Angenette Levy Exposes Major Conflict of Interest in Charlie Kirk Murder Case Legal Battle

[00:00] We do need to deal with the

[00:01] disqualification motion just in case.

[00:04] So, it doesn't seem like a good idea to

[00:07] set it before we have the

[00:08] disqualification hearing.

[00:10] >> The man accused of murdering Charlie

[00:11] Kirk wants the prosecution team kicked

[00:14] off his case. Tyler Robinson's attorneys

[00:16] say the entire Utah County attorney's

[00:19] office has to go because of a conflict

[00:21] of interest as they reveal new details

[00:24] from witnesses who saw that horrific

[00:26] murder that day. I go through all of it

[00:28] and I look at whether there is really a

[00:31] conflict or not. I'm Anette Levy and

[00:34] this is Crime Fix.

[00:38] [Music]

[00:44] You know, there is a reason that Morgan

[00:45] and Morgan is America's largest personal

[00:48] injury law firm, and it's because the

[00:50] firm wins a lot. It has more than a

[00:52] thousand lawyers who've recovered $25

[00:55] billion for more than 500,000 clients.

[00:57] In the last few months alone, a client

[00:59] in Florida received $12 million when the

[01:02] insurance company offered only $350,000.

[01:05] In Pennsylvania, another client was

[01:07] awarded $26 million. That was 40 times

[01:10] the insurers's offer. Morgan and Morgan

[01:13] makes it really easy to fight for what

[01:15] you deserve. You can even start a claim

[01:17] from your phone. So, if you are ever

[01:18] injured, you can start a claim at

[01:20] forthepeople.com/crimefix.

[01:23] Click the link below or scan that QR

[01:25] code that you see right there on your

[01:27] screen.

[01:30] There could be a big big problem with

[01:33] the prosecution team in Charlie Kirk's

[01:35] murder case, and it has to do with

[01:37] someone apparently pretty high up on the

[01:39] food chain on the team. Important enough

[01:42] that this person was with the county

[01:44] attorney when evidence was being

[01:45] presented to the grand jury to indict

[01:47] Tyler Robinson. Robinson faces a laundry

[01:50] list of charges including aggravated

[01:52] murder and the possibility of the death

[01:55] penalty if he's convicted in the murder

[01:57] of Charlie Kirk. Robinson is accused of

[02:00] taking a 306 rifle that his grandfather

[02:03] gave to him to the campus of Utah Valley

[02:06] University and climbing onto a roof and

[02:09] firing a single shot that hit Kirk in

[02:11] the neck as he was answering a question

[02:14] from a member of the audience during his

[02:16] Prove Me Wrong tour on September 10th.

[02:19] Kirk was killed instantly. The scene was

[02:21] horrific. A manhunt for the killer began

[02:24] in an instant. There were false alarms

[02:27] with news of an arrest being announced

[02:29] by the FBI director within hours, but

[02:31] then the manhunt was on again.

[02:34] Surveillance images of a young man in a

[02:36] black t-shirt were released along with

[02:39] video of a person running on a rooftop

[02:42] and jumping from it. More than 30 hours

[02:44] later, officials in Utah announced that

[02:47] 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was the

[02:49] shooter. his family reportedly

[02:52] recognizing him and convincing him that

[02:54] turning himself in was the right thing

[02:56] to do. Hints of a motive surfaced from

[02:59] County Attorney Jeff Gray.

[03:02] >> Robinson's mother stated that f the

[03:05] following to police. On September 11th,

[03:08] 2025, the day after the shooting,

[03:11] Robinson's mother saw the photo of the

[03:14] shooter in the news and thought the

[03:16] shooter looked like her son.

[03:18] Robinson's mother called her son

[03:24] and asked him where he was. He said he

[03:28] was at home sick and that he had also

[03:31] been at home homesick on September 10th.

