Megyn Kelly and Legal Experts Examine Forensic Ballistics Evidence in High-Profile Shooting Case Involving Tyler Robinson
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Turkey Tom Reveals Never-Before-Seen Information on Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs Leading Up to Charlie Kirk Assassination
47:03
Washington County Sheriff Details Tyler Robinson's Surrender Following Charlie Kirk's Death in Utah
9:55
Roger Stone Raises Critical Questions About Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and FBI Timeline
16:49
Megyn Kelly and Legal Experts Examine Forensic Ballistics Evidence in High-Profile Shooting Case Involving Tyler Robinson
Megyn Kelly sits down with legal experts Andrew Kolvet and Mark Geragos to discuss the controversial forensic evidence in the Tyler Robinson case. The conversation centers on a critical detail that has sparked widespread debate: the absence of an exit wound despite a high-powered rifle being used, and the ATF's inability to conclusively match bullet fragments recovered from the victim to the defendant's weapon. Kelly and her guests examine whether the prosecution's ballistics analysis holds up to scrutiny, the science behind bullet fragmentation, and what exculpatory evidence means for the defense. With expert testimony suggesting that ballistics matching may be questionable forensic science, this discussion raises important questions about the strength of the state's case and the integrity of evidence presented in modern criminal prosecutions.
A significant debate has emerged surrounding the shooting case involving Tyler Robinson, with many questioning key forensic details. Megyn Kelly addresses one of the most contentious issues: the absence of an exit wound despite the use of a high-powered rifle. Kelly notes that while many people, including gun experts online, have questioned this detail, the Daily Mail reported that the bullet fragmented inside the victim's body, citing experts who confirmed this can happen even with rifle ammunition.
Legal expert Andrew Kolvet explains that this is not unusual. He points out that anyone can research examples of high-powered rifle rounds that have been fired into human bodies without resulting in an exit wound, with the bullet being captured within the body. Kolvet emphasizes that terminal ballistics—how a bullet functions in whatever it ultimately strikes—is a matter of probability, not certainty.
While someone firing a 30-06 round into a human body would likely see it completely traverse the body with an exit wound, Kolvet stresses this is not a certainty. Bullets can behave unpredictably upon impact, taking 90-degree turns or entering horizontally and traveling down into the body. These occurrences, while unexpected, happen often enough that they are neither shocking nor impossible.
ATF Testing and Inconclusive Results
Kelly raises questions about the ATF's testing procedures, particularly regarding their attempts to match bullet fragments to the rifle in question. Two reports emerged with seemingly conflicting information: one stated that authorities were unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle, while a media filing referenced an ATF summary describing a bullet jacket fragment that was compared to the rifle.
After calling the authorities for clarification, Kelly learned that both the media motion and the defense motion were referring to the same thing—there was only one fragment found or tested, not two separate tests. For whatever it's worth, some fragment of the bullet was recovered, but the ATF was unable to conclusively identify it as coming from the defendant's weapon.
Kelly questions why the ATF, being unable to make a positive identification, didn't immediately conduct more extensive testing. The state has indicated that the FBI is now in the process of conducting a second comparative bullet analysis as well as a bullet lead analysis, but these tests are not yet complete. Kelly suggests that as a prosecutor, one might delay turning over evidence to the defense until all testing is complete to try to get the best result possible showing a link.
Prosecutorial Obligations and Defense Strategy
Andrew Kolvet acknowledges the tension prosecutors face in these situations. While they are obligated to turn material over to the defense, they often like to delay as much as possible. Kolvet has seen many cases where prosecutors delay getting evidence to the defense late in the process, making it very difficult for the defense to conduct an adequate evaluation or challenge of the evidence.
He notes that prosecutor's offices sometimes take enormous volumes of evidence and bury important items within it, knowing the defense won't have time to look through everything. However, at some point, the prosecution must turn over the evidence or risk being castigated by the judge for failing to do so in a timely manner. This tends to drive prosecutors toward releasing what they have when they have it, even if it's not the totally comprehensive analysis that would ultimately result.
