Tyler Robinson Case Update: Defense Attorney Analyzes Charlie Kirk Assassination Legal Strategy and Court Proceedings

[00:00] Hey guys, thanks so much for uh for

[00:01] checking out my show. I really

[00:03] appreciate it. Please click to

[00:04] subscribe. I've been trying to stay on

[00:06] top of literally every little element of

[00:09] the Charlie Kirk assassination. Uh

[00:11] especially when it comes to the case

[00:14] against the alleged assassin, uh Tyler

[00:17] Robinson. So, I want to update you on

[00:19] everything that's happened over the last

[00:22] 24 hours with Tyler Robinson. Also, in

[00:25] this episode, I'm going to speak at

[00:27] length with a defense attorney about

[00:30] Tyler Robinson's possible defenses in

[00:33] court. Uh, if this goes to trial, what

[00:37] could his defense be? And I know there's

[00:39] been all sorts of theories out there

[00:41] about whether or not he is actually the

[00:44] person who killed Charlie Kirk, but

[00:46] putting all that aside, uh, you know,

[00:48] things are different in court. You know,

[00:50] theories online might not necessarily

[00:52] fly in court. what defenses would

[00:55] actually work in a court of law. What

[00:58] have we learned so far up until this

[01:00] point um about what a possible defense

[01:02] could be? I'm going to get into all of

[01:04] that uh in a minute, but first I want to

[01:06] update you on this latest court hearing

[01:08] that just happened. Uh it was a virtual

[01:10] hearing. Uh Tyler Robinson was not on

[01:13] camera uh but he was listening and and

[01:17] he did acknowledge that he was there.

[01:19] It's actually one of the only times I've

[01:20] heard um his voice. Listen to this.

[01:23] >> Mr. Robinson, uh, I understand, is

[01:25] appearing by WebEx. Mr. Robinson, can

[01:28] you hear us?

[01:29] >> Yes, I can.

[01:30] >> So, again, he wasn't on camera, but he

[01:32] was listening. Uh, there were a couple

[01:34] of things that came up. First of all, I

[01:35] was watching because I thought perhaps

[01:37] there would be a decision made about

[01:39] whether cameras would be allowed inside

[01:42] the courtroom long term. Um, which is a

[01:45] big deal. Uh, first of all, as a member,

[01:47] like as of the media, as a reporter, I'm

[01:49] always very very pro camera. I think

[01:52] that it is important in every case for

[01:54] the public to be able to see what is

[01:56] going on. I think it makes people trust

[01:59] the process more. But especially in this

[02:01] case where there are already so many

[02:03] questions about what what actually

[02:05] happened. Um I think it would be just

[02:08] personally again as a reporter I think

[02:10] it'd be a mistake not to let the public

[02:12] see what's going on. So I thought there

[02:13] would be a decision made today. There

[02:15] was not a decision made today. The judge

[02:17] has not officially made a decision about

[02:19] whether cameras will be allowed inside

[02:22] the courtroom. So, we're going to have

[02:24] to wait on that. There were a couple of

[02:25] other decisions made, though. First of

[02:27] all, um Tyler Robinson's lawyers, and

[02:30] he's got three, by the way. He's got a a

[02:32] Utah based attorney, and then he's got

[02:33] two pretty high-profile attorneys who

[02:36] are coming in from California, uh which

[02:38] is all very expensive, paid for by

[02:40] taxpayers. But they have been fighting

[02:42] for him to be allowed to wear civilian

[02:45] clothes in court. That's what they

[02:47] called them, civilian clothes.

[02:48] Basically, not like a prison outfit,

[02:50] not, you know, like a not a a green jump

[02:52] or a orange jumpsuit, but like, you

[02:55] know, regular clothes, suit and tie or

[02:58] sweater, whatever. Uh, you remember like

[03:00] Brian Coberger was allowed to do that.

[03:01] Luigi Manion has been allowed to do that

[03:04] in some cases. Basically, the reason

[03:06] behind that is that the defense

[03:08] attorneys don't want him to look like a

[03:10] criminal because he hasn't been

[03:11] convicted, innocent until proven guilty.