[03:34] Robinson's mother expressed concern to

[03:37] her husband that the suspect shooter

[03:39] looked like Robinson. Robinson's father

[03:42] agreed.

[03:44] Robinson's mother explained that over

[03:46] the last year or so, Robinson had become

[03:49] more political

[03:51] and had started to lean more to the

[03:53] left, becoming more pro-gay and trans

[03:57] rightsoriented.

[03:58] She stated that Robinson began to date

[04:01] his roommate, a biological male who was

[04:04] transi trans transitioning genders.

[04:08] This resulted in several discussions

[04:10] with family members, but especially

[04:12] between Robinson and his father who have

[04:15] very different political views. In one

[04:19] conversation before the shooting,

[04:20] Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk

[04:23] would be holding an event at UVU, which

[04:27] Robert Robinson said was a stupid venue

[04:30] for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of

[04:34] spreading hate. Now, the internet has

[04:37] been full of theories questioning

[04:39] whether Robinson was the only person

[04:41] involved or whether he was the shooter

[04:43] at all. Some questioning those text

[04:45] messages that he sent to his transgender

[04:47] roommate that amount to a confession.

[04:50] >> Roommate, how long have you been

[04:52] planning this Robinson? A bit over a

[04:55] week, I believe. I can get close to it,

[04:58] but there is a squad car parked right by

[05:00] it. I think they already swept that

[05:03] spot, but I don't want to chance it.

[05:06] Robinson again. I'm wishing I had

[05:09] circled back and grabbed it as soon as I

[05:11] got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my

[05:14] old man would do if I didn't bring back

[05:16] Grandpa's rifle.

[05:20] Ide if it's had a serial number, but it

[05:23] wouldn't trace to me. I worry about

[05:26] Prince. I had to leave it in a bush

[05:28] where I changed outfits. didn't have the

[05:31] ability or time to bring it with. I

[05:34] might have to abandon it and hope they

[05:36] don't find Prince.

[05:38] How the f will I explain losing it to my

[05:42] old man? Only thing I left was the

[05:45] rapple was the rifle wrapped in a towel.

[05:49] Remember how I was engraving bullets?

[05:51] The effing messages are mostly a big

[05:55] meme. If I see notice Bulge UW on Fox

[06:00] New, I might have a stroke. All right,

[06:03] I'm gonna have to leave it. That really

[06:06] effing sucks.

[06:08] Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's

[06:11] Gun does just fine. IDK, I think that

[06:15] was a two thou a 2K dollar scope.

[06:21] Wink wink.

[06:23] Um, Robinson, Robinson again, delete

[06:27] this exchange

[06:29] again. Robinson, my dad wants photos of

[06:31] the rifle. He says grandpa wants to know

[06:34] who has what. The feds released a photo

[06:37] of the rifle and it is very unique. He's

[06:41] calling me. RN, not answering. Robinson.

[06:46] Since Trump got into office, my dad has

[06:48] been pretty diehard MAGA.

[06:52] Robinson. I'm gonna turn myself in

[06:55] willingly. One of my neighbors here is a

[06:57] deputy for the sheriff.

[07:00] Again, you are all I worry about. Love.

[07:03] That came from Robinson. Roommate, I'm

[07:05] much more worried about you. Robinson,

[07:09] don't talk to the media. Please don't

[07:11] take any interviews or make any

[07:13] comments. If any police ask you

[07:16] questions, ask for a lawyer and stay

[07:19] silent. Earlier this month, we saw Tyler

[07:22] Robinson in a Utah County courtroom for

[07:24] the very first time, and his team

[07:26] mentioned that they saw issues with the

[07:29] prosecution team and would ask to have

[07:31] them removed.

[07:32] >> We do need to deal with the

[07:33] disqualification motion just in case.

[07:36] So, it doesn't seem like a good idea to

[07:39] set it before we have the

[07:41] disqualification hearing. I mean, we're

[07:42] only talking about a month from now. Um,

[07:45] I think that should probably be resolved

[07:46] before we set any any dates. Um, but I

[07:50] am concerned about setting a date when

[07:52] we still don't have all the discovery

[07:53] material.

