Former Federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani Analyzes Tyler Robinson Death Penalty Case After Inconclusive Ballistics Report
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Turkey Tom Exposes CIA Links, Black Market Hormones, and Demonic Forces in Charlie Kirk Assassination Case Through Whistleblower Evidence
22:13
Megyn Kelly Covers Tyler Robinson Court Appearance in Charlie Kirk Murder Case and Media Access Fight
15:17
Viva Frei Breaks Down the Tyler Robinson Case: What Evidence Actually Shows and What Doesn't
8:31
Former Federal Prosecutor Neama Rahmani Analyzes Tyler Robinson Death Penalty Case After Inconclusive Ballistics Report
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani breaks down the Tyler Robinson case following a significant development: the ATF's ballistics analysis came back inconclusive on the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. Romani explains what this means for both prosecution and defense, why inconclusive results happen in forensic cases, and how the defense is likely to argue third-party culpability. With Utah being a death penalty state and a conservative jury pool, Romani discusses the unique challenges of this politically charged case and why keeping Robinson alive, rather than securing an acquittal, may be the defense's ultimate goal.
In a significant development in the Tyler Robinson case, the ATF has conducted an analysis of the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk, and the results came back as inconclusive. According to former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers Neama Rahmani, this is certainly helpful for the defense, though it doesn't necessarily clear Tyler Robinson.
"It's not uncommon for analysis like this to come back as inconclusive," Romani explained in an interview with TMZ's Jakson Buhaj. "It happens all the time with DNA, sometimes with fingerprints, and even in ballistics. If the specimen, which in this case is the bullet, is fragmented in such a way that it's just insufficient to come with a definitive conclusion, ATF does result in inconclusive findings sometimes."
Romani noted that the FBI will conduct their own analysis, but the inconclusive result is something the defense will undoubtedly use to their advantage. He expects this finding to feed into online conspiracy theories that it was someone else—possibly an agent of a foreign government—who killed Charlie Kirk.
Understanding Inconclusive Forensic Results
When asked how a ballistics result comes back inconclusive, Romani explained that whenever dealing with a scientific sample—whether DNA, fingerprints, or ballistics—if it's degraded in such a way that the analysis can't be done, it may result in an inconclusive test.
"In this particular case, whether it's the bullet, whether it's the firearm, the experts are unable to connect the two to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. That is the standard that expert would have to testify to in court," Romani said. "Certainly not something that the state wants to happen, but it does happen in these types of cases on occasion."
Defense Strategy: Three Primary Approaches
Romani outlined the three primary ways to defend a murder case. First is arguing "it wasn't me"—a third-party culpability defense that he believes is the route Robinson's team will likely take. Second is claiming it was an accident, arguing lack of criminal intent or that it should be considered manslaughter. Third is self-defense.
"I think the challenge here is obviously there's video that appears to put Tyler Robinson at the scene. We've all seen that video. And there's some admissions that he made to his roommate, admissions on Discord that seem to show the motive in the case," Romani explained. "So I think those are the two really big legal obstacles the defense is going to have to try to overcome here."
Prosecution's Approach: Motive, Means, and Opportunity
From the prosecution's perspective, Romani said they will argue motive, means, and opportunity. "Here's someone who was politically motivated, disagreed with Charlie Kirk. He's at the scene. He had the means and the opportunity," Romani noted. "If you can connect the rifle to him, I don't necessarily think the bullet not matching to that degree of certainty that's required is going to make or break your case."
However, Romani emphasized that if he were the defense, the primary goal wouldn't necessarily be an acquittal—it would be keeping Tyler Robinson alive.
Death Penalty Considerations in Conservative Utah
Utah is a death penalty state with a largely conservative population, which could work in the prosecution's favor. However, Romani pointed out that the defense only needs one out of twelve jurors to prevent a death sentence.
"I always say 8% is that magic number," Romani explained. "Whether it's a conspiracy theory that someone believes in or you find someone who feels sympathy for Tyler Robinson—by all accounts, he did come from a good Mormon family. That certainly cuts in the defense's favor."
Romani cited the Parkland school shooter case as an example, where despite it being the worst school shooting in American history, two jurors were hesitant to return a death sentence for Nicholas Cruz. He also mentioned that in death penalty cases like Luigi Mangione or Bryan Kohberger, the defense will litigate for years, not months, to keep their client alive.
"I think if they can work out some sort of plea deal where it's a life sentence, I think that's going to be a win for the defense," Romani said.
The Most Politically Charged Case in American History
Romani described this as "certainly the most politically charged case, certainly in recent history, maybe in American history, aside from maybe the prosecutions of Donald Trump." Charlie Kirk was an outspoken political figure, and the murder appears to be politically motivated.
"Whenever you have the president of the United States and now the former attorney general of the United States and the director of the FBI all simultaneously posting, tweeting on Truth Social and X about a case, that makes the case very unique," Romani said. "Obviously, the president has asked for the death penalty to be imposed. The Utah County prosecution decided to seek it very quickly."
He noted that people would be naive to divorce the law from the politics in this case, adding that there are many people who believe that some of the people Charlie Kirk spoke against had a motivation to kill him, not necessarily Tyler Robinson.
Inconsistencies and Investigation Attacks
When asked about inconsistencies in the investigation—such as statements that Tyler Robinson disassembled the weapon on the roof, got down, and reassembled it again—Romani said these details will play a role in the defense's argument.
"If you're the defense in any case, it's defense lawyering 101. You want to attack the investigation. You want to say it was sloppy. It was a rush to judgment," Romani explained. "You had some inconsistent statements made related to the firearm, whether where it was, whether Tyler Robinson's prints were on them. Those are the types of things that you're going to argue that this was a rush to judgment, they got the wrong guy. And this is something that defense attorneys argue in every single case—the real killer is actually out there and law enforcement has failed the community by failing to find him or her."
Conspiracy Theories as Defense Strategy
Romani expects the defense to lean heavily into the theory that someone else—whether a foreign government or some powerful person within the United States—wanted Charlie Kirk dead and that Tyler Robinson is simply a fall guy.
"He's just a patsy and it wasn't really him," Romani said. "I'm not necessarily saying I believe that argument, but I think that's the defense's best argument. So expect them now, especially that this ballistics report came back inconclusive, to lean in and go all in into that argument."
