Charlie Kirk Assassination: DNA Evidence Revealed at Preliminary Hearing

Summary

Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Episode: Charlie Kirk Assassination: DNA Evidence Revealed at Preliminary Hearing
Date: July 8, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this gripping episode, host Donna Rotunno provides a detailed breakdown of day two in the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, the accused gunman in the highly publicized assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Alongside legal correspondent Chanley Painter and former FBI agent/professor Greg Rogers, the team delves into the most significant evidence presented so far—including high-quality surveillance video, DNA findings, and the psychological and societal impact of the murder. Thoughtful analysis is provided regarding legal strategy, media coverage, and the unique context of this shocking crime.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Critical Evidence Unveiled in Court

• Surveillance Footage:
  • Never-before-seen video trails Tyler Robinson across campus: arriving, parking, changing clothes, exhibiting a limp (possibly concealing a weapon), seen coming down from the roof post-shooting, and disposing of the rifle in the woods. (01:21–02:20)
  • Quote: “This was pretty high quality video. … and now, Donna, we’re finally getting to the deep DNA evidence here, which is really a smoking gun…” — Chanley Painter (02:19)
• DNA & Forensic Evidence:
  • DNA links Robinson to the murder weapon, ammunition, the rooftop crime scene, fingerprints, and palm prints.
  • Quote: “It ties Tyler Robinson to the murder weapon, to the ammunition, to the crime scene, the roof, his fingerprint, his palm print there. Allegedly. So big evidence coming in today.” — Chanley Painter (02:22)

2. The Impact of Video Evidence

• Emotional Reactions in Courtroom:
  • Even the judge was visibly affected when viewing the video.
  • Quote: "What a moment for him to re… I don't know if you guys have seen the video. I happened upon it accidentally and wish I had never seen it. … the judge showed that he was human. He's just like all of us." — Chanley Painter (08:49–09:26)
• Media and Courtroom Transparency:
  • Discussion over whether cameras should be allowed in court; the tensions of public access vs. privacy/decency.
  • Quote: “The fact that this has had such a polarizing view as to whether or not cameras should be in the courtroom… I keep thinking about the irony of Charlie’s entire life and then death right on display…” — Donna Rotunno (10:04)

3. Legal Strategies: Defense & Prosecution

• Defense Tactics:
  • Focus on gaps in video, edits, alternative theories, and minor details (such as unrelated holsters and stray bullets), likely aiming for the avoidance of the death penalty.
  • Quote: “I think the defense in this case is essentially to try to alleviate the possibility of the death penalty. The physical evidence, the forensic evidence… this isn’t a case you win on the facts.” — Greg Rogers (12:30)
• Prosecutorial Approach:
  • The prosecution is holding a lengthy preliminary hearing (unusual for Utah), possibly to establish overwhelming probable cause and reduce appeal risks.
  • Quote: “You just need to establish probable cause. … you could have literally put on one case agent who could have said, you know, done a little bit of the video, shown that, and then you could have put on his essential confession. … That’s more than probable cause.” — Greg Rogers (16:51–17:14)

4. Campus Context & Societal Impact

• University and Event Atmosphere:
  • Utah Valley University’s culture, with many present for Kirk’s talk; described as a relaxed, outdoor setting unexpectedly disrupted by violence.
  • Quote: “…this took place … at a place where freedom of speech and listening to ideas that even you may not agree with is… supposed to happen at universities?” — Greg Rogers (06:22)
• Lasting Trauma for Community:
  • Grieving process for Kirk’s family, university students, and the broader political community.
  • Personal anecdotes highlight the rippling psychological cost (e.g., Rotunno's mother’s near-miss with disaster).

5. The Crime Scene: Security Failures & Conspiracy Myths

• Sniper Pad & Law Enforcement Critique:
  • Discussion over how Robinson could set up a “sniper pad” on the roof in clear sight, with no one noticing—raising questions about campus security measures.
  • Dismissal of conspiracy theories about Robinson being a trained foreign operative; described as amateurish in execution. (18:43–19:41)
  • Quote: “This was a very amateur setup of a sniper pad on a white roof where everyone could see him… and mistakes were made. … Not seeing that… there should have been drones up.” — Greg Rogers (19:05–19:41)