[03:14] And the judge decided that he can wear

[03:17] civilian clothes. Listen to what the

[03:19] judge said. Mr. Robinson sits before

[03:22] this court presumed innocent, and that

[03:24] presumption remains unless and until

[03:27] each element of every offense charged

[03:29] against him is proved beyond a

[03:31] reasonable doubt. To date, this has not

[03:34] occurred, and the presumption of

[03:36] innocence remains. Balancing these

[03:39] factors, the court finds that Mr.

[03:40] Robinson's right to the presumption of

[03:43] innocence outweighs the minimal

[03:46] inconvenience of permitting civilian

[03:48] attire. And Mr. Robinson shall be

[03:51] dressed as one who is presumed innocent.

[03:54] Accordingly, the defendant's request to

[03:56] appear in civilian clothing for all

[03:58] pre-trial proceedings is granted. Now,

[04:01] [clears throat] remember, Tyler Robinson

[04:02] is presumed innocent at this point. Um,

[04:04] that is the way that our system works.

[04:06] The other decision the judge had to make

[04:08] is whether or not Tyler Robinson would

[04:10] remain shackled. Just like the fact that

[04:12] he uh wants to wear civilian clothes so

[04:15] that he does not appear guilty. It's the

[04:18] same with the shackles. His attorneys

[04:19] are arguing that when you shackle

[04:21] somebody and people see that on TV, they

[04:23] assume that the person is guilty.

[04:25] Ultimately, the judge ruled that the

[04:27] shackles in some form uh will stay.

[04:30] Listen to the judge on that.

[04:32] >> The court recognizes that Mr. Robinson

[04:35] has no criminal history and no record of

[04:38] misconduct while in custody. However,

[04:42] the charges he faces are extraordinarily

[04:44] serious, carrying potential penalties of

[04:47] life imprisonment or death.

[04:50] The safety of Mr. Robinson, the

[04:52] attorneys, court staff, and the public

[04:55] must remain the court's highest

[04:57] priority. The emotional nature of these

[04:59] proceedings also raise the risk of

[05:02] disruption. Given these factors,

[05:05] the defendant's request to appear

[05:07] without restraint is denied.

[05:09] >> So, Tyler Robinson right now remains in

[05:11] the Utah County jail. That's the county

[05:13] where Charlie Kirk was murdered. Uh, I

[05:16] was in Utah County a couple of weeks

[05:18] ago. I spoke with the sheriff there and

[05:20] the under sheriff um who are really I

[05:24] mean the jail is under them and he's in

[05:26] their jail. He had some interesting

[05:27] things to say about they had some

[05:29] interesting things to say about letters

[05:31] that he's receiving and then also just

[05:34] um you know what he's been like in jail.

[05:36] Listen to what the sheriff and under

[05:37] sheriff in Utah County told me.

[05:39] >> He's in your jail, right? Still.

[05:41] >> Yeah. Which is where we are now, right?

[05:43] This building.

[05:44] >> Yeah.

[05:44] >> Um has there been anything unusual with

[05:47] him in the jail? I mean, what has it

[05:48] been like having such a sort of I guess

[05:50] high-profile inmate? you know, not to I

[05:54] don't want to really talk about him

[05:55] specifically, but uh it has brought a

[05:58] lot of, you know, it

[06:01] >> it's interesting, you know, just the

[06:02] amount of uh correspondence we get for

[06:05] him, you know, people from across the

[06:07] nation that's either uh on both sides

[06:09] very upset with him or um supportive of

[06:12] him. Uh that that has been interesting

[06:15] to see. And then of course as we move

[06:17] forward into court appearances, you

[06:20] know, there's there's no question that

[06:22] uh this is a very high-profile case and

[06:25] we'll we'll remain that way. And so it's

[06:28] it's it's something that we put a lot of

[06:31] uh resource into making sure that uh

[06:34] that everything goes off right and uh we

[06:37] don't have any incidents occur with

[06:38] safety uh on either side of the spectrum

[06:41] on this and that he can get uh a fair

[06:44] trial like our constitution um requires.