[07:54] >> So, what's the issue here? Well, Tyler

[07:56] Robinson's attorneys claim that a member

[07:58] of the prosecution team has a personal

[08:00] connection to a direct witness to the

[08:03] crime. So, they want the entire

[08:05] prosecution team disqualified from

[08:07] handling the case. Robinson's attorneys

[08:09] wrote, "Mr. Robinson seeks an order of

[08:12] this court finding that a person whose

[08:14] name is redacted representing the state

[08:16] of Utah for the Utah County Attorney's

[08:18] Office or UCAO in this capital

[08:22] prosecution has a concurrent conflict of

[08:24] interest based upon personal connections

[08:26] to a direct witness/victim to the events

[08:30] at issue in this case. Further, Mr.

[08:32] Robinson seeks findings from this court

[08:35] that one upon learning of the conflict.

[08:37] The UCO did not employ any screening

[08:40] protocol and number two, information

[08:43] pertaining to the personal involvement

[08:45] of the man whose name is redacted was

[08:47] shared amongst the assigned

[08:49] prosecutorial team including the county

[08:51] attorney. Based upon these findings and

[08:54] in the interest of protecting Mr.

[08:56] Robinson's federal and state rights to

[08:58] due process, Mr. Robinson requests that

[09:01] this court order that the UCAO is

[09:04] disqualified from representing the state

[09:06] in this matter. Now, it's been noted

[09:08] previously, even by the judge in this

[09:10] case, that 3,000 people witnessed

[09:13] Charlie Kirk's murder on the UVU campus,

[09:16] but according to Robinson's attorneys,

[09:17] only one has a relationship with a

[09:20] member of the prosecution team.

[09:22] Robinson's lawyers wrote, "In this case,

[09:24] the personal relationship between the

[09:26] prosecution team member's name who is

[09:28] redacted and the other person's name who

[09:31] is redacted as a potential witness, and

[09:34] the victim raises serious concerns about

[09:36] past and future prosecutorial

[09:38] decision-making in this case. The

[09:40] prosecution team member cannot serve two

[09:43] masters and should not be permitted to

[09:46] do so. The prosecution team member's

[09:48] integrity is not the question, and his

[09:51] opinion that there is no conflict is not

[09:53] dispositive. Rather, the person he has a

[09:56] relationship with's experience raises an

[09:58] objective question as to whether or not

[10:01] the circumstance presents a significant

[10:03] risk that the prosecution team member's

[10:06] personal family interests may materially

[10:09] limit his ability to represent the state

[10:11] of Utah in these proceedings in the

[10:14] manner that is ethically required. And

[10:16] apparently this person on the

[10:18] prosecution team received a text message

[10:21] about the shooting that day from a

[10:23] family member. The prosecution team

[10:25] member has described the text message

[10:27] exchange as follows. Charlie Kirk was

[10:30] shot at 12:23 p.m. and at 12:25 p.m.

[10:33] texted my family group text group,

[10:36] "Someone got shot." And almost

[10:38] immediately afterward texted the same

[10:40] group, "I'm okay. Everyone is going

[10:42] inside." At 12:26 p.m. texted the same

[10:46] group, Charlie got shot. At 12:30 p.m.,

[10:50] this person texted the same group.

[10:52] People say he was shot in the neck and

[10:55] his head like tilted or something. At

[10:57] 12:33 p.m., the prosecution team member

[11:00] texted his family member, "Did you hear

[11:03] a gunshot or what sounded like a

[11:05] gunshot?" And the person responded to me

[11:07] at 12:38 p.m. I for sure heard it.

[11:10] Everyone started screaming and running.

[11:12] A few people said they saw the shot hit

[11:15] his neck. Not sure. The prosecution team

[11:18] member believes that he discussed his

[11:20] family members presence at the event

[11:22] with others in the office at the time.