6. Open Carry Laws & Red Herrings

• Utah’s Gun Laws:
  • Utah recently moved from concealed to open carry, except in certain venues. Legal discussion ties into defense distractions over miscellaneous gun-related evidence. (23:27–24:23)
• Red Herrings in Defense:
  • Frequent objections and focus on irrelevant details are seen as sowing seeds for appeals and distracting from overwhelming evidence.
  • Quote: “There are so many red herrings in this case… bullet casing in a hallway… a holster… just picking out things that don’t matter.” — Chanley Painter (20:56)

7. No Reasonable Doubt and the Role of Family

• Strength of Prosecution Case:
  • Multiple forms of evidence remove reasonable doubt: video, DNA, fingerprints, direct confession, and parents’ identification of their son on camera. (24:36–25:57)
  • Quote: “This is a case… where you’ve got video of the event… the actual weapon… DNA… fingerprints… and a confession. You can’t ask for anything more.” — Greg Rogers (24:50–25:17)
  • Robinson’s parents called police, recognized him in the footage—highlighting the tragedy and gravity.

8. Looking Ahead: Legal Procedures and Potential Outcomes

• Death Penalty Negotiations:
  • Discussion of aggravating factors in capital cases and how prosecutors often use the threat of the death penalty as leverage for a plea.
  • Precedents from similar cases (e.g., Kohlberger).
  • Quote: “If he were to say, I’ll take a life sentence with no possibility of parole, just take the death penalty off the table, I think the prosecution would have to give that serious thought.” — Greg Rogers (13:57)
• Upcoming Testimony:
  • Anticipation of testimony/statements from Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twigs, and the continued strategic maneuvering by both sides.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “This was pretty high quality video… now, Donna, we're finally getting to the deep DNA evidence here, which is really a smoking gun…” — Chanley Painter (02:19)
• “It tells stories… shows the mindset of someone, the premeditation, the planning that went into scoping out the campus, bringing a change of clothes, returning even after the crime to try to cover his tracks. And it really is incriminating.” — Chanley Painter (02:54)
• “What a moment for him to re… I don't know if you guys have seen the video. I happened upon it accidentally and wish I had never seen it. … the judge showed that he was human. He's just like all of us.” — Chanley Painter (08:49)
• “The fact that this has had such a polarizing view as to whether or not cameras should be in the courtroom… I keep thinking about the irony of Charlie’s entire life and then death right on display…” — Donna Rotunno (10:04)
• “This isn’t a case you win on the facts… The physical evidence, the forensic evidence, the fact that you essentially have a confession.” — Greg Rogers (12:30)
• “This was a very amateur setup of a sniper pad on a white roof where everyone could see him… mistakes were made. And not seeing that, it's almost, I have a hard time getting my hands around how he wasn't seen.” — Greg Rogers (19:05)
• “There are so many red herrings in this case… They found a bullet casing… a holster… just picking out things that don’t matter.” — Chanley Painter (20:56)
• “This is a case… where you’ve got video of the event… weapon… DNA… fingerprints… and a confession. You can’t ask for anything more.” — Greg Rogers (24:50)
• “His dad looked at it and said, that’s my kid.” — Greg Rogers (25:56)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• [01:21] Surveillance video and DNA evidence discussed
• [08:49] Impact on the judge and community
• [12:30] Strength and legal strategy of the defense/prosecution
• [16:51] Probable cause and hearing duration
• [18:43] How the sniper pad went unnoticed
• [20:56] Dissecting defense's alternate theories/red herrings
• [23:27] Gun laws and their influence on the case
• [24:36] Overwhelming case against Robinson
• [25:56] Family involvement in identification and confession

---

Conclusion

This episode is a meticulous legal and forensic deep dive into the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, accused in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The balanced, candid discussion between Rotunno, Painter, and Rogers is marked by insider legal commentary, honest emotional responses, and critical questions about courtroom transparency, legal maneuvering, and institutional responsibility. The episode underscores the overwhelming weight of evidence against Robinson while probing deeper issues of safety, trauma, and justice in contemporary America.

Transcript

[A]

And we're live from the living room as Doug eyes up the Match Day spread. He's reaching for the buffalo wing. Perfect. Hang on. What's this? Oh, he's gone for a can of Pepsi, too. Incredible. What a finish. Sensational combination. Look at the delight on his face. There's no doubt about it. It just tastes better. Match days deserve Pepsi. Food deserves Pepsi. Grab a pack of Pepsi. Zero sugar. For today's match. It's poetry. In mot.

