Former Federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani Analyzes Tyler Robinson Death Penalty Case After Inconclusive Ballistics Report

[00:00] I expect the defense to lean into the

[00:02] theory that someone else, whether it's a

[00:04] foreign government or some powerful

[00:07] person within the United States, wanted

[00:09] Charlie Kirk dead and that Tyler

[00:11] Robinson is the fall guy. He's just a

[00:13] psy and it wasn't really him.

[00:17] Hello everybody, this is Jackson Buh

[00:19] with TMZ. Today I am joined by former

[00:21] federal prosecutor and president of West

[00:24] Coast Trial Lawyers, Nemo Romani. Mr.

[00:27] Romani, thank you so much for joining me

[00:28] today.

[00:29] >> Of course. Thanks for having me.

[00:30] >> So, there has been a huge development uh

[00:32] in the case of Tyler Robinson, obviously

[00:35] the man uh who has been accused of

[00:37] allegedly assassinating Charlie Kirk.

[00:39] Now, the ATF has conducted an analysis

[00:42] of the bullet that hit Charlie Kirk, and

[00:44] the results came back as inconclusive.

[00:47] Now, this is a huge development, and I'm

[00:49] wondering what this truly means for the

[00:51] defense.

[00:51] >> Well, it's certainly helpful for the

[00:53] defense. It doesn't necessarily clear

[00:56] Tyler Robinson, although I'm sure it's

[00:58] going to feed into the conspiracy

[01:00] theories online that it was someone

[01:02] else, maybe an agent of a foreign

[01:03] government who killed Charlie Clerk.

[01:06] It's not uncommon for analysis like this

[01:10] to come back as inconclusive. It happens

[01:12] all the time with DNA, sometimes with

[01:14] fingerprints, and even in ballistics. If

[01:17] the specimen, which in this case is the

[01:19] bullet, is fragmented in such a way that

[01:22] it's just insufficient to come with a

[01:24] definitive conclusion, ATF does result

[01:29] in inconclusive findings sometimes. And

[01:32] I know the FBI is going to do their own

[01:33] analysis and we'll see what those agents

[01:36] have to say, but obviously it's

[01:38] something the defense is going to take

[01:39] and run with.

[01:40] >> How does a result come back

[01:42] inconclusive? Is the bullet just, you

[01:45] know, the remnants of the bullet, are

[01:47] they just refined to absolute grain? Is

[01:49] it dust? Like what what's going on with

[01:51] this bullet to where it could possibly

[01:53] be inconclusive?

[01:54] >> Whenever you're dealing with a

[01:55] scientific sample, and again, we use the

[01:57] DNA or fingerprint, but really it can be

[01:59] anything. If it's degraded in such a way

[02:02] that the analysis can't be done,

[02:06] it may result in an inconclusive test.

[02:09] In this particular case, whether it's

[02:12] the bullet, whether it's the firearm,

[02:16] the experts are unable to connect the

[02:19] two to a reasonable degree of scientific

[02:22] certainty. That is the standard that

[02:24] that expert would have to testify to in

[02:27] court. So, it happens.

[02:29] Certainly not something that the state

[02:31] wants to happen, but it does happen in

[02:34] these types of cases on occasion.

[02:35] >> Now, I want to put you in a

[02:36] hypothetical. If you were Tyler

[02:38] Robinson's defense attorney, how would

[02:40] you argue in his defense?

[02:42] >> So, there's a few ways to defend a

[02:43] murder case. Really, primarily three.

[02:46] The first is that it wasn't me. I think

[02:48] that's likely the way the defense is

[02:50] going to go in some third party

[02:52] culpability defense. The other is that

[02:54] it's an accident. Tough to argue in this

[02:56] type of case that they lack the criminal

[02:58] intent. Maybe it's a manslaughter case

[03:01] or self-defense. It's really primarily

[03:04] speaking those three types of defenses

[03:06] that you see in most murder cases. It

[03:08] wasn't me. I didn't mean to do it or I

[03:10] was acting in self-defense. And you're

[03:11] going to see the defense clearly go in

[03:13] the route that it was someone else. I

[03:16] think the challenge here is obviously

[03:18] there's video that appears to put Tyler

[03:20] Robinson at the scene. We've all seen

[03:22] that video. And there's some admissions

[03:24] that he made to his roommate. Um

[03:26] admissions on Discord that seem to show

[03:29] the motive in the case. So, I think

[03:31] those are the two really big legal

[03:33] obstacles the defense is going to have

[03:35] to try to overcome here.

[03:36] >> And if you were the prosecutor, how

[03:38] would you argue against Tyler Robinson

[03:40] in this case?

[03:41] >> Well, if you're the prosecution, right,

[03:42] you're going to argue motive means

[03:44] opportunity, right? Here's someone who

[03:45] was politically motivated, disagreed

[03:47] with Charlie Kirk. He's at the scene. He

[03:49] had the means and the opportunity. I

[03:51] mean, if you can connect the rifle to

[03:52] him, I don't necessarily think the

[03:55] bullet not matching to that degree of

[03:58] certainty that's required is going to

[04:00] make or break your case. But if you're

[04:02] the defense here, your only job really

[04:04] is to keep Tyler Robinson alive. I This

[04:07] is a very conservative jury pool in

[04:09] Utah. We know that uh it can be hard to

[04:14] not

[04:16] have a death penalty qualified jury

[04:18] return a death sentence. So what you see

[04:21] in these death penalty cases, and it

[04:23] doesn't matter if it's Luigi Manion, you

[04:26] saw the litigation, or even Brian

[04:28] Cobberger, the defense will litigate

[04:30] this case for years, not months, but

[04:32] years to try to keep Tyler Robinson

[04:34] alive. And I think if they can work out

[04:37] some sort of plea deal where it's a life

[04:39] sentence, I think that's going to be a

[04:40] win for the defense.

