As the race to find the person who gunned down Charlie Kirk intensifies, we are now getting into what happens next. Prosecution, death penalty, legal liability. What are the biggest impacts of this killing? We are going to bring on a major guest to discuss this. One of the best legal minds on TV, CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. [Music] All right, so let's continue the analysis of the shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. as today, not only did the FBI release a brand new photo of a person of interest in connection with this killing and encouraging those who have information to call 1800 call FBI. By the way, in a separate post on X, the FBI announced the FBI is offering a a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the identification and arrest of the individual individuals responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025 at Utah Valley University in Oram, Utah. contact 1800 call FBI. And not only that, but the FBI provided more information today in a press conference about the shooters movements, about palm prints, about the recovered weapon tips. I encourage everybody to go check out our episode that we just put out today. I interview former CIA and FBI agent Tracy Walder all about that and has bits, by the way, from that press conference on there, too. Really, really engaging. But the question now, what we want to talk about right now is if and when they catch this shooter, what happens? Because actually there are a lot of potential impacts and legal impacts that we got to figure out. And I will tell you, it is shocking. It is shocking. what was supposed to be this outdoor public event attended by about 3,000 people where this conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder was going to just debate those in attendance, you know, regarding politics and culture and societal views. Instead, it turned into absolute violence. The last word, the last word he said before he was shot, he was talking about shootings. How ironic is that? But the last thing he said was violence and then he gets shot. Now these horrible events that played out yesterday, it's still I'm not going to lie to you, it's embedded in my head, especially if you watch those videos. It's probably in yours. Those videos that circulated online, they are very hard to shake. And by the way, this comes from somebody who covers the evils of this world on a daily basis. I said this on social media yesterday, but just please think about Charlie Kirk's family and friends who now have a new reality. A new reality that victims, family members, we talk about it in every case that we cover. They now have a new reality. It is a reality of pain, loss, and confusion. Please just think about them. And I say that because you also have to think about the impact that the legal consequences now will have for the family and friends of Charlie Kirk, right? a trial. At the time of this recording, law enforcement has not caught this shooter. But if and when they do, what happens next? How do you ensure a successful prosecution? What are they doing now? We're talking the death penalty. That's on the table potentially. Two people were detained yesterday. What about them? Oh, and Utah Valley University, do they face some questions regarding security? CBS News reporting that according to a university spokeswoman, that single shot through Charlie Kirk's neck that ended up killing him, that was fired from a nearby building 200 yards away. We heard from the FBI who said that the shooter went to that roof. This is a building that houses student support services and resources. How was he able to get up there? I say all that, but now I want to bring on an incredibly special guest to Sidebar, somebody who hasn't been on here before. I'm going to talk to him about the potential legal consequences, the impact. Here we are joined by who I will say in my opinion is arguably one of the best legal analysts in our business. One of the best I've ever seen. CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honeig, who previously, by the way, worked for 14 years as a federal and state prosecutor. And most importantly, the reason we were able to get Ellie on here today is because he is the author of an incredible new book. You gave me an early copy. Do I feel special? Yes, I feel special. It is called, let's throw it to it right now. When you come at the king, inside DOJ's pursuit of the president from Nixon to Trump. And Ellie Honig joins me right here. Ellie, so good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. >> Thank you for having me. Thank you for that very uh kind introduction. You and I, by the way, share the distinction of both being Dan Abrams fillins, right, when on SiriusXM. And I will get calls sometimes where they'll go, "Jesse, it's so great when you fill in." I go, "Well, close enough." But that's the other guy. >> You don't just say thank you. >> Sometimes I just roll with it. I I don't even I'll take it. I'll take it. But thank you for that. And by the way, you we'll talk more about Charlie Kirk scenario, but but I I totally feel the same way as you. I'm just I'm physically disgusted by what happened. >> And you're right that you have to think about the victims here. I mean, I've look, I've prosecuted murder cases. I've seen scenes. I've seen autopsies. You name it. And it's deeply traumatizing. And and I I wish people would respect that. And um you know, you talk about killings all the time. You talk about crimes to see it. >> I mean, we don't always get we don't always get video proof of the killing, right? You you a lot of times we don't even have the crime scene photos. >> What we saw yesterday, I am praying