[11:25] He also discussed the exchange and the

[11:27] potential conflict issue with the entire

[11:29] prosecution team prior to disclosure to

[11:31] the defense. Now, the defense believes

[11:34] this is a huge issue. Robinson's

[11:37] attorney's right. expecting the

[11:38] prosecution team member to separate his

[11:41] role as a title redacted with the wholly

[11:44] natural instinct to protect and shield

[11:46] his family member from past and future

[11:48] harm from his role in the prosecution of

[11:51] the individual alleged to have caused

[11:53] harm to many including his family member

[11:56] is not practical and defies common human

[11:59] experience as described by witnesses on

[12:02] campus at the time of the shooting. The

[12:04] event and the aftermath were harrowing,

[12:07] even for those that did not see the

[12:08] shooting as it happened. The prosecution

[12:11] team member and his family member are

[12:13] not immune to this trauma. There must

[12:15] have been fear, anxiety, anger, and a

[12:17] host of other emotions as the events

[12:19] unfolded that day and throughout the

[12:21] investigation, culminating in the arrest

[12:24] of Mr. Robinson. Now, this motion to

[12:26] disqualify the entire Utah County

[12:28] Attorney's Office from the case includes

[12:30] accounts from witnesses that are

[12:33] absolutely terrifying. One witness

[12:35] wrote, "We were in shock in the crowd

[12:38] because there was so much blood. I was

[12:41] pulled to the ground and started

[12:42] praying. I thought I was about to die. I

[12:45] was on the ground wondering when the

[12:47] bullet was going to hit my back. I was

[12:49] so terrified that they wouldn't find the

[12:52] shooter and he'd start aiming at us."

[12:54] Another witness stated, "Right away,

[12:56] everyone was on the ground trying to

[12:58] protect themselves from the possibility

[12:59] of more shots. I remember thinking I

[13:02] could not get low enough, and I was

[13:03] instantly scared. I struggled to text my

[13:06] mom that I was safe, was shaking hands."

[13:08] Now, in this motion, Tyler Robinson's

[13:10] attorneys described those people on

[13:12] campus that didn't see the shooting as

[13:15] being traumatized. They were people who

[13:17] were locked down in classrooms, and some

[13:20] actually experienced panic attacks

[13:22] because of this. They end the motion by

[13:24] saying based upon the foregoing, this

[13:26] court should find that the prosecution

[13:28] team member's name who is redacted has a

[13:31] conflict of interest and must be

[13:33] disqualified. The disqualification

[13:35] should extend to the Utah County

[13:37] Attorney's Office because no effort has

[13:39] been made to shield the prosecution of

[13:41] this case from his conflict. So to

[13:44] discuss this potential conflict of

[13:46] interest that could temporarily derail

[13:49] this prosecution, I want to bring in Sky

[13:51] Lazaro. She is a criminal defense

[13:53] attorney in Utah uh in the Salt Lake

[13:57] City area and so she has been following

[14:00] this case very closely from the very

[14:02] beginning. So Sky um you know they're

[14:04] saying basically we've got a high

[14:07] ranking member of this prosecution team

[14:09] who has a personal relationship with a

[14:12] potential witness

[14:14] in this case. somebody who was present

[14:15] on the campus that day and maybe this

[14:19] person shouldn't be on the team and

[14:20] really it's infected the whole

[14:22] prosecution team. What do you make of

[14:23] that argument?

[14:24] >> That's right. I think this was a a good

[14:27] argument for the defense team to make. I

[14:30] think this is one that has to be made.