[04:41] >> Very interesting because Utah obviously

[04:44] is a death penalty state. The majority

[04:46] of Utah leans conservative. Do you think

[04:49] that the prosecution has that working

[04:51] against them in this case and how likely

[04:53] is it? I know obviously you don't know

[04:55] the jury members, but how likely is it

[04:57] that they will vote for the death

[04:59] penalty in this case?

[05:00] >> It is likely, but if you're the defense,

[05:02] you just need one out of 12. So, I

[05:05] always say 8% is that magic number. So,

[05:07] whether it's a conspiracy theory that

[05:09] someone believes in or you find someone

[05:13] who feels sympathy for Tyler Robinson,

[05:15] by all accounts, he did come from a good

[05:17] Mormon family. That's certainly that

[05:19] cuts in the defense's favor. You know,

[05:22] even some of the most horrific murders

[05:25] in American history, there have been

[05:27] some jurors that have been hesitant to

[05:30] return a death sentence. Probably

[05:32] another recent example is uh the

[05:35] Parkland school shooter, the worst

[05:37] school shooting in American history. You

[05:39] know, two of those jurors didn't find

[05:42] that uh Nicholas Cruz there should be

[05:46] sentenced to death. So, I think it's a

[05:49] different calculus when you're defending

[05:50] a death penalty case. I don't

[05:53] necessarily think that the defense here

[05:55] thinks they can get an outright acquitt,

[05:57] but again, even a life sentence would be

[05:59] a win. So, I think that's where you see

[06:02] the prosecution and the defense focusing

[06:04] their attention.

[06:05] >> Now, I know you mentioned conspiracy

[06:07] theories briefly just now. Um, and I'm

[06:09] wondering if there are any details of

[06:11] this case that stand out to you as maybe

[06:13] a little bit weird.

[06:14] >> Well, it's certainly the most

[06:16] politically charged case, certainly in

[06:20] recent history, maybe in American

[06:21] history, aside from maybe the

[06:23] prosecutions of Donald Trump. You know,

[06:26] you have Charlie Kirk who is certainly

[06:28] certainly an outspoken political figure.

[06:30] Um, this murder appears to be

[06:33] politically motivated. Whenever you have

[06:35] the president of the United States and

[06:37] now the former attorney general of the

[06:39] United States and the director of the

[06:41] FBI all simultaneously posting, tweeting

[06:44] on True Social Media X about a case that

[06:48] makes the case very unique. It's

[06:51] certainly something that doesn't happen.

[06:52] Obviously, the president has asked for

[06:55] uh the death penalty to be imposed. The

[06:58] Utah County prosecution, they decided to

[07:01] impose the death penalty or seek it very

[07:03] quickly. So, I think people would be

[07:06] naive if they're divorcing the law from

[07:09] the politics in this case because again,

[07:11] it's not something that you typically

[07:13] see. Now, with respect to Charlie Kirk

[07:15] and his political beliefs, obviously he

[07:17] was very outspoken. So there are people

[07:19] who believe that some of the people he

[07:22] was speaking against had a motivation to

[07:25] kill him and not necessarily Tyler

[07:28] Robinson. So there's a lot of rumors out

[07:31] there on social media. I'm not going to

[07:32] add fuel to the fire, but I would be

[07:34] again remiss if I didn't acknowledge

[07:36] that there are a lot of people who

[07:38] believe in these theories and if one or

[07:40] two of them ends up on that jury panel,

[07:42] it can make or break this case.

[07:44] Obviously, you know, there was a uh

[07:45] there was a statement that came out um

[07:47] from investigators right after the

[07:50] assassination took place to where when

[07:52] Tyler Robinson was up on the roof, you

[07:54] know, he disassembled the weapon, got

[07:57] down off the roof and reassembled it

[07:59] again. Um and are inconsistencies in

[08:02] this story such as that one going to,

[08:05] you know, play a role in the defense's

[08:08] argument in this case?

[08:09] >> I think so. If you're the defense in any

[08:11] case, it's defense lawyering 101. You

[08:13] want to attack the investigation. You

[08:14] want to say it was sloppy. It was a rush

[08:16] to judgment. Right? You had some

[08:17] inconsistent statements made related to

[08:19] the firearm, whether where it was,

[08:22] whether Tyler Robinson's prints were on

[08:24] them. So, those are the types of things

[08:26] that you're going to argue that this was

[08:28] a rush to judgment. Um, they got the

[08:30] wrong guy. And this is something that

[08:31] defense attorneys argue in every single

[08:33] case. The real killer is actually out

[08:36] there and that law enforcement has

[08:38] failed the community by failing to find

[08:40] him or her. And what is the likelihood

[08:42] that we're going to see the defense lean

[08:45] into some of these online conspiracy

[08:47] theories to further their argument?

[08:49] >> I expect the defense to lean into the

[08:51] theory that someone else, whether it's a

[08:54] foreign government or some powerful

[08:57] person within the United States wanted

[09:00] Charlie Kirk dead and that Tyler

[09:02] Robinson is the fall guy. He's just a

[09:04] psy and it wasn't really him. I'm not

[09:06] necessarily saying I believe that

[09:08] argument, but I think that's the

[09:09] defense's best argument. So, expect them

[09:12] now, especially that this ballistics

[09:14] report came back inconclusive, to lean

[09:16] in and go all in into that argument.

[09:18] >> Mr. Romani, you've been absolutely

[09:20] fantastic. Thanks so much for joining

[09:21] me.

[09:22] >> Of course. Thank you for having me.

[09:23] Appreciate Vinner.