[B]

This is crime and justice. I'm Donna Rotuno here on the ground in Utah. It's day two for the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, the alleged gunman and the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Today we're joined by former FBI agent Greg Rogers. Greg is now an adjunct professor at nearby Utah Valley University, where Charlie Kirk was killed. But first, let's go to Chanley Painter with the latest from inside the courtroom.

[C]

Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox News wineshop.com with code FNRADIO20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31, 2026.

[B]

Must be 21.

[A]

Order to order.

[C]

Please drink responsibly.

[B]

Chanley, why don't you bring us up to speed about what happened inside the courthouse today?

[D]

Sure. So today has been another slow day of evidence, but we returned with the lead investigator on the stand and he showed the court never before seen surveillance video from Utah Valley University on the day of the shooting. And it tracks Tyler Robinson, the gun. The investigator said, this is Tyler Robinson who we see from arriving on campus, parking his car, getting out of his car, walking kind of scoping out the campus. At one point, he returns in different clothes. Clothes, but the same shoes and has sort of a limp. In the video, they surmise that he has the weapon in his leg pant. And they have video of him on the roof coming down from the roof after the shooting and into the woods where they believe he dropped his rifle. So really detailed video and really high quality video, if you consider what we think of surveillance video these days, can be pretty grainy. But this was pretty high quality video. So that was this morning. And now, Donna, we're finally getting to the deep DNA evidence here, which is really a smoking gun because it ties Tyler Robinson to the murder weapon, to the ammunition, and to what the crime scene, the roof, his fingerprint, his palm print there. Allegedly. So big evidence coming in today.

[B]

Well, and what I found really captivating about what we saw on those videos was this was the first time we actually saw the video evidence. We've seen photo stills, yes. From those videos, but it was very hard to tell and very difficult. I think in the context of watching it happen as it plays out versus just a still, it's much easier to put in context.

[D]

Yeah, it kind of tells stories.

[B]

Yeah, it does. And I think it shows maybe the

[D]

mindset of someone, the premeditation, the planning that went into scoping out the campus, bringing a change of clothes, returning even after the crime to try to cover his tracks. And it really is incriminating.

[B]

And I think it also goes to some of the other evidence that we've either already heard about or we know is coming, but things that have already been put out into the press, things like Tyler Robinson saying, I changed my clothes. And then you're watching it play out.

[D]

So it all kind of corroborates.

[B]

What we're going to do today is I'm going to keep everybody for the full time and we're just going to have a great conversation. This is a little different than what we normally do. I love having everybody with me instead

[D]

of in studio and on location.

[B]

Yeah, the location's great. Hot, but it's absolutely beautiful with the mountains behind us. So, Greg, tell us a little bit about what you do at Utah Valley and what you did before you got to Utah Valley.

[C]

I was. Before I was FBI agent for 30 years. I worked violent crimes. The last 20 years of my career, I was undercover, so I rode with motorcycle gangs, went all over Southeast Asia chasing.

[B]

You fit in, Greg?

[C]

Yeah, no, I get that a lot.

[B]

I love it.

[C]

I get it a lot from people who say, you don't look like an FBI agent. And I always say, well, that was the point.

[B]

That's right.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

But. But then you. They make us retire at 57, so. Or I'd still be doing it. I was having so much fun. But the. So when I retired, I started teaching at Utah Valley University, and I teach a class on serial killers because I worked a lot of those types of cases. So it's behavioral profiling and serial killer cases, and I really enjoy doing that because you get to mentor the students and help them in their careers. Most of the students in those in that class want to be cops or feds, so it's. So, yeah.

[B]

I'm sure you talked a lot about CO Burger in that case.

[C]

Yep, A whole lot.

[B]

Probably a lot about Heuerman.

[C]

Yep. Yeah.

[B]

So those were too big. We've had two in a short period

[C]

of Time, which is unbelievable.

[B]

Little, I guess, you know, Coburger, maybe not traditional serial killer, but killing multiple people at one time.

[C]

Right, Right.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Right.

[B]

So tell us about the, the school itself, the university, kind of the makeup, what was happening the day that this awful murder of Charlie Cook took place. Kind of talk to us about the scene.