[14:32] They were given information that someone

[14:34] in a supervisory role had a familiar

[14:37] member who was at the shooting and was

[14:40] texting them in real time. Uh and really

[14:43] what they're saying is look, we're not

[14:44] attacking this person's integrity. What

[14:47] we're saying is we need to maintain uh

[14:50] the impropriety in this and

[14:54] essentially guarantee that Mr. Robinson

[14:57] gets a fair trial and because this

[14:59] person may have strong feelings, I think

[15:02] they use the term he can't serve or they

[15:04] can't serve two masters. And so the

[15:06] concern is is you know their personal

[15:10] feelings whether or not this familiar

[15:12] member is going to be a witness for the

[15:14] prosecution or not. You know how does

[15:16] that affect uh their ability to serve as

[15:20] a prosecutor whose client is the state

[15:22] of Utah in this case?

[15:25] >> They're basically arguing that you know

[15:28] this person's personal relationship has

[15:31] infected the whole prosecution. So, um,

[15:34] let let's just say let's say Judge Graph

[15:37] reads this and he's like, "Yikes, you

[15:40] know, I don't like the way this looks."

[15:42] And and and from what we've seen of

[15:43] Judge Graph so far, which is very

[15:45] limited, but he seems like a reasonable

[15:47] judge. He seems like a judge that wants

[15:49] to give Tyler Robinson a fair trial, and

[15:53] he's just like, you know, I don't I

[15:55] don't like the way this looks. Let's say

[15:57] they win this motion. What does

[16:00] disqualifying the county attorney's

[16:02] office actually do for Tyler Robinson?

[16:05] It's not like the charges are going to

[16:07] be dropped. I mean, what would happen?

[16:10] >> That's right. So, I think Judge Graph, I

[16:13] think you're right about him. He's

[16:14] really going to look at this and say,

[16:16] how does this what's the perception of

[16:18] this to the public? You know, we want

[16:21] this is a high-profile case. It's going

[16:23] to get a lot of attention. We want this

[16:26] to look like and actually be, you know,

[16:30] in conformity with his constitutional

[16:33] rights to have a fair trial. And if it

[16:34] just looks a little weird, sometimes

[16:37] that's enough. I've gotten judges

[16:39] disqualified in cases just by saying,

[16:41] "Look, there's a relationship there."

[16:43] I'm not saying that the judge did

[16:45] anything wrong or there was bias, but

[16:47] that alone really undermines the public

[16:50] perception of giving people a fair

[16:52] trial. And because they would go so far

[16:56] to say it should disqualify the entire

[16:59] county attorney's office in certain

[17:01] circumstances, one member's uh conflict

[17:06] does not necessarily bar the prosecution

[17:08] by the entire office. So they say, look,

[17:11] it went one more step because then he

[17:13] took this information, went to the

[17:15] county attorney's office, everybody

[17:17] there, this is a a relatively small

[17:19] community. Yes, Salt Lake is big and

[17:21] Provo is a city, but these people know

[17:24] each other and they know their families,

[17:26] you know, and he's taken this

[17:27] information back and had conversations

[17:29] with them. If the judge were to grant

[17:31] this motion, it would just get

[17:33] transferred to another county attorney's

[17:36] office. So, it would go a count county

[17:37] over. It'd go to Salt Lake or it'd go to

[17:40] Wasatch or, you know, somebody else

[17:42] would come in and take over the

[17:43] prosecution of this. Or the alternative

[17:46] is is they could bring in uh a

[17:48] specialapp appointed prosecution team to

[17:50] do this instead. You know, if another a

[17:53] another agency said, "Hey, look, we

[17:55] can't take this on. It's too big. We

[17:57] don't have the manpower." They could

[17:59] appoint a special prosecution team only

[18:01] to do the prosecution of this case. But

[18:04] you're right, the charges aren't going

[18:05] anywhere. you know, the the defense team

[18:07] is just making the argument that, you

[18:10] know, we understand that they're going

[18:11] to prosecute him, but it needs to be

[18:13] done by people who don't have any sort

[18:16] of uh strong feelings about this on a

[18:19] personal level.