that his family never saw it. >> I agree. I agree. You can't stop people from posting it, but but that the media the social media sites can take it down. By the way, we've been trying to capture all of these pressers and announcements as quickly as possible. And one of the things that can help us is something called Applaud AI. And their new product, the Note Pro. This is really great for meetings. The Note Pro is an AI meeting assistant. It's about the size of a credit card. It's slim. It's portable. And you can perfectly integrate it with your phone. It snaps on right back there. So, one of the things that it's great for is brainstorming sessions when we're planning new episodes or interviews. It picks up voices from up to 16 feet away. It filters out background noise. It can record nonstop for up to 50 hours. But here's the real game changer. It captures absolutely everything, audio, pictures, written notes, highlights, and then the app turns it all into these structured summaries with insights and clear to-dos that you can share with your team. And with Ask Plaude, it's like having a second brain. It can draft follow-up emails, pull data reports, help with you brainstorming, all based on the context of your meetings. Plus, no pro gives you peace of mind. There is display screen that shows your recording status. It has Apple find my, it has fast file transfer, and it meets the highest privacy standards. So, I feel secure using it even for the most sensitive of topics. And if you're like me and you want to make the most of your time, it's time to try the Plaude Not Pro. Right now, you can get 10% off Plaude's other features, note and no pin, with code Jesse. Just click the link below or scan the QR code on screen. We're going to talk about what kind of evidence that might be at a trial. But first, I have to talk about the book. So, I've started reading. It's awesome. And I was telling you, I I didn't know exactly what it was going to be about. I thought it was only going to be about current investigations, but you discuss everything. So you discuss Watergate, you discuss Bill Clinton and Ken Starr, James Comey and Hillary Clinton, the investigations of Robert Mueller, Jack Smith, uh John Durham, Robert Herd, David Weiss. You talk about the importance of the special counsel office in general. Why did you write this book? So I love telling the stories, right? I've covered a few of these, right, since everything from Mueller on I've covered. Um, and when I started talking to the actual participants, it I was a prosecutor, like you said, for 14 years, and it brought me back to that, but so much more like talking to the actual Watergate prosecutors, what was happening in that office the Sunday morning after the Saturday night massacre, talking to people on both sides of the Clinton Ken Star case, talking to people who were involved in all those recent cases up to and including the Jack Smith case. It brought me back to being a prosecutor, and I love telling those stories because a I think they're just entertaining on their own. B, I think maybe I can contribute a little bit to history with new stuff that's in this book. Uh, but C, I think it tells us something about ourselves, who we are as a society, as a a community, where our laws, where the sort of outer boundaries of our laws are, and how we go about what do we do when you have that intractable problem where you have to investigate the president. Where does it go from here? We have a very intelligent audience who is very interested in how investigations work, what is happening behind the scenes, prosecutorial decisions, the pressures, and so I think it's going to be really interesting for them. There is a section where you talk about why you named the book the way that you did because of all the pressure and the danger that faces a special counsel who has to go after a president or a senior official. That's something that gets overlooked, I So your audience will fully probably fully be Wire fans, fans of The Wire. And of course, I took it from Omar. Great show. >> Yeah, you come at the King, you best not miss. Of course, it goes back beyond that sentiment goes way before Omar. Does it? I thought it just came from him. >> I I did honestly, but I was like, it goes back to philosophers and stuff. Um, but yes, you know, the stakes are so intense in these cases. They're so high and you see some of the tactics and people made interesting, I would say, admissions to me. Like I'll give you an example. The book opens with a scene where Jill Weine Banks, who is still around and healthy and sharp as attack, she was 30 years old and and the only woman on the Watergate team, and she told me, I knew it maybe wasn't the smartest thing, but I felt like I had to do it. I She was photocopying key pieces of evidence, not physical evidence, but notes and and memos and bringing them home with her. She said other people were doing the same thing and storing the photocopies in a cardboard box in her home. And the book opens on a scene where her home has just been burglarized. >> Oh, no. And her first thought is, "Oh, boy." And I'll leave everyone in suspense. >> Well, that's why we don't not supposed to keep it there. >> Right. But her fear, what she says to me is she goes, "Look, maybe we might have been at the edge of what we call rule 6E, like the grand jury secrecy rules. Maybe we even violated it. But we were afraid that Nixon's goons were going to come in and just ransack the office." And I we felt like we needed an insurance policy. And by the way, there's a great echo of that. the Mueller team 40ome years later started setting up a thing where their server their files were downloaded to a server offsite, a