Can Twiggs be Charged? David Gelman Weighs In

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Can Twiggs be Charged? David Gelman Weighs In

Podcast: That’s So Criminal
Host: Lynden Blake (Daily Wire)
Guest: David Gelman, former prosecutor
Date: July 29, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of That’s So Criminal centers on the high-profile Tyler Robinson case, specifically examining whether Lance Twiggs—Robinson’s roommate, lover, and key witness—could face criminal charges. As the case heads toward a pivotal hearing, investigative reporter Lynden Blake consults former prosecutor David Gelman to dissect legal gray areas and public confusion surrounding Twiggs' immunity and potential liability. The episode provides expert commentary on legal strategy, evidentiary standards, and how courtroom dynamics might unfold.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Current Status of the Case (02:04–02:25)

• The Tyler Robinson case is awaiting a final decision on whether it will move to trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk.
• Judge Tony Graf has given both the state and defense until September 1st to provide final briefings.
• Notably, Tyler Robinson has not yet entered a plea.

---

2. Lance Twiggs and Use Immunity Explained (02:27–05:29)

What is Use Immunity?

• Definition: Use immunity means the state cannot use a witness's statements (given under immunity) against them in a criminal case.
• Gelman’s breakdown:

  “Use immunity is, look, whatever you tell us, all right, we cannot use that against you or in a separate criminal matter. … Pretty much, Lance Twigs got a get out of jail free card. … For him, this use immunity is a grand slam.” — David Gelman (04:14–05:29)

• The immunity only covers the statements themselves, not independent evidence that might be discovered elsewhere.

Did Twiggs Truly Need Use Immunity?

• Gelman speculates authorities may not have had enough evidence to charge Twiggs even without his cooperation, but use immunity leaves little chance of prosecution based solely on his statements.

---

3. Twiggs’ Knowledge and Ethical Duties (05:29–08:28)

• Timeline:
  • On September 11th, Lance confirms with Robinson (after the murder) that he indeed killed Charlie Kirk.
  • Twiggs did not proactively go to the police; he spoke only after being brought in for questioning on September 12th (first interview) and April 20th (second interview).
• Legal vs. Ethical Obligation:
  • Having knowledge of a crime, without acting, generally does not make someone an accomplice or render them legally liable in this case.

  • “Are you legally obligated to tell the authorities about that... The answer really is no, you are not legally obligated. Now, should you, ethically and morally, a thousand percent you should. But legally, are you supposed to do that? You're not under any legal obligation to, because he was not a party to it.” — David Gelman (07:32–08:18)

• Gelman notes that unless Twiggs took active steps to aid Robinson (e.g., hiding evidence), he can’t be charged as an accomplice.

---

4. Why Wasn’t Twiggs Called to Testify In-Person? (08:51–10:06)

• Prosecution Tactics: At a preliminary hearing, prosecutors only need to show probable cause, not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  “The preliminary hearing is a very low standard. … At a trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt … but for a preliminary hearing, you don’t have to show all your cards.” — David Gelman (08:59–09:35)

• The prosecution chose video testimony for Twiggs, but if the case goes to trial, he will have to testify in person and face cross-examination.

---

5. Potential Cross-Examination Issues (10:06–11:53)

• Defense Strategy: Question credibility by highlighting statements Twiggs made about not discussing LGBTQ issues or Charlie Kirk, despite close relationships.

  “That’s really what’s going to come down to for Lance Twiggs. So the defense really is going to try to muddy him up. … They want to make him not credible to a jury, and that’s what the defense counsel... they want to muddy the waters.” — David Gelman (10:37–11:40)

• Juries with doubts or questions about a key witness’s credibility are more likely to acquit or cause a mistrial.

---

6. Limits of Use Immunity: Could It Be Voided? (11:53–13:47)

• Scope of Immunity: Minor mistakes or inconsistencies can usually be “cleaned up” at trial.

• Losing Immunity? Only if Twiggs totally lied or willfully provided false information could his immunity be rescinded; prosecution rarely takes this route for small errors.

  “If he totally lied about that and maybe something else, then, yeah, the use of immunity would go out the window if the prosecution chooses... But most of the time, for something like that, ... a prosecutor can clean that up at trial.” — David Gelman (12:35–13:13)

---

7. Could Twiggs Actually Be Charged with Anything? (Accessory After the Fact, etc.) (14:13–16:45)

• Accessory After the Fact:
  • Requires an affirmative act—e.g., hiding evidence, lying to police, or actively helping Robinson avoid arrest.

  • “Unless there’s something else, it’s going to be very, very difficult to go after Lance Twigs for an accessory after the fact or an accomplice liability aspect of it. I just, I don’t think it’s going to be realistic to do so.” — David Gelman (15:42–16:07)

• Notably: Simply not reporting what he knew immediately is insufficient for criminal charges.

