where the internet is going

[01:47] to go next. So they're going to hear the

[01:49] defense go. We asked for this

[01:51] information and they're not giving it.

[01:53] And basically there are a lot of

[01:54] explanations of why that why they may

[01:57] not want to rush to give said uh intel,

[02:00] right? They maybe they believe the

[02:01] prosecution believes that they're not

[02:02] entitled to such and such, right? Or

[02:05] that they are planning on doing it, but

[02:08] that you know, and what would be the

[02:09] conflict resolution there? Would the

[02:11] judge rule what they're entitled? It's

[02:12] kind of case by case.

[02:15] >> Yeah, it's it really depends on on what

[02:17] it is that they're asking for. Uh, as

[02:18] far as what is mandatory discovery in

[02:21] Utah, it's very specifically

[02:23] >> we're losing Rav and I just want to say

[02:25] uh thank you Real America's Voice for

[02:27] taking us. We're going to wrap up here

[02:29] with Andrea in just a second. Uh, and

[02:31] then Jack Poic's on next for Real

[02:32] America's Voice. So, continue on,

[02:35] Andrea.

[02:36] >> Uh, so, um, yeah, there there there can

[02:39] be a lot of different reasons why you

[02:41] might be asking for something. Uh, and

[02:43] and there's different levels of

[02:45] entitlement to it. uh you Utah rule,

[02:48] what you're entitled to as a mandatory

[02:49] disclosure is very specifically defined.

[02:51] Uh but there are typically always

[02:53] catchalls where if if it's it's

[02:55] necessary in the interest of justice, in

[02:57] the interest of fairness or or things

[02:59] like that, uh the judge can order the

[03:01] prosecution to to have to provide it.

[03:03] There's always complications in cases

[03:06] where you have a state and federal law

[03:09] enforcement involved in a state

[03:11] prosecution. Uh this is a whole

[03:13] complicated issue because of the

[03:15] supremacy clause of our constitution uh

[03:18] under which federal law enforcement uh

[03:22] they're not bound by orders of a state

[03:24] court. They can't be subpoenaed into a

[03:26] state court. They can't be ordered to

[03:28] produce documents by a state court. Uh

[03:31] and so they have their own processes

[03:33] that you have to work through in order

[03:34] to get access to discovery from federal

[03:37] investigators. This is something that

[03:39] criminal defense attorneys are very

[03:40] familiar with and and have to navigate

[03:42] with some frequency, but it's not

[03:44] commonly known uh by the public what uh

[03:47] what that looks like. So, that can be

[03:49] part of it. Part of it can be things

[03:50] like we we already know one of the

[03:53] requests that they've made is um they

[03:55] want the source code for a proprietary

[03:58] piece of software that was used uh to

[04:01] calculate the um I'm going to use some

[04:04] technical language here. the

[04:06] deconvolution of the the mixture the DNA

[04:11] mixture don't know which example exactly

[04:13] but some of the DNA that was recovered

[04:15] in this case was a complex mixture uh

[04:17] they have to analyze it statistically

[04:20] they use the software program and so the

[04:22] defense is demanding the source code to

[04:24] the software program I understand why

[04:27] they want it and uh think that there's a

[04:29] you know good reason why they should

[04:31] have it uh but whether that is something

[04:33] that the the court can compel uh a

[04:36] private organization to turn over is a

[04:38] question whether there needs to be some

[04:40] kind of protection for their

[04:42] intellectual property, you know, like a

[04:45] New Zealand company or something like

[04:47] that that owns the

[04:48] >> I think it's Yeah. government of New

[04:50] Zealand or government of Australia.

[04:52] >> Right. So, so yeah. And so just leave it

[04:56] to the internet, by the way, to take the

[04:58] court's inability to compel a foreign

[05:02] entity, a foreign private company to

[05:04] give away its bread and butter, its

[05:06] money maker to the state of Utah or the

[05:09] defense of Tyler Robinson. I But but but

[05:11] that'll become the next thing people run

[05:13] with. Uh Blake, you had uh

[05:15] >> Well, I just wanted to uh because I

[05:18] think about it all the time. When we

[05:20] last had you on, you predicted

[05:22] we're probably only going to see the

[05:24] trial early 2028, spring 2028.

[05:28] Do you see any reason to adjust that

[05:30] timeline due to events of the last

[05:32] couple months?

[05:34] >> Nope. Nope. I I I I continue to think

[05:37] that that is and on I hate to say this,

[05:40] guys. I really do hate to keep driving

[05:42] this home, but that's optimistic. It

[05:43] really is. There's just a massive

[05:45] >> optimistic.