[C]

Yeah. Utah Valley University is unique in Utah. It's not. We, the, the primary big institutions that do all the research and are sort of considered the, the universities here are University Utah, of course, and Brigham Young University. Utah Valley University started as a community college and just kept growing and now it's, you know, it's a four year undergraduate institution, has some master's programs, but it's become the largest university in the state, student body wise, although a very large percentage of the students are there taking online classes. But it's a, it's a small, it's a smaller campus than the other universities and it's very. Where the outdoor sort of quadrangle was, where this took place is sort of the big place on campus to where students, like, if you go walk through there any day at lunchtime, that's where all the students are hanging out. There's a waterfall and they're all just. It's sort of where you go and relax. It's grass and it's. And so it's. So it was, you know, it was a packed event. It was. The students were really excited to have Mr. Kirk there. It's a very conservative university and so there were some protesters, to be fair, but not what you'd expect if, if Mr. Kirk had been speaking at the University of Utah. Yeah, yeah, it would have been a whole different event. But. So there was a small protest, but it was, it was packed and everybody was looking forward to it. And isn't that really the irony of the whole thing, that this took place on a. At a place where freedom of speech and, and listening to ideas that even you may not agree with is. So what's supposed to happen at universities?

[B]

Well, isn't that the truth? So I think about it all the time, and I think about not only obviously what this has done to Charlie Kirk's family and the people close to him and the community of people that loved him and listened to him and looked to him to be a voice that they couldn't be for themselves. But I look at it now and I think about all of those students. Right. That were at that event and what it does to you and how it changes you forever. Where do you ever go again and feel safe I mean, my own mother was sitting in a restaurant, and a car came through the window.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And came, you know, probably a foot away from her. She was pushed off the chair, and she said, I'll never sit next to a window again.

[C]

Right.

[B]

You know, at a restaurant. And I thought, yeah. I mean, she wasn't even hurt. Right. Thankfully. But you think about what that does to just the community, the kids that go there, and the ripple effect that something like this has. We talk about it, right. In the context of criminal cases and the work that we do, you get a little desensitized, all of us, but you really start to think about the impact something like this has. I think it's. It's quite something. Let's get into a little bit about the impact. And I want to go back to you, Chanley. Yesterday, even the judge.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You could see that there was an impact on him.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

Watching this video of the shooting. Right. And we're not even watching the video. Right. We're just watching him watch the video because of the rulings.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And the court describe for us what that was, what that looked like and what that was like.

[D]

What a moment for him to re. I don't know if you guys have seen the video. I happened upon it accidentally and wish I had never seen it. So I can imagine what he was watching. And his reaction, so innate. He couldn't control it. I mean. But it's absolutely awful to watch those videos and to see a man die in front of you in such a violent way. And the judge showed that he was human. He's just like all of us. You know, he's up there in a robe, and he's making very important decisions about the life of a person on trial, but he's still human and can see that, you know, this is going to impact not only him, but anybody who watches that video.

[B]

Well, I think that's key, Right. Because again, like I said, people who do this every day become a little bit desensitized to violence.

[D]

Very true.

[B]

But like you said, I. I saw that, too. Someone sent it to me in a text, and I had no idea what I was opening. And then you see it, and it's. It's jarring and awful and terrible. And the fact that it's out there for anybody to see is. It's just the world we live in, but it's awful. And I continue to talk about. And you know, Greg, you've been involved in a bazillion trials in your career and in federal court, as you know, There are no cameras.

[C]

Right.

[B]

So the fact that this has had such a polarizing view as to whether or not cameras should be in the courtroom, depending on what side you're on. And I keep thinking about the irony of Charlie's entire life and then death Right on display and the audacity to say we can't show Tyler Robinson's face. Yeah, right. What do you think about that? And how do you talk about that and in classes, if your students bring that up.

[C]

No, we. We had several. We. School was sort of out for a week, and then we started classes again. And so our first class back, we. This is what we talked about. And as you indicated, you know, my students that were there, they were like, you know, you're on campus, you think you're in the safest place you can be. And then all of a sudden you say it was. It was. And these are students. Again, in fairness, I sort of had to draw a little bit of a line in talking to them because I'm like. I'm telling them, I'm like, look, you all want to be cops. You want to be cops. You may end up on a homicide squad. As far as homicides go. This is tragic, but it's not. You're going to see several of these. A loop if you're on a homicide squad.