separate server. Same fear, same concern. So, I love that sort of strategy uh decisions that these people have to make and they explain why they did. One of the things I really like about you as a legal analyst is you take these complicated subjects and you break them down not only for someone to easy understand, but like what matters, what should you take away? And there were parts of your book and I'm just going to list some of them where it's like what do we make of it? No, this is what you're supposed to make of it. So something interesting you do is you tell people what they really need to remember. So there was a part section says the one thing that we most likely to remember about special counsel Robert Hur's investigation of Joe Biden was the old man stuff. But the real story was that Biden then the sitting president narrowly avoided a recommended criminal indictment. or you start one chapter where it simply says Jack Smith never had a chance. Now, what are the misconceptions that you want to clear up about a lot of this? What is like the main point of some of these topics that you're trying to hit for people to really focus on? Yeah. So, I think those are two really good examples, right? Jack Smith, uh there's I've been critical of some of the things he did. I think he did some things really well. But the the real point with Jack Smith is the guy never had a chance because Merrick Garland wasted two plus years until he actually put him in place. And if you do the math, and I by the way I I had written and said this beforehand, there was no possible way he was going to be able to get that case indicted and tried before the 2024 election. And so for all the talk about is he doing things right or well or poorly, he he he there was never any real chance he was going to get it done. You would know that if if you had been a prosecutor. Um and on the Robert Her Joe Biden thing, everyone was focus right Joe Robert her wrote in his final report recommending no indictment. He wrote he was an elderly man with you know whatever with a compromised memory and he ended up being right about that. That's one point. But that's the only thing everyone was focused on. I'm reading his report going but Joe Biden knew he had classified documents. He denied that. And now we know he knew because he's on tape saying all the classified stuff is downstairs. And there is a scenario where Robert her could have said, obviously he could not have indicted Joe Biden for because Biden was the sitting president, but he could have said, I recommend a criminal indictment of Joe Biden. That would have been, you want to talk about something that would have really uh created an earthquake that would have created an earthquake. So, you know, I think, look, I'm part of the media and we tend to focus on certain things, but sometimes what's lying underneath is the real story. Now, for those out there, um, and I'll we'll tell everybody where they can buy the book, but for those out there who say, you know what, I'm not really interested in politics. I'm more interested in investigations. I'm more interested in crime. We can't forget you. These are actually legitimate crimes that were being investigated, right? So, the people who are interested in that, interested in the true crime aspect. What would you say to them? >> Right. I mean, this book is will take you into the prosecutor's offices. This book takes you into the if you want to know how the Watergate prosecutors were thinking about how do we go about pursuing the Nixon tapes, how do we go about interrogating people around Nixon u with the additional overlay of politics, you can get that from this book. If you want to get inside the Ken Star team and the Bill Clinton and the showdown between the two of them, what was it like? I take you inside the room where Bill Clinton is being interrogated on camera for the grand jury, right? It's this famous moment. Oh yeah. And Clinton's famous line was, "It depends on what the meaning of is is." I talked to the prosecutor who asked Bill Clinton that question. And I said, "What what did you think of that?" Well, he had a great response. He basically said it was, "Well, you don't have to tell us. >> Let me tell you. Let me tell you, because this is fun." Um, I won't give away everything in the book, but it was a 4-hour deposition. They had agreed after much negotiation. And the prosecutor, a guy named Saul Weisenberg, said, "I got to tell you, up until that point, he was kicking our ass." He goes, "We were three hours in." Yeah. He We hadn't laid a glove on him. He goes, "But the way he said that was so smarmy," I'm paraphrasing that if this was a jury trial, I would have turned to, he was a former prosecutor. I would have turned to the jury like, "You believe this guy?" And he goes, "That was the only thing anyone was going to remember." But I also talked to Clinton's legal team and what their strategy was and certain tactical surprises that they sprung on Ken Star. So there's defin being a prosecutor, making cases and the tactics and the investigation. So that that's heavy in here. >> Where can people buy the book and can they buy it right now? >> Anywhere. It is available technically on September 16th, but if you order it today, it'll arrive on September 16th. Um, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, go to your local independent, whatever it may be. I >> I would like a real copy of this cuz the manuscript you gave me fell apart. >> Okay. Gave me the glue fell apart. So, >> that was the early stuff. This This is real. This holds together. It's not empty pages. It's strong. I'll sign it. >> Okay. So, I hope everybody can go check it out. When You Come at the King