[05:47] >> Yeah. early 2028 is optimistic. There's

[05:50] a massive amount of investigation that

[05:52] the defense is going to need to do and

[05:54] there's a massive amount of litigation

[05:56] that is already being foreshadowed uh

[05:58] with things like the scientific evidence

[06:00] and and stuff like that. And this is all

[06:01] going to be very time consuming. Uh so

[06:05] it's going to take a while.

[06:06] >> Um there terrible terrible update but I

[06:10] I appreciate the cander. The Andrea,

[06:12] there has been reports from like News

[06:14] Nation has a a reporter in there that um

[06:18] Tyler Robinson Graham actually Graham

[06:21] Sod so first town account from him as

[06:23] well, Graham Allen did uh that that

[06:25] Tyler Robinson and I guess his lawyer

[06:28] Netor uh were were laughing and that she

[06:31] was laughing. And I've seen that go

[06:34] pretty far and wide.

[06:36] You know, that's I I I'm just trying to

[06:39] put my head in the psychology. If your

[06:42] client is,

[06:44] you know, standing, you know, trial for

[06:47] murder, it's a capital case. You could

[06:48] face the death penalty.

[06:51] Why I mean, why would you be laughing?

[06:53] Is this like is that a tell that that's

[06:55] why they've been pushing so hard to keep

[06:57] cameras out? Like maybe that's why they

[06:59] want to cuz they cuz they realize this

[07:01] kid's his own worst enemy in that way

[07:03] just optically. But then I'm sort of

[07:05] questioning like why is the lawyer

[07:07] giggling too? I I I don't I just I can't

[07:10] fathom that. Like this is a really

[07:12] somber thing that's happening here.

[07:15] >> Yeah, I I can absolutely uh appreciate

[07:18] that perspective and I think this might

[07:19] be one of those situations where there

[07:21] they're just there is a disconnect

[07:23] between uh the way that the attorney and

[07:25] the defendant are encountering the

[07:27] process and the way uh observers and and

[07:30] even other participants in the courtroom

[07:31] are the defense lawyers. Their primary

[07:34] concern number one is their client's

[07:35] well-being. Period. Full stop. Whether

[07:38] he's guilty, whether he's innocent,

[07:40] that's that's what their primary concern

[07:42] is. And so court

[07:45] for for the best of us is a is a

[07:48] stressful it's a stressful process. Uh

[07:50] and this is a young man who doesn't

[07:52] appear to have any kind of criminal

[07:54] history. This is a new experience for

[07:56] him. It's very high-profile. They're

[07:58] going to want to put him at ease. that's

[08:00] going to be the one of their big

[08:02] concerns is that he is not there racked

[08:05] with anxiety that he uh understands the

[08:07] process uh that he's comfortable with

[08:10] what is going on. So uh it it probably

[08:13] does look bad and I think if they were

[08:16] thinking about it through that filter of

[08:19] what is it going to look like to the

[08:20] cameras watching uh they they might

[08:22] behave different but that I don't think

[08:24] that is their their their primary

[08:26] consideration here. They want their

[08:28] client comfortable and if that means

[08:29] adding some levity, some dark humor to

[08:32] the situation, Lord knows they are not

[08:34] the only ones in this whole process that

[08:36] have had to do that.

[08:37] >> Yeah. Um I think um I think that kind of

[08:40] sums it up for the day. Again, I think

[08:42] the big the big revelations were the

[08:45] four times they they've got evidence

[08:47] that say video evidence of him being on

[08:49] campus four times. Uh, Officer Baggley

[08:51] heard a shot and he identified it pretty

[08:55] quickly in his mind as a rifle shot. He

[08:57] went up to the rooftop, saw what he

[08:59] would describe as a sniper nest. Um, and

[09:03] then, you know, I think the uh the other

[09:06] big one was um, yeah, I think those were

[09:08] the two big ones. Those were really like

[09:10] the two from an evidentiary standpoint,

[09:12] those were the two big uh, revelations

[09:14] today. Uh Blake, Andrea, any final

[09:16] thoughts of things that we should be

[09:18] considering as we move into tomorrow and

[09:20] then we'll wrap this up.

[09:23] >> Um I am just continuing to expect uh you

[09:26] know more of the same. Uh this is this

[09:28] has been a a relatively organized

[09:31] process. Uh just fairly simple uh in

[09:35] terms of the the rulings and the and the

[09:37] types of objections and things like

[09:38] that. there have been a little bit of um

[09:40] you know bumps in the road to sort out

[09:42] with things like is the camera going to

[09:44] get to show the exhibits to to those of

[09:46] us at home and and things like that. Uh

[09:48] but that's that's normal to work through

[09:50] some of those growing pains. And so now

[09:52] that everybody's on the same page about

[09:54] what the expectations are, I think we

[09:56] can expect a little bit more smooth

[09:57] sailing from here.