[06:48] >> Is he following all the rules? You know,

[06:50] I I walked down in the jail uh a few

[06:53] days ago just to kind of check on him uh

[06:56] everything looks good. He's nothing

[07:00] strange just like everyone else. Uh so

[07:04] he's getting what he needs, what he's

[07:05] required to have, and you know,

[07:08] everybody's down there's keeping an eye.

[07:11] So yeah,

[07:12] >> the judge also made a point to say that

[07:16] um you know there have been no

[07:18] disciplinary issues with Tyler Robinson

[07:20] in jail, that he has no criminal history

[07:21] and that he's been behaving in jail. Uh

[07:24] but ultimately the judge decided that he

[07:26] still needs to have the shackles just

[07:28] because of the nature of what he's

[07:30] accused of and keeping the courtroom

[07:32] safe. Uh there was supposed to be a

[07:34] preliminary hearing which is a hearing

[07:36] when we you could actually get a lot of

[07:37] new information and evidence that was

[07:39] supposed to happen later this week.

[07:40] that's now been postponed to January,

[07:43] which really comes as no surprise to me

[07:45] um just because there's a lot of

[07:47] evidence for both sides to um to go

[07:51] over.

[07:52] >> I'm joined now by Ambrosio Rodriguez, a

[07:54] defense attorney. He's also a former

[07:56] prosecutor in California. Uh it's good

[07:58] to see you again, Ambrosio.

[08:00] >> I wanted to ask you about everything

[08:02] with Tyler Robinson, who's the obviously

[08:04] the Charlie Kirk um suspect. You know,

[08:07] interest is skyhigh right now. The judge

[08:09] emphasized that at the last hearing,

[08:11] saying that he wants to protect

[08:12] Robinson's rights. Um, a lot of people

[08:15] have questions about whether this is the

[08:17] right guy. I mean, if you look online,

[08:20] um, there's a lot of theories that this

[08:22] might not be the right person. Even when

[08:24] I was in Utah, people were coming up to

[08:25] me wanting to talk about it saying like,

[08:27] "Do you really think they have the right

[08:28] guy?" I was curious talking to you as a

[08:30] defense attorney. Um, if you were his

[08:34] lawyer, you know, what are you thinking

[08:36] right now? What do you what are possible

[08:38] defenses that you see at this point?

[08:42] >> I mean this I mean this is a very

[08:45] difficult case. Um obviously and and I'm

[08:48] talking just as as a defense attorney

[08:50] because of the level of publicity it

[08:52] has. And I I don't remember the last

[08:55] time that there was a murder case where

[08:58] at the funeral service or the memorial

[09:01] service, the not just the president of

[09:03] United States showed up, but you know,

[09:05] the entire senior White House staff and

[09:08] everybody in kind of the Republican or

[09:11] or right-wing commentators and this has

[09:14] taken and there is when it comes to

[09:17] conspiracy theories or alternative

[09:19] theories,

[09:20] there is kind of an almost, you know,

[09:22] he's kind at an Oswald level, right,

[09:25] that there's anyone but him. I I I think

[09:29] that the it's very difficult to talk

[09:31] about how to defend him given that

[09:33] there's a lot of information out there,

[09:35] but there's nothing concrete as to where

[09:37] you begin. Um, you know, there are the

[09:41] mechanics of how a murder like this

[09:44] could have happened. I I think as his

[09:47] attorney, I would begin by hiring

[09:49] experts, right? I would need a firearms

[09:52] expert. Um, a lot of times, you know,

[09:55] we're defense lawyers, we need experts

[09:57] to tell us not necessarily what to say,

[10:00] but to kind of educate us on things. Um,

[10:03] and so I'm I'm going to need a firearms

[10:05] expert. I'm going to [clears throat]

[10:06] need someone who can show me uh how that

[10:10] shot could be made from that distance.