by Ellie Honick. Okay. Now, we have to talk about Charlie Kirk. Um, so you talked to me about it was one of the most graphic, disturbing things you've seen in quite some time. One of the first questions I had was, are prosecutors getting involved at this point? Oh, yes. How does that work? So, I imagine it might be the Utah County Attorney's Office, maybe the Salt Lake uh, County District Attorney's Office. What are they doing right now? >> So, I first of all, yes, prosecutors are involved in this, and I'm sure both state level prosecutors in Utah and the feds are >> The reason I say is because there's been no arrest at the time of this recording. >> But why? So, you say, well, why would a prosecutor be involved? A couple things. You have to work with FBI agents on strategy. I mean, look, my my way I worked with FBI agents every day. And my approach was always, you are the point person on the investigation. I'm the point person in the courtroom, but we need to consult both ways. And so, an FBI agent may say to you, "How, okay, let's say hypothetically they find a car. What do we do? Do we need a warrant? Can we just get in there? Is there some exception to the warrant?" You know, either way, you're going to need to be consulted and brought in. Um, you know, you need subpoenas. We have to subpoena the phone company, the cell site, the whatever. You have to, you know, that comes from the prosecutor and you want to be involved because you want to make sure they're not making any mistakes with when it comes to Miranda, for example, reading the person their rights, right? Well, we have him. Well, he's talking, but he said something about a lawyer, but now he's in the back of the car. Can we keep talking to, you know, there's all these things that you would definitely need to be consulting with a with a prosecutor on. >> Are the attorneys on scene? Like, are they at the crime scene? Are if there's someone's brought in, are they coming in now to do maybe potentially part of the interrogation? >> You could be. Yeah. I mean, look, if they have someone and they're holding him off site, you could definitely be brought there and drive there. But, you know, this is an interesting sort of federal state split. The feds, generally speaking, when I was at the US attorney's office, it was like, you don't go to the crime scene. That's amateur-ish. All you can do is become a witness yourself. What if you see something, right? You don't want to make yourself a witness, then you're off the case. State prosecutors tend more to go to the scene. Um, there's a good debate about whether that's smart or not. But look, if they said, "We have someone in custody. We think this is the guy. We're interrogating him. Come on out." Like, I would be there in a second. >> Right. Right. So let's say there's an arrest. Okay. What happens next from the the state level? I mean what do you expect in terms of uh charges processing the criminal process? >> So he will be I expect he will be charged both in the state of Utah and federally. Now, I was going to ask you that. >> Ordinarily, federal policy, written policy says it's called something called the pettit policy named after an old case or something says if the state has already, state authorities have already charged something, we generally, not always, but generally don't pile on along with our own charges. Here, I think the interest is so high, the public interest um that I and given the things we've heard from DOJ and and from the president, I fully expect to see both. Um obviously, there will be murder charges. Um in the state of Utah, it's actually interesting. So, it would be first-degree, obviously premeditated. There's no self-defense. There's no heat of the moment type thing. But in order to get it up to the death penalty eligible level, you need an aggravating factor. And I was looking at those aggravating factors uh just yesterday. The one that I think probably applies most, a lot of it doesn't apply if you murdered a law enforcement official, if you had multiple victims. But if in the course of killing somebody, you put other people in grave risk. And I think they'll argue anytime you fire a rifle into a car, you could hit more than one person. bullet fragments can expl directly shot at uh you know Brian Thompson there was that nearby witness they said anytime you fire a weapon there could be ricochet so I agree I think that's probably what they'll do for aggravating and the reason we talk about it is because Utah's Republican governor Spencer Cox said at a press conference we still have the death penalty and by the way if they do that how does that complicate the case if itcomes is a death penalty eligible case. >> So you have to go through a second layer of well let me talk state and then I'll talk federal. Um you always have to have a separate trial proceeding. So it's the only place where the jury actually sets the sentence in our system. So first the jury will decide guilt or non-guilt. Let's assume they find him guilty. Then you typically you would keep the same jury and you go now we go into the penalty phase and then it gets into aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances. Did he have a mental health condition? Um how premeditated? How how you know gruesome was the act? And then the jury will decide yes or no on death or life in prison. So that's in in the in the >> but it also makes it longer a longer >> certainly makes it longer. You know what one thing it does though certainly in the federal system it gives you what we call a death qualified jury. And this is an advantage for the prosecution. Defense lawyers hate this because think about it and again the same thing in the in the federal