---

8. Gelman’s Prediction: Will There Be a Trial? (16:07–16:45)

• “I truly do believe that this is not going to go to a trial. … I really do believe that what will happen is the state … will take the death penalty off the table … [and offer] the plea agreement … prison with absolutely no possibility of parole.” — David Gelman (16:14–16:37)

• Gelman highlights the weight of evidence against Robinson and suggests a plea deal is likely.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Immunity:

  “Pretty much, Lance Twigs got a get out of jail free card.” — David Gelman (05:10)

• Legality vs. Morality:

  “Ethically and morally, a thousand percent you should [go to the police]. But legally, are you supposed to do that? You're not under any legal obligation to.” — David Gelman (07:53)

• On Prosecutorial Restraint:

  “For a preliminary hearing, you don’t have to show all your cards. You don’t have to do everything. You don’t have to do the dog and pony show.” — David Gelman (09:16)

• Why the Defense Likes Uncertainty:

  “Questions are a defense counsel’s best friend, because the more questions a juror has, the more likely they are to vote not guilty or at least have a mistrial.” — David Gelman (11:41)

• Big-Picture Prediction:

  “People are like, you're crazy. All right, maybe I am. But … I just think … the plea agreement is [Robinson] going to spend the rest of [his] life in a prison with absolutely no possibility of parole. … If I was going to bet, that is where my money's going to go.” — David Gelman (16:15–16:45)

---

Key Timestamps

• 02:04–02:27: Case and hearing status update
• 02:57–05:29: Use immunity explained; implications for Twiggs
• 05:29–08:28: Discussion of Twiggs’ actions, knowledge, and legal obligations
• 08:51–10:06: Why the prosecution used video testimony
• 10:06–11:53: Potential cross-examination strategies and credibility concerns
• 11:53–13:47: Scenarios in which immunity could be voided
• 14:13–16:45: Explore potential charges and Gelman’s prediction of a plea deal

---

Conclusion

Legal expert David Gelman provides clarity on why, despite public speculation, Lance Twiggs is unlikely to face prosecution—unless new, material evidence of criminal action surfaces. Twiggs' use immunity virtually shields him from charges related only to his statements, and the law doesn’t require bystanders (who are not accomplices) to inform on confessed crimes. Gelman also forecasts a plea deal for Tyler Robinson, saying the likelihood of trial diminishes given the state's strong case.

---

Next Court Date:

• September 1st—Judge Graf will hear final arguments on whether Tyler Robinson proceeds to trial.

Transcript

[Host 1]

Okay, I don't know about you, but I swear every time I open the news lately, there's another food recall or another thing people are saying to avoid. At this point, I'm just trying to make dinner without having to investigate it. Like it's one of my cases on. That's so criminal. And that's honestly why I've been on such a pasta kick lately. And specifically Hero noodles.

[Host 2]

Y' all know me.

[Host 1]

Mac and cheese all day, every day. And I just discovered Hiro's elbow noodles. He would never believe they have 32 grams of fiber, 12 grams of protein, and just 80 calories per serving. These were so good. I describe them as bouncing in my mouth because that's just. It was like a party, like a food party. Like doing the whole food happy dance thing. And my husband, who normally is like, you bought healthy fiber filled pasta. Get it away. It's disgusting. He said this was the best noodles he's ever had. Make me more and more. Hero is not just noodles. They also have sliced bread, tortillas, buns, and bagels. So it's become an easy way for me to swap in products that actually fit my goals without feeling like I'm giving something up. Who doesn't love pasta to make things just even better? Cuz obviously you can tell I'm a big fan. They have zero grams of sugar. I'm trying to cut out sugar. Sugar bad. So with Hero Noodles, I get that. No sugar.

[Host 2]

Herobred is offering listeners 10% off your order.

[Host 1]

So go to Hero Co and use the code DWCRIME at checkout. That's code code DWCRIMEHERO CO. Trust me, you're gonna love it.

[Guest 1]

Best thing that's ever happened to you. Financially.

[David Gelman]

Go easy.

[Guest 2]

Sold my car on Carvana. Amazing offer, really.

[Guest 1]

I hit 200 on a scratcher.

[Guest 2]

Did the scratcher come to your house and hand you a check?

[Guest 1]

No.

[Guest 2]

How many scratchers did you hit to get that? I hit a button on Carvana.com once.

[Guest 1]

Okay, that's fair.

[Guest 2]

It's like the lottery, except you always win.

[Guest 1]

Not like the lottery at all, actually.

[Guest 2]

Exactly. Inexplicably good. Worth bragging about. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pick up fees may apply.

[Podcast Tagline Voice]

That's so criminal.

[Lyndon Blake]

We are just over a month away

[Host 2]

from learning if Tyler Robinson will go to trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk.

[Lyndon Blake]

After the five day preliminary hearing in

[Host 2]

a Utah courtroom earlier this month, Judge

[Host 1]

Tony Graf decided to let both the

[Lyndon Blake]

state and the defense prepare a briefing to present on September 1st when Graf makes his Final decision. Don't forget now, Tyler Robinson still has

[Host 2]

not entered a plea.