[10:12] Um, and then I would need kind of a deep

[10:15] dive into the psychology of him and his

[10:19] family, right? because from media

[10:20] reports it's there was a confession to

[10:23] his parents um and that I think is

[10:27] really one of the most damaging part of

[10:29] evidence the most damaging uh evidence

[10:32] and I would need to start to speaking

[10:33] with the witnesses and really a lot of

[10:35] it is something we will never know

[10:38] because it's protected by attorney

[10:39] client privilege which is what does he

[10:41] tell his attorney

[10:43] >> do you think now that the death penalty

[10:46] is on the table like you know it seems

[10:49] Like at least if you listen to what

[10:50] police are saying that his parents were

[10:52] cooperative, they helped him turn him

[10:54] they, you know, pushed him to turn

[10:56] himself in, do the right thing. But it's

[10:58] unclear whether the parents are

[11:00] cooperating anymore. And the reason

[11:02] could be now it's set in that the state

[11:06] wants to execute their son. Um, and you

[11:09] know, as a parent, are you willing to

[11:11] continue to cooperate now with killing

[11:14] your son essentially? Do do you think

[11:17] that parents could end up helping his

[11:19] defense? Could things change with them

[11:21] because they realize they want to they

[11:24] want to kill him?

[11:26] >> Yeah. The I mean I I think that it's one

[11:29] thing to

[11:32] a lot of times parents will turn in or

[11:36] spouses will turn in their you know

[11:39] significant other or their children not

[11:40] really understanding the implications of

[11:42] what the punishment can be. I don't

[11:45] think they may be understood where this

[11:48] would eventually end up. Um, and you

[11:51] know, it's a

[11:55] it could be a situation where they get

[11:57] called as witnesses by the prosecution,

[12:00] right? uh as to the facts of the case

[12:03] and if it goes to death penalty, which I

[12:05] think it will uh given everything that's

[12:08] been going on, they would be called by

[12:10] the defense as witnesses uh as well

[12:14] because in a death penalty case, there's

[12:16] two phases. There's the guilt phase to

[12:18] see whether or not the case can be

[12:19] proven beyond reasonable doubt and then

[12:21] there is the penalty phase. And during

[12:24] the penalty phase, both sides, you know,

[12:26] the prosecution puts in factors and

[12:28] aggravation and the defense can put in

[12:30] factors of mitigation and that the

[12:32] parents could come in and testify during

[12:34] that time. Um, so we'll see. But, you

[12:38] know, there is a double-edged sword

[12:39] where if you made statements to the

[12:42] police, those statements are already

[12:45] made. They're already recorded. And so,

[12:48] they're limited in what they can do

[12:50] because they don't have a right not to

[12:51] testify. if they don't testify,

[12:55] they can be held in contempt. Now, we've

[12:58] seen that before and and the kind of the

[13:01] the most famous in in memory to me is

[13:03] the S Susan McDougall case with Clinton

[13:06] during the Whitewater case where she

[13:09] spent two years in federal custody

[13:11] because she refused to testify.

[13:13] So, their only alternative would be to

[13:16] refuse to testify and then be placed in

[13:19] custody. So, um, and see how long

[13:22] they're willing to stay in custody in,

[13:26] um, contempt of court.

[13:28] >> Is there a world where his parents

[13:33] switch and end up wanting to help him,

[13:37] start working with his lawyers and

[13:39] coming up with, you know, and again, we

[13:41] don't know all the details of exactly

[13:43] how the confession happened, but you

[13:46] know what I mean? Is that I guess we've

[13:48] just assumed I I do

[13:51] And look, I'm not going to answer this

[13:53] as a parent. I'll answer this I mean not

[13:55] as a lawyer. I'm going to answer as a

[13:56] parent where

[14:00] I don't see how they don't I mean just

[14:02] they I don't know them obviously. I

[14:03] don't know anything about them and but I

[14:05] don't see how you

[14:08] I I can understand them wanting him to

[14:10] be held accountable but not executed.