system. You would have to try him, get a guilty verdict and then go into penalty phase. But when you're picking your jury, you have to ask them, "Are you capable of recommending the death sentence on a fellow human?" And if the person says, "No, I just don't think there's any circumstance I can do that." They're out. So, think about what that does to your jury pool. If you're a prosecutor, great. I only have people who say they're willing and able to impose a death penalty. Defense lawyers hate it because they go, "You're throwing out my best jurors. My best jurors are people who say I could never kill another human." Um, so that's Look, I don't know if there's a way to avoid that. Guess you could bring in separate juries, but federally they don't do it that way. >> Um, what would be a federal charge? You know, Manion, they charged him murder through stalking, >> right? >> Is that I mean is something similar? >> I don't. So, the the thing is, and I think this could be a problem in the Manion charge. Stalking doesn't just mean you're stalking the guy, right? Because I know exactly what you're going to say, right? It means putting him in reasonable fear. That's exactly right. Like I don't know how Brian unless there's some evidence I don't I'm not aware of that Brian Thompson the person who Luigi Manion shot was like >> knew he was being stalked. >> So in a little side tangent which just was at Crime Con and we talked about this. >> There is an argument that between the first shot and the second shot of Brian Thompson he knew he was about to be killed. >> Wow. >> That that has been a legal argument. So this is different. This was one shot to his neck. Um but he had security. He talked about death threats. Right. Let me give you a couple other possible federal hooks we could see. It depends if the gun was possessed legally or not. If the gun was assaulted off, if the gun had a a defaced serial number, which happens quite a bit, >> then it becomes if he was a felon, this person, prior felon, there are various ways that this person becomes an illegal possessor, federally illegal possessor of a firearm. Um, in which case then it will be using that illegally possessed firearm to murder somebody. So, let's wait and see. You know, the details about the firearm are going to matter a lot. That's number one. Number two, if he did it, you know, I'm not seeing another federal crime, but it could be if he did it to advance some other federal crime or if there was a crossing of state lines involved, it's going to be important where the guy was from, what his path into Utah was. That will determine whether we see federal charges. >> What do you make of what this prosecution could potentially look like? And it's a very difficult question that I'm asking you because we don't even know who the suspect is, what the motivations are. There was reporting about the bullets uh may have had engravings regarding anti-fascist uh comments or transgender comments. The Wall Street Journal reported that. Um but you have so many witnesses. Well, maybe witnesses to at least the crime, not necessarily the shooter. So many different so much different camera footage as a prosecutor. I mean, how would you even begin to process a case like this and and try to find the relevant evidence to prosecute? >> It strikes me as most likely to be an identity type defense, right? I mean, I it once you conclude it's him, I can't imagine what the defense would be. Um, and yeah, you have to look, you need your surveillance video, but surveillance video is we've seen it already. It, you know, it could be any number of people, but it's going to be those forensics. It's going to be the ballistic matches, you know, between the rifle and if there's their shell casings, if they're able to recover any fragments, it's if there's one slug that's it's probably not going to be testable in any way. Um, it probably shattered, you know, into too many pieces. But ballistics you if you can tie that gun to the person either through prints, through DNA, or even it might just he might have purchased it in his own name. We don't know or somebody who we can tie to him might have purchased it. So look at the firearm itself. Um look at forensics around the scene. If if a piece of hair fell out, if there's if he's wearing a hat, a glove, something like that, you're going to want to send those to the labs. Um and then you know the visual IDs like right if somebody can say the best thing is if it's somebody who knows the person. What? It's It's less ideal if you go, "I don't know this guy, but I saw him and he's that guy." It's better if you go, "Oh, I know that guy. He's John Smith. He lived on the dorm down the hall from me." Then your ID issues are are much cleaner. By the way, just going back for a second, is there any charge that you've seen if it's a political assassination? So there are terrorism charges in state in a lot of state systems if your motivation was to try to um influence or terrify the public and public policy. Right. >> Right. Which could but the thing to keep in mind federally there is a this is a bizarre wrinkle but federal law has a definition of domestic terrorism which this seems to satisfy to me. It's that basically if you commit an act because you're trying to influence or intimidate public policy and and all that. The problem is there's no crime that goes with it. It's just the definition floating nowhere. There's no federal crime. It sounds crazy. There's no federal crime of domestic terrorism. You can Google it. You'll find a statute that says dome do domestic terrorism is ABC, but there's not a crime that goes with it. So, you're going to have to use one of those gun crimes or interstate