[B]

So we have Chicago.

[C]

Yeah. So we had. Yeah, we had to take out of a rough lion on that when we were talking about it. But it's. It has been interesting because in Utah State Court, again, cameras are allowed. And we mentioned earlier the Corey Richards case, you know, and everybody's watching that all day in other cases, but this one, I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but you may have somebody's grandmother just watching this out of interest, and they're going to see a video that they'd have been better off if they never saw. And so it's. So that's. This. It'll be interesting after this case how that. Because that has been an argument now in a lot of recent cases about whether they should continually continue to show everything that happens in the courtroom. And so I'll be. The video is going to be an issue in the. In the future.

[B]

Well, and speaking of video, the video evidence in this case is truly overwhelming.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

Right. So what does the defense do with that? Right. How do you counter what your eyes are seeing?

[D]

Right.

[C]

I think the defense in this case is essentially to try to alleviate the possibility of the death penalty. The. The physical evidence, the forensic evidence, the fact that you essentially Have a confession. This isn't a case you win on the facts. So I think, I think we're having the preliminary hearing gives the defense the chance to, to, you know, make a show. Make a show and to, to, you know, to see what really the prosecution has and how they're going to present it. And there is going to be a whole lot happening after the prelim. I'll be amazed if this case actually goes to trial, is sort of my opinion of it.

[B]

I mean, do you think that the prosecutors would actually back off the death penalty in order to get a plea here?

[C]

I think they should. We Kohlberger. Same thing in the Kohlberger case. They did it, gets it. You know, you can argue about pro death penalty not all day, but the, the real issue is in states like Utah, we have people on death row now who were convicted and put on death row when I was in law school in the 1980s.

[B]

And they're still, they're still there.

[C]

I mean, so 40, 50 years later.

[B]

So cracks that appeal. Yeah.

[C]

And all that. And the family has to relive that all the time. So you really have to ask yourself, if he were to say, I'll take a life sentence with no possibility of parole, just take the death penalty off the table, I think the prosecution would have to really give that some serious thought.

[B]

Well, I know that Erica Kirk has said she's not going to weigh in on that and she's whatever, you know, whatever they want to do and whatever they think is right. And so I think that makes it easier. Right.

[C]

Much easier. Some of the Kohlberger family members were not happy about it.

[B]

Correct. So you investigated tons of cases in your career. The defense seems to be making an issue during this preliminary hearing about gaps in videos. Talk to me about that. Talk to me about if it matters. Talk to me about piecing things together. How does that play out? Because remember, we used to be able to get convictions with no video. No.

[C]

Now everybody expects, if they expect video DNA. I mean, they, it's, it isn't like the old days, but there's going to be gaps and things like that. They're making an issue out of some of the edits. You know, when you're looking at a, a video, maybe eight hours, you know, if, and for instance, the whole day he was there is multiple hours where you're at a prelim, you're not going to show a four hour video. You're going to edit it and then they're going to make issues about the edit because you've Got to make issues

[B]

about something even, even at trial. I mean, you don't show jury an eight hour video. So you may show a jury a three minute clip. You admit the entire.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

You know, into evidence. So that it's in evidence.

[C]

Right.

[B]

In terms of what you're highlighting. And if the other side wants to highlight a different three minutes or 30 minutes, they have a right to do so. So I think they're making a lot out of it. I do agree with you, though. I think, and Chanley, you're an attorney, weigh in on this for me. I think that part of this is, as Greg is saying, an attempt to try to get the death penalty off the table. And if they yell enough and file enough motions and make enough objections.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

Get to the point where the prosecutors think, let's take away any opportunity.

[A]

Right.

[D]

To appeal.

[A]

Yes, I agree.

[D]

I agree. You don't have the facts. You argue the law. What is that saying? Yeah, so that's litigate every turn. And that's what they're doing.

[B]

So, you know, the videos, they don't want the videos on tv. They're complaining about what's being shown during the preliminary hearing. All of that is setting up one more appeal. Appeal, not. So I think that that's probably true. How much at this juncture do the prosecutors really need to reveal? Does a preliminary hearing need to go five days?

[C]

No, no. I've never, I've never heard of a preliminary hearing going five days. I'm sure this is a record in Utah. And I'm, I mean that seriously.

[B]

Yes, yes, for sure.