[14:14] And that is a level of hell for a parent

[14:17] that uh I don't wish on anyone.

[14:21] >> Is there any chance that a defense could

[14:23] be that the parents pressured him into

[14:26] confessing to something he didn't do?

[14:31] >> It could, but then you have the text

[14:33] messages,

[14:35] right? That the text that that that

[14:37] that's because my understanding is the

[14:40] parents see the picture from him going

[14:42] down the stairs. they question him about

[14:44] it. Um, and it goes from there. But even

[14:48] you don't need the parents um, in order

[14:51] to get to his state of mind and um, his

[14:57] thoughts and everything else and his

[14:59] confession really that was done through

[15:01] these text messages.

[15:03] the the the issue with the parents, it

[15:05] just it just makes it

[15:10] it just adds a level of human drama uh

[15:13] and human suffering. Uh but it doesn't

[15:16] necessarily it the prosecution doesn't

[15:19] hinge on that.

[15:21] >> Yeah. Do you think he may have been set

[15:24] up I'm just trying to think of defenses

[15:26] here like in the sense of could the

[15:28] defense try to say there's another

[15:29] suspect and he was sort of framed

[15:31] because that's one of the big theories

[15:32] online

[15:33] >> right and that that's a great question

[15:36] but for that there is the the rules

[15:39] don't allow defendant to just say

[15:42] somebody else did it right you can't

[15:44] just kind of throw conspiracy theories

[15:45] out there and the reason for that is

[15:47] that so a trial you a defendant presumed

[15:51] innocent, right? And so the prosecution

[15:54] has to provide has to prove that he's

[15:56] guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I'm sure

[15:57] everybody knows that. But if your

[15:59] defense is that somebody else did it,

[16:01] right? It was it wasn't me. It was John

[16:03] Smith. You have to provide evidence that

[16:06] you are going to put forward that John

[16:08] Smith did it, right? It doesn't have to

[16:10] be beyond reasonable doubt. And you have

[16:12] to have that evidence. You have to turn

[16:14] it over to the defense. The judge has to

[16:16] allow you to do it. So, we cannot just,

[16:19] you know, you can't call a blogger

[16:22] uh and have him or her come testify as

[16:24] to their theory as to why some it was

[16:26] somebody else. There has to be there

[16:30] there has to be facts that you can

[16:32] submit into evidence that the jury could

[16:34] make their own determination.

[16:37] >> So, you as a defense attorney can't just

[16:39] say there's someone else who did it.

[16:40] You'd actually have to figure out who

[16:42] that person is. Is that what you're

[16:43] saying?

[16:44] >> No, I don't have to prove beyond a

[16:45] reasonable doubt that somebody else did

[16:47] it. I do have to provide

[16:51] provide evidence to the court that shows

[16:54] that it could have been somebody else

[16:56] and that the jury can make their own

[16:58] determinations. So, for example, in my

[17:00] in my case that I think that John Smith

[17:02] did it. It wasn't me, it was John Smith.

[17:04] I have to have some evidence pointing to

[17:06] John Smith being culpable, being guilty,

[17:10] and that that's an alternative theory

[17:12] and that the that law enforcement

[17:15] screwed up the investigation and this is

[17:17] who they should have gone after.

[17:19] >> Okay. What about a co-conspirator? Could

[17:22] that come into play? Could they try to

[17:23] say that someone else, you know, almost

[17:27] like that he was that Tyler Robinson was

[17:29] the fall guy and there was sort of like

[17:30] a, you know, someone who pushed him to

[17:32] do it?

[17:34] Yes, but he would still have to testify

[17:37] in that situation. Like I'll go back to

[17:39] Oswald. Remember Oswald says, "I'm just

[17:41] the psy. I'm just the pathy." Right?

[17:43] Okay. If you're the pathy, then you have

[17:45] to come forward with evidence saying,

[17:47] "Who set you up? Who's who are you the

[17:51] fall for?"