crimes if you want a federal hook. >> Um, by the way, this collection of evidence, you mentioned it before, right? So the firearm, the palm prints, the forearm prints, the shoe impressions, the surveillance footage. What are the legal issues that prosecutors facing to make sure that that evidence is collected properly, that it is uh not contaminated in any way, but also that it can be properly introduced as evidence at a trial. Yeah. So number one is you have to maintain the authenticity, the security, and the chain of custody of it, right? You can't just have law enforcement officers like kicking it around. You have to make sure whoever finds a piece of evidence document, you know, preserves it as is photographically video. Now, um, takes it into custody without contaminating it, right, with the proper precautions. And, you know, this is like nuts and bolts stuff, but it's important, right? Seals it off, signs the bag, right? You would typically initial or sign right on the evidence bag. If you're going to transfer custody from the Utah State Police over to the FBI, that has to be documented. You have to be able to take every piece of evidence and trace it from the courtroom back to the ground of the roof where it was found, right? You have to make sure that's all locked in. You also want to make sure that everything that is seized is seized constitutionally. So, let's say, for example, they get an address on this guy. You want to have a warrant. I guarantee you they already have a warrant mostly written out, a search warrant written out because there's some argument that you could go into the an apartment like let's say you get an address on an apartment that you could go in on some sort of exception, emergency, exigency, whatever. But why risk it? just you will have a judge. If I'm prosecuting this case, I will have the onduty judge. I will have his number ready. He will know that I might call him at any moment and I have every piece of that warrant written except for, you know, just whatever I need to fill in, right? But I would have the basics already laid out, you know, on >> September, whatever it was 11 was 11. Yeah, September 10th at whatever time this happened. I would have it all, it would be in a document ready to just fill in what I needed. You get a warrant. you better cross your tees, dot your eyes, you know, belt suspenders, every every one of those expressions you can think of. Can you imagine if they did something and it it was violated the Fourth Amendment, if they did a search that was unlawful and lost the piece of evidence, if they interrogated him in a way that violated his Fifth Amendment rights, it would be disastrous. >> That's why I always say in these very high-profile cases, and particularly in cases uh where there is so much evidence against a criminal defendant, it may take a little extra time. And I always say for those crimes like the ones that are the most high-profile, you you have to be even more careful. You prosecutors have to ensure that they are doing everything they're supposed to do because the worst thing that would happen, right, is let's say they get a conviction, it's overturned or you know, case is thrown out. I mean, what do you say to the victim's family? >> It happens. It happens sometimes. People lose cases on on on those technical >> should be in every case, but in particularly a high-profile one. >> Yeah, of course. Of course. Um, yeah, you have to make sure that you are completely buttoned up. And again, air on the side of safety. Do the right thing. And by the way, while we're at it, may I criticize Cash Patel for a moment? >> I was going to ask you about that. So, there was a lot of just a lot of confusion, I think, is the best way to say it because there was reporting about a person of interest who had been identified, right? That's what we're talking about, this photo. Uh, there was talk about a subject being taken into custody and released after interrogation. That's what FBI director Cash Patel had mentioned. Uh there is a distinction between person of interest and subject and suspect. I mean the the communication through X yesterday seemed to suggest they they got the killer. I >> I saw it and I I think who I was whoever I was with, I don't want to say, but whoever I was with, I just went, "Oh, they got him. Good." That's what I thought. >> Yeah. And then however many minutes later, oh, cash. Oh, whoops. You cannot What was that? >> There is a It was It was an FUP. It was amateurism. There is an obligation in a case like this to keep the media, the public informed, right? People recognize that whether it's the governor or the state police superintendent, whatever. You do have an obligation to keep us updated. But you can't get out ahead of yourself like that. That is the nightmare scenario where you basically tell people we got the guy and then you didn't. Like that is just look, Cash Patel, it's a rookie move by Cash Patel. He's never worked in law enforcement. I think he was maybe a local prosecutor or defender or something. >> But wasn't the wasn't the message? It was not like we have the killer or we have the suspect, we have the subject. >> Yeah. But right subject is a technical term to some extent. I mean it usually means in DOJ federally when Cash Patel is federal, it means a person who we are potentially going to indict. It's it's like target subject and then just witness. So it's that middle class. But you you can't even put something like nobody in the general public is going to make that distinction. You just you know you just can't say anything until you know you have the guy. >> You've covered these cases all the time. Do you feel confident that they are going to find