[09:59] >> One one last question here. I got a lot

[10:02] of people reaching out to me just sort

[10:04] of saying, I can't believe the defense

[10:06] didn't wave the preliminary hearing. was

[10:08] that an option that they had and what

[10:11] kind of what's the calculation there? Uh

[10:13] either way,

[10:14] >> yeah, that's actually a great question.

[10:16] Uh and so part of the reason why I

[10:19] believe they didn't is because in Utah,

[10:21] it's not entirely up to them. Uh the

[10:23] prosecutor has a say in it as well. Uh

[10:26] there is some case law out of Utah that

[10:28] recognizes that the preliminary hearing

[10:30] is also a right that the state has to

[10:32] present the basis of its case and its

[10:34] charging decision uh to the public. So,

[10:37] uh,

[10:38] >> had the prosecutor agreed to wave, then

[10:40] then we would be having, you know,

[10:42] potentially a different conversation.

[10:43] But strategically, why people often, uh,

[10:46] do choose to wave it is because of what

[10:48] we're seeing. Uh, there's evidence

[10:50] that's presented. And if the the

[10:51] evidence we can assume is inculpatory,

[10:54] it may not be the whole story, uh, but

[10:57] it's the reason why there is a charging

[10:59] decision. It's it's selected for that

[11:01] purpose. Uh so it tends to be negative

[11:05] for the defendant from the standpoint of

[11:07] you know

[11:08] >> well and is people having opinions about

[11:10] innocence or guilt.

[11:11] >> Yeah. Do we have uh any indication that

[11:13] the prosecutor got to weigh in on this?

[11:16] Is there do we know that the prosecutor

[11:17] said, you know, hey, if you try and wave

[11:20] this, we're going to reject it.

[11:22] >> We don't. There's nothing in the record

[11:24] one way or another.

[11:25] >> Okay.

[11:27] Any final thoughts?

[11:29] I just uh as you said like the big

[11:32] things we learned today I I feel some

[11:34] it's good to take a step back because

[11:35] we've heard so many insane things that

[11:37] what we heard today there there were no

[11:39] bombshells they were things we obviously

[11:41] expected to hear which is we all I

[11:45] physically saw Charlie shot by a rifle

[11:48] shot and this officer says I heard a

[11:51] shot a guy jumped up and waved his hands

[11:53] around so I thought oh it was a

[11:55] close-range thing and then I did the

[11:56] math in my head he did he didn't have a

[11:58] gun and that was a rifle shot.

[12:00] >> And then he ran

[12:01] >> then he went and looked for that and

[12:04] >> we have evidence that Tyler Robinson had

[12:08] been on the scene and fled the scene and

[12:09] low they say we have the camera footage

[12:11] that says he was on the scene multiple

[12:13] times. We're just getting exactly what

[12:14] we expected and that's what we wanted to

[12:16] see.

[12:16] >> Yeah. And and I got to underscored as

[12:18] well that the we got the medical

[12:20] examiner's reference to it that it was

[12:22] death by you know rifle or a gunshot

[12:25] wound to the exact, you know, exploding

[12:28] mics and all that kind of stuff. You

[12:31] know, the medical examiner's report now

[12:33] confirms that.

[12:34] >> Um, okay. So, I think that's going to

[12:36] wrap it up for us today here. Andrea,

[12:38] thank you so much for making your time.

[12:40] I know you've been streaming all day and

[12:41] taking questions all day. Um, I want to

[12:43] give you a shout out to your your uh

[12:46] your socials here again really quick.

[12:48] Um, sorry I don't have them pulled up,

[12:50] but I just want to make sure I reference

[12:51] them. Andrea Birkhart, and that's burkh

[12:56] a rt uh.substack.com.

[12:59] Check her out there. And what's your

[13:01] exhandle?

[13:02] >> X handle is a Birkhart Law and that's

[13:05] also on YouTube.

[13:06] >> Okay. A Birkhart Law. Thank you so much,

[13:08] Andrea. Thank you for making the time

[13:09] for us. We really appreciate it. My

[13:12] pleasure.

[13:12] >> All right. Okay. Excuse me. We're going

[13:15] to be doing this uh every day that there

[13:17] is a preliminary hearing and just

[13:19] recapping the big big takeaways um and

[13:21] making sure that there is a we talk

[13:23] about a court record. We want to make

[13:24] sure there is a a a factual record in

[13:28] the public and available to all of you

[13:30] as you navigate this alongside with us.

[13:32] And uh we appreciate you joining us and

[13:34] we'll see you again tomorrow.