[17:53] And and if it's a co-conspirator and I'm

[17:56] taking the fall, this is who did it. So,

[17:58] he would have to come forward with

[17:59] evidence.

[18:01] >> So, again, what does your gut say? I

[18:03] mean, how do you think this plays out?

[18:05] We don't have all the evidence yet, like

[18:07] you said. I mean, apparently a lot, but

[18:10] I I What's the defense going to be?

[18:16] I would have to imagine from what I know

[18:19] from media reports that he didn't do it,

[18:22] that maybe he saw it or he was in the

[18:25] area. But, but then again, then you have

[18:28] the text messages between him and the

[18:30] roommate.

[18:31] >> Yeah.

[18:32] >> Right. And those are very, you know, you

[18:35] don't even need the parents uh as

[18:37] witnesses with those text messages,

[18:42] right? And so, look,

[18:45] my

[18:47] my prediction is that he will be

[18:49] convicted

[18:50] whether or not he gets death or not. I

[18:53] think that's the real battle in this

[18:54] case. and that you have a lot of

[18:58] mitigation by the defense in order to

[19:01] spare his life, meaning he has no

[19:03] criminal record. He was a bright young

[19:05] man. Um, you know, you can very easily

[19:09] make the argument that he was

[19:10] radicalized online. Um, and that he

[19:14] acted through this radicalization and

[19:17] that he was poisoned by the internet.

[19:19] And I think that argument has a lot of

[19:24] has a lot of weight. I think more and

[19:27] more we all know people on a personal

[19:29] level that have changed dramatically uh

[19:32] and politically because of the internet

[19:34] in a way that almost become

[19:35] unrecognizable. Right? It almost makes

[19:38] that uncle who talks about politics too

[19:41] loudly during Thanksgiving and annoys

[19:42] everyone seem

[19:45] seem preferable to the kind of online

[19:47] radicalization that we see with

[19:49] co-workers, family members. Um so I

[19:54] think that will be the real legal battle

[19:56] will be trying to save his life.

[19:58] >> You mentioned the dignitaries at his

[20:00] funeral. I was just thinking about this.

[20:02] I mean, you had not only local the

[20:05] governor, which is a big position,

[20:07] saying we have the right guy, but you

[20:09] have the director of the FBI, Cash

[20:11] Patel, going public. And then you even

[20:13] have the president of the United States

[20:15] who said publicly in interviews, we got

[20:19] the guy, we got the right guy. I mean,

[20:21] if if you're a defense attorney, can he

[20:23] really get a fair trial when literally

[20:27] the president of the United States has

[20:30] said this guy is guilty?

[20:34] That's a great question, right? That

[20:36] that's a that's a great question. Um,

[20:40] and

[20:42] you know, I've never seen a I would

[20:45] imagine that the the defense attorney is

[20:49] going to make a motion to change venue,

[20:51] right? But change it to where in Utah,

[20:55] right? There's no

[20:57] where would you go in Utah? I mean, you

[20:59] would would almost want to go to a

[21:03] because this is a political case, right?

[21:05] It's a political assassination. you

[21:07] would want a blue state. Like, you know,

[21:10] give me Colorado next door. At least I

[21:13] have a chance with the jury pool to have

[21:15] a fair trial, but then you know that

[21:19] I've never heard of anything like that

[21:21] of a of a state crime being tried in a

[21:24] different state.

[21:24] >> I was going to say I've heard other

[21:25] counties, but I' I've

[21:26] >> Right. I've never Right. I never

[21:28] >> seen the worst thing the judge can say

[21:30] is no. So, uh but I don't see that

[21:33] happening because there's no physical

[21:35] jurisdiction. a judge in a Utah judge

[21:38] doesn't have any jurisdiction in the

[21:39] state of Colorado in order I mean that

[21:40] that just couldn't happen. So I don't

[21:42] know

[21:45] eventually he's going to get a trial. I

[21:48] I would imagine jury selection to take

[21:50] weeks. Um and I guess the best maybe

[21:54] thing he can do is have the trial move

[21:55] to Salt Lake City where it's a

[21:58] considered you know the more the most

[22:00] liberal part of the state of Utah. Um

[22:03] but again this is not

[22:08] it

[22:10] the defense can make the argument

[22:14] that there is that everyone has already

[22:18] made up their mind.