Legal expert Mark Geragos emphasizes that the prosecution has an obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence—evidence that would help Tyler Robinson. He explains that he has been down this road countless times in his career. The ATF's inconclusive results represent exculpatory evidence, and prosecutors have a duty under Brady to turn it over.
Geragos outlines his strategy in similar situations: he insists that his expert be present when authorities do any further testing, or alternatively, that no more testing can be done until his expert has taken a sample or reviewed all bench notes and work product. This prevents a situation where remaining exculpatory evidence might be destroyed, which could lead to a Trombetta-Youngblood motion to dismiss.
Understanding Exculpatory Evidence
Kelly asks how the inconclusive ATF results are exculpatory when, as Kolvet explained, a bullet fragment from a rifle round might not necessarily be identifiable to a specific rifle. She notes that it would be highly exculpatory if the fragment were from a 9mm or different caliber that wasn't used by Tyler Robinson, but that's not the case here—the authorities are simply saying the bullet was too damaged to positively identify it as coming from this specific weapon.
Geragos explains that under Brady and to a lesser degree Giglio, anything that diminishes the prosecution's case qualifies as exculpatory. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and when a forensic test comes back inconclusive, that by definition represents a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is exculpatory by definition, which is why the prosecution turned it over.
Furthermore, Geragos points out that the prosecution's decision to send the evidence to another agency—the FBI—for secondary testing reveals their recognition that the inconclusive results are problematic for their case. No matter how they try to couch it or diminish it publicly, they recognize the exculpatory nature of the evidence. This is precisely why the defense is focusing so heavily on this issue.
The Defense's Role and Burden of Proof
Kolvet clarifies an important legal principle: it is not the job of the defense to prove Tyler Robinson innocent. There is no legal concept of proving innocence in court. Rather, the defense's job is to prevent the state from proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In that sense, anything that does not advance the prosecution's movement toward proof beyond a reasonable doubt is helpful to the defense.
Kelly asks about the bullet lead analysis mentioned in court documents. Kolvet explains that bullet leads come in many different alloys—some harder, some softer—and these can be differentiated with laboratory testing. Authorities will test the lead from the bullet fragment and then test inside the barrel of the gun to see if those leads can be matched up, which would obviously be helpful for the prosecution.
However, Kolvet notes that whether such a match is likely is questionable. Many different bullets can be fired through a single gun, resulting in many different types of lead residue. Much lead is common among many different types of bullets, making it very difficult to get an exact match. Still, authorities are looking for anything they can use to try to tie the bullet to the gun, and if they can achieve that, it would be very helpful for the state.
Questionable Forensic Science
Kelly references a conversation with Shawn Davis at The Federalist, who has expertise in firearms and familiarity with ATF documents. Davis suggested that barrel matching and this type of comparative bullet analysis represent questionable forensic science at best. He doesn't believe it constitutes valid forensic science, and multiple courts are now reaching the same conclusion.
According to Davis, at best, forensics can tell you whether a bullet was fired from a particular make and model of gun, but it absolutely cannot conclusively determine that a bullet from gun A and not gun B when both are the same make and model. In essence, the forensic community may be asking too much of the ATF and similar agencies in expecting definitive matches.
Geragos agrees, referencing the Daubert analysis (called Sargon in California, with additional Sanchez considerations) used to challenge the scientific validity of evidence. Experts have been challenging ballistic-style evidence for years using these standards. He reminds viewers of cases from Texas involving arson evidence that was once considered state-of-the-art and was admitted in many murder prosecutions, only to later be found to be junk science.
The same type of analysis has been applied for years in various jurisdictions challenging ballistics evidence, because there are experts who characterize it as junk science. The idea of making ballistics evidence equivalent to fingerprint evidence—which also has some of its own issues—remains a hotly contested topic in legal and forensic circles.