[C]

And you just need to establish probable cause. It's an overstatement. And I understand why the, why the prosecution didn't do it, but you could have literally put on one case agent who could have said, you know, done a little bit of the video, shown that, and then you could have put on his essential confession.

[D]

Right.

[C]

To his roommate and maybe some DNA. Yeah. And game over. That's more than probable cause.

[B]

During the course of my investigation, I found this. I met with this person, I talked to this person. We had this tested result. Yes. It's very interesting.

[C]

Yeah. In, in, in Utah, they have, as they're doing with his roommate, but the 1102 statement. So you don't even have to call the person individually. I've been to more preliminary hearings in Utah where, you know, really violent crimes where the prosecution literally just submits 1102 statements of the alleged victims and then they sit down. That's it.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And that's probable cause. And the Judge binds it over and then you get ready for trial.

[B]

Right. And for everybody jumping up and down, screaming and yelling, if this case goes to trial, Lance will have to come in and testify.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

You know, they can't use a statement, and the only way they can use the statement is if he says something different than writing that statement. But otherwise, it's not like they get to give two bites at the apple. They have to bring them in. So it's kind of interesting. Let's talk about Greg, the sniper pad. So how did all of that sort of go unnoticed? Right. Because you see what that looks like. You can even see the school. Right from the highway as I was driving. You see the top of that building. How do you think he was able to get up there? We see him getting off the roof. So how do you think all that happened without anybody noticing? I know. I think somebody said they thought it was police.

[C]

It's, I'd heard that from some of the students, but I'm a, during my FBI career, I was a sniper on the SWAT team for a long time. So I'm very familiar with that. And it was interesting because right after that, one of the conspiracy theories was that he was, that this sniper was

[A]

a,

[C]

you know, some foreign government trained sniper. And I'm like, no, he wasn't. And this was that very night I was talking to him like, no, he wasn't. I said this was a very amateur setup of a sniper pad on a white roof where everyone could see him.

[A]

Right.

[C]

And is as much as I tell my students, when mistakes are made, you have to admit mistakes were made. And mistakes were made. And not seeing that, it's, it's almost, I have a hard time getting my hands around how he wasn't seen. There should have been drones up.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

And he's all in black, laying on a white roof within 200 yards of the tent. I, I, I don't know how that was missed.

[B]

Yeah. Especially given with what we've watched with Trump almost being, you know.

[D]

Exactly.

[B]

More than one time.

[C]

Right.

[B]

Yeah. That was surprising to me. So your students were here yesterday.

[C]

Were. Some of them.

[B]

So tell me about that. Did you talk to any of them?

[C]

Yeah. And they're very interested. They're following this and yeah. Especially the criminal justice ones, because I've been telling them, you should go see how it goes in court. And especially the ones who want to be cops, because I'm telling them that's going to be you on the stand someday. And you got to be prepared. You have to know what you're doing because any mistakes you made, a good defense attorney is going to find them and they're going to. They're going to beat you over the

[B]

head and a good prosecutor is going to yell at you. They're going to say, we're not your case until you go get us.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

Get us some new evidence. So we've heard Chanley, the defense, talking about some alternative theories, and they're kind of just laying a little bit of groundwork. They're kind of just crossing the line. Talked about me a little bit about that. With this holster and maybe another fired

[D]

weapon, does it mean so many red herrings in this case they're taking.

[A]

They.

[D]

Did someone on that defense team have the sole assignment of going through all of the paperwork and just picking out things that don't matter? That's what it sounds like to me. Oh, they found a bullet casing in a hallway of the building. Oh, let's. That was something. There's a holster, you know, on the ground that has nothing to do with this. It's not even a rifle holster. That's going to be. So I think they really are trying to just pick apart any little detail that they can. That. That has trivial, nothing to do with this case. And just it. At this stage, it surprises me because it's a judge. Judge knows better for a jury. I see that a lot with the defense attorneys and jurors typically don't know any better. And they may think, oh, that must be a big deal.

[B]

Right.

[D]

Because the defense attorney is focusing so much time on this holster or whatever it may be, so they could be distracted. But at this stage, it surprises me that they're being so trivial, just minor matters and objecting constantly.

[B]

And I also think it takes away a little bit from what you might do during the trial.

[D]

Very true.