[22:20] I'm asking you as a potential juror not

[22:24] to do that and to do your duty as a

[22:27] juror.

[22:29] I have found that jurors take their job

[22:32] very seriously. Like serious, you know,

[22:34] you you pick a jury and you you'll get

[22:37] jackasses.

[22:39] You'll get people that are are not

[22:40] serious. They're going to be gone. But

[22:43] people take this duty very seriously. Um

[22:48] and I think you can find you'll find the

[22:52] most fair jury you can find.

[22:55] um in

[22:58] in this case because I have faith in

[23:01] people's willingness to be fair and

[23:03] impartial and I base that not on

[23:06] idealism but on experience

[23:10] >> from the beginning the governor has been

[23:12] saying that they'll go after that death

[23:14] penalty again this is like the governor

[23:15] of the state um and and the prosecutor

[23:17] too then after that

[23:19] >> I mean is there any chance there's not a

[23:22] trial because I'm just trying to think

[23:23] this through if that there that hellbent

[23:25] on the death penalty and they think

[23:27] their evidence is that good. It doesn't

[23:30] seem like they would offer a deal,

[23:32] right? And it and

[23:33] >> no, there's no deal. There's no deals to

[23:34] be had. You know, the the closest I can

[23:37] come in comparison is the Boston

[23:38] Marathon case, right? These are young

[23:41] men radicalized, commit a horrible

[23:44] crime. Um, and eventually they're

[23:47] they're death they're not on death row.

[23:50] Um, the jury wouldn't grant the death

[23:53] penalty. So,

[23:55] uh, and the same thing happened in

[23:58] Florida with, uh, one of the, um, was it

[24:01] Parkland? I forgot the name of the high

[24:02] school, um, where I think it was

[24:05] Parkland.

[24:05] >> Yeah, Parkland.

[24:06] >> Yeah. That that he didn't get the death

[24:08] penalty either.

[24:10] >> And so, look,

[24:14] I I've I've tried death penalty cases.

[24:16] There's nothing like it. asking a jury

[24:20] to sentence someone to death is like

[24:23] nothing else. Uh I remember my first

[24:25] death penalty case I lost 25 pounds and

[24:29] that that

[24:31] jurors take that more seriously than

[24:36] than I think that as portrayed in the

[24:38] media. It is not automatic uh at all.

[24:42] They take that they take that solemn

[24:44] duty very seriously. So, I don't

[24:48] I'm not convinced that them getting the

[24:51] death penalty is going to be automatic

[24:54] or easy at all.

[24:57] And in fact, the the fact that

[24:59] everyone's against him, like there's an

[25:00] an entire political establishment is

[25:02] against him

[25:04] um can very much work in his favor when

[25:07] it comes to the death penalty because

[25:10] jurors will feel like this guy doesn't

[25:12] have a chance. And we're the only ones

[25:15] we're the only ones between the mob.

[25:19] >> Are there things that you think are

[25:21] weird about this case and investigation?

[25:23] Again, there are so many people who

[25:26] have questions about the autopsy. What,

[25:29] you know, what did they find? Was there

[25:30] even an autopsy? They haven't really

[25:31] said much about an autopsy. We're not

[25:33] really sure that he uh you know, the

[25:35] roof, how he was able to get up on the

[25:38] roof, get down from the roof. uh the

[25:40] bullet not going fully through him.

[25:43] People think it doesn't make any sense.

[25:44] I mean, has anything stood out to you on

[25:46] that front?