[18:21] >> Uh, you know, and there's a line in

[18:22] here, you know, that there, and this is

[18:25] a quote from case law, of course, you

[18:27] know, a prosecutor is not disinterested

[18:29] if he has or is under the influence of

[18:31] others who have an axe to grind against

[18:34] the defendant. and they're and they're

[18:35] making the argument that this person

[18:37] could this high-ranking member of the

[18:39] prosecution team. And in my reading of

[18:41] this with all the blacked out redactions

[18:44] is that this is likely, you know, a main

[18:48] figure in the prosecution team who's

[18:50] potentially it's a group family text. So

[18:53] possibly a son or a daughter was on

[18:56] campus that day. This is how I'm reading

[18:58] it through the redactions. and and is

[19:01] texting the group chat getting all of

[19:04] this information about the shooting. And

[19:06] so whether you're a prosecutor who goes

[19:09] to to work every day and puts on your

[19:12] prosecution, you know, your prosecutor

[19:14] hat and does your job, you're still

[19:17] maybe in the back of your mind, even if

[19:19] you can compartmentalize, you're like,

[19:22] you know, this case just really makes me

[19:24] angry because my kid was on campus that

[19:26] day. uh or my nephew or niece, which I I

[19:30] doubt that's what it was. Um but that's

[19:33] what the argument they're making is that

[19:35] that's going to always kind of be there

[19:36] in the background and that's going to

[19:38] kind of be something instead of like

[19:41] objectively looking at the evidence in

[19:42] the case. That's going to be there and

[19:44] that's already been discussed among the

[19:46] whole prosecution team and that office.

[19:50] >> I mean, if you think about it,

[19:51] prosecutors are human beings the same as

[19:53] all of us, you know. So if you take all

[19:55] the legal arguments out of it and just

[19:58] think of it on a human level, you know,

[20:01] how would we feel or anyone else feel if

[20:05] their son or daughter or close family

[20:07] member is texting them, you know,

[20:09] there's a shooting, you know, I'm afraid

[20:12] I'm going to die, you know, I I think

[20:15] those are those evoke very strong

[20:17] emotions in people, especially if it,

[20:20] you know, when you're talking about a

[20:21] child or a young adult,

[20:23] >> you know, and really your role as a

[20:25] parent is to protect him the best you

[20:27] can. I think those are really hard

[20:29] things to set aside and like I said, you

[20:32] know, nobody's saying that this

[20:33] prosecutor uh you know isn't doesn't

[20:37] believe that he or she can do their job

[20:40] and disassociate from it. But if you

[20:43] think about it, you know, I think that's

[20:44] right. I think in the back of your mind,

[20:46] can you be objective when you look at

[20:49] the evidence in this case? If if it's

[20:51] good or if it's bad or what's

[20:53] exculpatory or is this really a death

[20:55] penalty case? Do we really want to

[20:58] pursue this? And you have someone, this

[21:00] isn't just a line prosecutor. This is

[21:01] someone who is high ranking on the team

[21:05] and a supervisor in the office. And and

[21:08] I think that creates a a really tough

[21:10] position uh for anybody to be in to be

[21:14] able to compartmentalize that and and

[21:16] really do your job. You know, what

[21:19] happens if evidence comes out and they

[21:21] say, "Hey, look, this isn't an

[21:22] aggravated murder case or this isn't a

[21:24] murder case at all or we got the wrong

[21:26] guy or whatever it is." you know, are

[21:29] they going to be able to look at that as

[21:31] objectively as they would have if they

[21:34] didn't have this other

[21:37] emotion, you know, that relates to a

[21:39] family member.