[B]

Really show your hand. And if those are points you really want to try to make, to try to help you in any way. And again, maybe Greg's right. Maybe this case never goes to trial. Talk to me about what benchmarks are needed in Utah to seek the capital punishment here.

[C]

You have to have. It can't just be. And it's. I always. It's always an awkward way to explain it because any homicide is, of course, horrific. But it can't just be a normal homicide. There have to be aggravating factors. In this case. You heard the prosecution in their opening talk about how the fact that there were children in the line of the bullet shot. There's also a political overtone to this one. So There have to be these aggravating factors, and there's a ton of them laid out in the statute, but, you know, you have to cite those. So. But then again, oftentimes prosecution might bring a capital case in an effort to get the plea. So that may also be going on, too. The prosecution may be. But, you know, you never. Those discussions all happen after the prelim. So when the prelims over, both discussions are going to start and. No, no, no. And so that's. It becomes a heated negotiation process once it's bound over and you have an actual trial date.

[B]

So Utah Valley University. I know Utah is a concealed carry state. Can you have.

[C]

It's an actually open carry now. They just. It was concealed carry, and about a year ago, maybe 18 months ago, they made it open carry.

[B]

So my husband will move me here.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. So you can. Open carry applies to you. There are certain businesses, like bars, football games, other events that can say, you can't bring a firearm in college campus.

[D]

No, no.

[B]

That's what I was thinking with the holsters and all these things. I thought if you're allowed to have guns.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Anybody running away.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Or you pull out your own gun because you hear there's a shooter, a shot fired, and then you run away. And so to me, that's the first thing I thought of. I said, wait, this is a state that allows this?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, so that's. I think that's kind of interesting. So do you think that. And I know I already know the answer to this question. I don't know why I'm answering it or asking it. Is there any room here for any reasonable doubt? No, I don't think so.

[C]

No. It's a, it's an overwhelming case. And it again, and I'm the biggest believer in the world of everybody has the right to very competent counsel, and they have the right to.

[D]

Yes.

[C]

Contest what they've been charged with. But this is a case, and it's not an exaggeration where you've got video of the event happening, you have the actual weapon, you have DNA on the stock and on. On the fingerprints on the trigger on the sniper hide, and you have a confession. You can't ask for anything more.

[D]

Right, right. Right.

[C]

So, I mean, you. They've got, They've got all the basics.

[D]

He turned himself in.

[C]

Right.

[D]

I did it.

[C]

It was, you know, and I help

[B]

him get rid of the death penalty.

[D]

Sure.

[C]

Yeah. I've talked with my students about that a lot. About the fact that his parents called the cops. That's That's. I. That's amazing. It's laudable. And I think that's. But it's. I can't imagine anything more difficult to do. But it's

[B]

fair as parents, too.

[C]

Yeah. But it's difficult to say that that's not him in the video when what happened was his dad looked at it

[D]

and said, that's it.

[C]

That's my kid. Yeah.

[B]

So let's talk a little bit more about Lance Twigs because we're anticipating that he's coming. The video is coming in because here says admissible.

[C]

Right.

[B]

Right. So they don't. They don't have the right to cross examine him. This is not a fact finding mission for the defense.

[C]

Right.

[B]

Not Right. So they just. He gets to just. They get to put his statement in. This is what the evidence would show if this case will be trial. And obviously exculpatory evidence is different. Cross examination is different. Right. Exculpatory evidence. What that means for people listening and watching is if there was something out there that would exonerate Tyler Robinson, of course they would have to bring that up and the defense would have a right to do that. And if there was some alibi and he was somewhere else and they could prove he was in Europe or, you know, but that's not the case here. So it'll be interesting to see what happens when Lance's statement comes in. We'll be interesting to see how this plays out and where it goes, but would love to have you back once we know where it's going. This has been fascinating. Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions, or theories and we will answer them on air. Stitch fix, stop shopping.

[D]

Get styled.

[C]

A plus on the outfit.

[B]

Ms. Turner, you are about to slay parent teacher conferences. Oh, these just the most perfect fitting jeans my stylist sent me.

[D]

Oh, hello, you who didn't set one foot in a mall and still looks amazing. Just share your size, style and budget and your stylist sends personalized looks right to your door. Stitch Fix, get started today@stitch fix.com to

[B]

my stylist, this look is dedicated to you.

[A]

Thank you.

[D]

Thank you.