[25:49] >> I don't have the information enough

[25:51] information to really I I think the

[25:55] problem is that at this point the

[25:58] district attorney's office in that

[26:00] county hasn't really taken the time to

[26:03] address these issues, right? because I I

[26:08] they don't have very few jurisdictions

[26:10] have the experience to deal with the

[26:13] international media and it's LA and New

[26:17] York. That's it. And

[26:20] I don't know if they've I don't know why

[26:22] they haven't had a press conference in

[26:24] which they can respond to these issues

[26:28] and whether that a bullet traveling that

[26:31] far is stopped when it hits uh something

[26:36] um you know when it hit Charlie Kirk and

[26:39] then it stopped. That doesn't surprise

[26:42] me. That's not completely out of the

[26:45] realm of possibility or reasonable

[26:47] possibility of what a bullet would do

[26:49] once it strikes, especially from that

[26:51] distance. If it was at a short distance

[26:54] from six feet away, sure. But we're

[26:56] talking it was what, a couple hundred

[26:58] yards?

[26:59] >> Think about

[27:00] >> Yeah.

[27:01] >> Right. And then the fact that it finally

[27:03] I mean the [clears throat] bullet itself

[27:05] was eventually you know bullets don't

[27:07] travel forever and once they hit

[27:10] something they will stop especially from

[27:11] that kind of a distance.

[27:13] >> Yeah.

[27:14] >> Um I mean you can kind of go on there's

[27:17] the fact that there are a lot of

[27:20] unexplained things at this point I think

[27:23] has a lot to do with the district

[27:25] attorney's office not meeting the moment

[27:28] when it comes to press and media

[27:30] relations. H we thought the judge would

[27:34] make a decision about cameras. That's

[27:36] come up whether they're going to allow

[27:38] cameras longterm in the courtroom. Uh

[27:40] and he did not make a decision and sort

[27:42] of said he's still waiting for more

[27:44] input from both sides. It just seems to

[27:47] me with a case with this many different

[27:52] theories and public interest like it

[27:54] would be kind of crazy not to have

[27:55] cameras. And I don't know if that's just

[27:56] me from a reporter perspective or

[27:59] >> Yeah. I mean, look, I think I think it

[28:02] has everything to do with the

[28:04] disposition of the judge and who he is

[28:06] as a person. If he's because no one

[28:10] wants to be no judge wants to be judge

[28:13] again. All right, with all due respect

[28:15] to Judge Ido. Um, and every judge,

[28:19] especially if you're my age or older,

[28:21] just remembers the Simpson trial and

[28:24] what bringing cameras did for the

[28:26] Simpson trial. and you're taking a the

[28:29] risk of everything, you know, having it

[28:32] publicized on TV and it's

[28:37] it

[28:39] he may just not want he might he might

[28:42] prefer the commentary and conspiracies

[28:46] online than the reality of having

[28:49] cameras in his courtroom for months. But

[28:52] if you actually want people to have

[28:54] faith in the process and believe the

[28:56] evidence, which they already don't,

[28:58] like, isn't that important?

[29:01] >> Yeah, it is. I don't disagree with you.

[29:05] Um I think that uh I'm not sure what I

[29:08] would do as the judge. I would probably

[29:10] um side on the uh side on allowing the

[29:14] cameras to let the light in for everyone

[29:16] to see the the evidence. Uh I also think

[29:19] that there's a certain level there's a

[29:21] certain population that isn't going to

[29:23] believe that it wasn't him

[29:26] >> no matter what.

[29:27] >> No matter what. Yeah.

[29:28] >> The judge did make a decision that they

[29:30] are going to allow him to wear civilian

[29:32] clothes. Um but he'll have to remain

[29:35] shackled but he will get to wear the

[29:36] civilian clothes.

[29:38] >> What do you think of that move? I think

[29:40] that's appropriate and I've done it uh

[29:42] in my cases where there's media uh high

[29:45] media uh attention and especially during

[29:49] the process of going back and forth to

[29:51] court. You know, these images are going

[29:53] to be shown over and over again. That

[29:55] way the your your jury pool has an image

[29:59] of him in a young man in a suit as

[30:01] opposed to a young man in in you know

[30:04] county yellow or orange or whatever

[30:06] color they have in that county.