[21:40] >> And this is a 40 this is a 48page

[21:43] document. You know, there are exhibits

[21:45] that accompany it. Um, and so we've been

[21:48] going through it and they they included

[21:50] these handwritten statements from

[21:52] witnesses and these are vivid and and I

[21:56] think they they included these to show

[21:58] the judge like, "Judge, look at what

[22:00] we're dealing with here. We're dealing

[22:02] with people 3,000 witnesses, you've even

[22:05] said it yourself, in court who witnessed

[22:08] something horrific." And so, you know,

[22:11] this one witness, I'm going to read just

[22:13] a little bit from the statement to law

[22:16] enforcement. Um, and and they talk about

[22:19] hearing a gunshot. It definitely sounded

[22:21] like it came from up high and not ground

[22:24] level. After my eyes flicked into that

[22:27] direction, not even a second later, I

[22:29] looked back at Charlie, and that's when

[22:31] I saw the blood coming out like a

[22:33] fountain coming out of his neck. I saw

[22:35] him slump back in his chair and his head

[22:38] bobbed down to what would have been his

[22:40] right. That was the last look at Charlie

[22:42] I got as the crowd all collectively

[22:45] dropped to the ground. I mean that's

[22:46] like

[22:48] >> truly vivid. So do they include all of

[22:50] this to show the judge like this? We

[22:52] have like hundreds of these. Like look

[22:54] at how traumatized these witnesses were

[22:58] and you've got my client here who has

[22:59] all of these rights. So, this is this is

[23:02] what we're contending with.

[23:04] >> And and these people who were there, I

[23:06] mean, even people who weren't there, you

[23:08] know, are are experiencing trauma from

[23:10] this event. But the people who were

[23:11] there, there were some other witness

[23:13] statements that describe, you know,

[23:15] being weighed to be shot in the back

[23:17] because they were fearful that this was

[23:19] going to be a mass shooting like we've

[23:21] seen in other situations. you know,

[23:23] these people not only watched someone

[23:25] die, uh, they were terrified that they

[23:29] were also going to die. And that's not

[23:31] something I don't think anybody just

[23:34] gets over. I think that's something

[23:36] that, you know, that's going to evoke a

[23:38] lot of trauma for a long time. And I

[23:41] think the reason they included that is

[23:42] not to just, you know, show the context

[23:45] of it, but to say, look, whether or not

[23:48] this person's family member is going to

[23:50] be a witness is not not the deciding

[23:53] factor here. Because this person is

[23:56] going to go home, if it's if it's a son

[23:58] or daughter or even a close family

[24:01] member, and have to relive and go

[24:04] through all the trauma, you know, with

[24:08] this person. And so it's not just, you

[24:10] know, a a question of whether or not

[24:13] they're going to testify and whether or

[24:15] not that creates any sort of conflict.

[24:18] You know, what they're putting before

[24:19] the court is this is going to be

[24:21] potentially an everyday thing in this

[24:24] person's life when they go home from the

[24:26] office uh for the foreseeable future.

[24:29] And there's no way really, you know,

[24:33] that it's fair to even ask someone to be

[24:36] able to compartmentalize that and still

[24:39] do the job that you're supposed to do as

[24:41] a prosecutor and and not take that into

[24:44] consideration. I think that's almost

[24:46] impossible for an individual.

[24:48] >> The prosecution is going to respond to

[24:49] this and more than likely they're going

[24:51] to say, "Look, there were 3,000 people

[24:53] there. We disclosed this.

[24:56] um you know, we're professionals,

[25:00] etc. This is how what I'm thinking

[25:03] they're going to say. Um what do you

[25:05] anticipate in their response?

[25:07] >> I would expect that. You know, when they

[25:10] when they disclosed it, I I'm sure that

[25:12] there was conversations where the

[25:13] defense team said, "Look, I think you

[25:15] need to recuse this person or the office

[25:18] or find a way to wall it off." And the

[25:20] response then from the filing appears to

[25:23] have been, "Look, they're not a witness.