this suspected shooter? Because yeah, >> $100,000 reward. >> I do think they're going to find him. And here's why. So yesterday when this happened, I said there's three things. They need at least one and hopefully all three of them in order to get this guy. Gun gun stuff, you know, gun, ammo, shell casings, all anything like that. So ballistics is number one. Vehicle is number two. I don't think they have that yet. And an image is number three. So they have ballistics and they have an image. They have to know who this guy is. I'm sure they know who he is. I'm sure they're at his home. I'm sure they're at his, if he's a college student, as we've seen some reporting, at his dorm, I'm sure they're talking to everybody who knows him. I think given those two things, they will almost certainly find him. But I was nervous because there's a scenario where they don't have if look, it's one shot probably if he scoops up his shell, his spent shell casing, gets out of there, takes the the firearm with him. Let's say they don't have a surveillance, they don't know what vehicle, or maybe he doesn't use a vehicle, maybe he runs somewhere. Like, there's a way this could drag out. and it still might, but but I think because they have imagery and ballistics, they have to know his name and the movement. So now they put out that picture of the potential uh person of interest. Okay, that's the criminal side. Real quickly, I want to ask you about a civil side. Why >> I'm curious about civil liability. Uh according to NBC, Utah Valley University Police Chief Jeff Long indicated that there were only six police officers at this Charlie Kirk speaking event. You had 3,000 people, remember? and indicated that quote there were some plane close plane close officers that were in the crowd as well. We train for these things and you think you have things covered and these things unfortunately they happen you try to get your bases covered and unfortunately today we didn't because of that we had this tragic incident. Now, apparently Charlie Kirk did have his own security team, and there was coordination between Long and Kirk's team leader, but I mean, I do have to ask, is the university potentially legally liable in a wrongful death, a negligent suit? Because Ellie, let me just couple this with one more thing. >> There has been reporting that the security there may have been lax. You had an attendee named Tyler Mceddigan who told NBC News he was surprised that he wasn't asked to go through security to get in that while you needed a ticket for the event, he said he didn't need it to get to the actual area where Charlie Kirk was speaking. Quote, "No one checked the barcode or the QR code. There was no checkpoint to get in. It was literally anyone could walk in if they wanted. There was other reporting that there were no metal detectors posted outside of the event." Um, so let's start right there. If that is true and that was what was going on, does the university suffer any kind of liability? >> So, it's interesting. At first, we were talking about the local police department. You're not going to be able to sue a police department for negligence, right? That there's there's civil immunity, all that. The university could for sure for negligence, for failure to take due care. One complicating factor though is the university will probably argue none of that mattered. There's no but for if the guy was a shooter outside whatever the perimeter was 2,000 or excuse me 200 yards away whether they check codes or you know let you know um for the actual crowd doesn't end up leading to this actual killing. There might be an argument though that they were negligent in not setting up a broader perimeter in however this kid gets up to the roof. We don't know that. Um, so yeah, I mean look, it wouldn't at all shock me to see lawsuits. People can bring long suits lawsuits against the university for negligence, for wrongful death, even perhaps for some of the bystanders for infliction of emotional distress. >> I was going to ask you that. Um, there is one thing for us to see those videos, but to be in that crowd >> to see it and then flee for their lives, >> not knowing what was going to happen. Um, is do those any of those people have a legitimate valid legal claim for, let's say, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional. >> It would have to be negligent presumably. Nobody, you know, nobody intended for this to happen. But yeah, I think we could see that. We could see a class action. We could see a group bonding deal. You know, a lot of times these cases just end up end up settling out. I mean, if you're a university, you going to go to trial, you know what I mean, against these people who who were in attendance. So, there are some important uh civil cases that could come out of this as well. Obviously, the criminal is first and foremost in mind. And uh I don't know, let's just pray they get this kid quick. I keep calling him kid. He looks young, but this guy quickly. >> Well, they said that this person was able to like ingratiate themselves into the college community pretty easily. Listen, Ellie Honig, thank you so much for coming on. I kind of want you to write another book just so you can be able to come back on here. Uh and >> I will come back regardless of the book. I promise. It's a blast. >> But it is great. I started reading it. It's a really really good read if you're interested in prosecutions, investigations, how it works behind the scenes, little bit of mix of politics and law too. Ellie Honing, such a pleasure. Thank you so much. Great. >> And that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time. [Music]
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.