[25:25] We don't think it's a conflict. We're

[25:28] fine. So, I expect that to be the

[25:31] response. And like I said, the defense

[25:33] isn't saying that, you know, this

[25:35] attacking this person's integrity as a

[25:37] lawyer or the fact that they don't

[25:39] believe that they're professional. I

[25:41] think giving this giving them the entire

[25:44] benefit of the doubt that this is a very

[25:47] experienced prosecutor, they're very

[25:49] good at their job, they're very

[25:51] professional at their job. It still

[25:53] comes back down to one public perception

[25:57] about fair trials. This is this is a

[25:59] trial if if you know Mr. Robinson is

[26:02] convicted and sentenced to death, we're

[26:05] going to see this come appeals on this

[26:07] case for a very long time. And I would

[26:10] think the judge is going to really take

[26:13] into consideration what is the

[26:15] perception of this. you know, is that is

[26:17] that something we're going to have to do

[26:19] this twice because of of something like

[26:22] this? And I think public perception, you

[26:24] know, there's a lot of law review

[26:25] articles out there about uh we want we

[26:29] want the public to be comfortable that

[26:33] you can get a fair trial. Like we want

[26:35] people to believe that and they should

[26:36] believe that. It's a constitutional

[26:38] right in the United States. And so when

[26:40] you have a situation like this where

[26:42] even just public perception

[26:44] uh can be damaged by something like

[26:46] this, I think you really have to take

[26:49] that into consideration, especially in a

[26:50] case like this. Uh that's going to be

[26:53] scrutinized over and over and over

[26:55] again. Uh and it you don't want that to

[26:58] be the problem at the end.

[27:02] Well, I'll be interested to see too um

[27:05] if the death penalty, you know, this is

[27:07] an aggravated murder case where they're

[27:09] seeking the death penalty and the

[27:11] defense has already mentioned, Sky, that

[27:14] they're waiting for the evidence. You

[27:16] know, what what is the aggravating

[27:18] evidence here? Aside from, you know,

[27:20] they're saying other people were in

[27:22] danger um you know, by him shooting into

[27:25] a crowd allegedly Tyler Robinson. So, it

[27:28] sounds like that's going to be a big

[27:30] battle here, too, is what are the aual

[27:33] aggravating factors that fit under the

[27:36] law.

[27:37] >> I would expect that as well. I mean, you

[27:39] know, that everybody came out and called

[27:40] for the death penalty really really

[27:43] early in this case, far earlier than

[27:45] they needed to. you know, they they can

[27:47] wait until after a preliminary hearing

[27:49] to actually file an intent to seek the

[27:51] death penalty where they've been able to

[27:53] put out the evidence uh to satisfy those

[27:56] aggravating factor factors uh in order

[28:00] to establish a death penalty case. We're

[28:02] not even to that point. And as you know,

[28:05] Utah's statute gives very clear guidance

[28:09] on what constitutes aggravating factors

[28:13] uh when the prosecution can seek a death

[28:15] penalty uh uh penalty in this case. And

[28:19] so, you know, it'll be interesting to

[28:21] see if there's anything more. Um really

[28:24] what I see from what they've put out is

[28:26] the only thing is what you mentioned

[28:28] that he shot into a crowd. Did that

[28:30] really endanger other individuals? And

[28:32] did he have an intent even, you know, or

[28:35] could another individual been harmed?

[28:38] Because really that's what they have to

[28:39] show is not just that the deceased

[28:42] person was the target, but that there

[28:44] was something else. They had he shot one

[28:46] or two others or a security guard been

[28:49] hurt and the mix of it or something

[28:51] along those lines, I think then you

[28:53] probably get there. But I expect that

[28:55] the defense is going to fight this

[28:57] pretty uh vehemently.

[28:59] >> We will see what happens. Skylaro, thank

[29:02] you so much.

[29:03] >> Thank you.

[29:04] >> And Tyler Robinson will be back in court

[29:07] in January. And that's it for this

[29:08] episode of Crime Fix. I'm Annette Levy.

[29:10] Thanks so much for being with me. I'll

[29:12] see you back here next time.