[Lyndon Blake]

The big question after the preliminary hearing is could Lance Twiggs, Tyler Robinson's roommate and lover, be charged with a crime? He is the key witness in this case, but he still hasn't even taken the stand. Today we're taking the most common question surrounding the case to former prosecutor David Gelman, who's going to help us all sort this out. I'm Lyndon Blake and you're listening to that's so Criminal.

[Podcast Tagline Voice]

That's so Criminal.

[Host 2]

All right, so now I'm joined by David Gelman. He is a former prosecutor. He has been our go to expert on everything Tyler Robinson case thus far. He was with us here on that so criminal during the preliminary hearing earlier in July. And now we're going to kind of focus in on Lance Twigs because even after the preliminary hearing, there is still a big question mark on Tyler Robinson's former roommate and lover, Lance Twiggs, that all of us got to see on video with his video testimonies during that preliminary hearing. So, David, thank you so much for once again joining us.

[David Gelman]

Well, thank you for having me.

[Host 2]

Okay, we have discussed briefly, but for those that do not know, Lance Twigs has use immunity for this statements he gave, meaning a prosecutor agreed to not use those statements against someone in this criminal case. So Those statements, the 40 minutes of video that was played, some parts redacted during the preliminary hearing, prosecutors cannot use those statements against him. So, David, first off, can you just simplify that, explain what that means, maybe go a little bit deeper than just the definition?

[David Gelman]

Yeah. So look, immunity is a very simple concept. All right? Immunity means you have information. The police want it, the prosecutors want it. In exchange for giving that information, they will agree not to potentially charge you. All right? Now, there's different types of immunity. Now, what Twig's got is use immunity. So use immunity is, look, whatever you tell us, all right, we cannot use that against you or in a separate criminal matter. However, if we already had knowledge of this, if we had independent evidence against you and you're just kind of confirming it, that doesn't mean anything, then we could still prosecute you. But in the grand scheme of things and just common sense wise, use immunity is just regular immunity. If they give you use immunity, they're not going to use it against you. They're not going to use anything against you. Pretty much, Lance Twigs got a get out of jail free card. That's pretty much what it means. Now at the end of the day, did they have anything on him to begin with? I don't know. You know, I don't. I don't think they probably could have done much. But even if they did this use immunity for him is a grand slam for him, at least that they will not prosecute him. Very simple.

[Host 2]

What's interesting to me and what has been confirmed in the preliminary hearing was these texts and these interactions between Lance Twiggs and Tyler Robinson in person. Interactions on September 11th where Lance said he asked Tyler, did you really do what you said you did yesterday, meaning kill Charlie Kirk? And Tyler started weeping and crying. It was a big part of his testimony. But that means Lance, that we know, did not go in and say, hey, police, I have some information on this shooting. He waited till the police brought him in for questioning on September 12 when he gave his first interview. The second interview that everyone was shown during the preliminary hearing was on April 20th. How does that work in this case? Because I know he gave over information. He didn't try to hide stuff when he was brought in. But isn't that a little odd that he got confirmation from his roommate and boyfriend that a murder took place and Lance didn't go and say, hey, my roommate here apparently killed Charlie Kirk?

[David Gelman]

Yeah, I get where you're going with it, Lyndon. He had information, but he's not an accomplice, at least for the information that we all know, because an accomplice, they do some type of an assist with it, whether that's hiding evidence, whether that's just driving to the scene or something like that. He wasn't involved with anything. Did he have knowledge after the fact? Yeah, it sounds like he certainly did, but that's really not enough to really criminally charge him. I mean, potentially you could, but it be a very difficult case to prove or something like that. Now, look, let's just say somebody commits any crime, all right, and then they admit to it a couple days later. Kind of like what happened here, Right? Or this was a little sooner than that, but, you know, a couple days later, are you legally obligated to tell the authorities about that? That's a real question this is about. And the answer really is no, you are not legally obligated. Now, should you, ethically and morally, A thousand percent you should. But ethically are. But legally, are you supposed to do that? You're not under any legal obligation to, because he was not a party to it. Now, if Tyler Robinson told Twigs, hey, hide this or something, and he does that, okay, game over. Now, you are a party to it. But other Than that from the information that we have that we know. And there's still information that we don't yet know, but the information that we know about, he is not an accomplice about it. He did not really have a legal obligation to tell the police, which is kind of crazy.

[Podcast Tagline Voice]

That's so criminal.

[Lyndon Blake]

Coming up, why prosecutors chose not to put Lance Twiggs on the stand in person and what that decision means if the case goes all the way to trial.

[Host 2]

So why didn't the prosecution trust Twigs to say these things live in the courtroom at the preliminary hearing?

[David Gelman]

Well, because they didn't have to. It's very simple. The preliminary hearing is a very low standard. You just have to have probable cause. So probable cause is just. Look, did they do that? Did they probably commit this? Yes. Much lower standard than when you go to court for a trial. At a trial, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecutor does, that this individual specifically here, Tyler Robinson, was the one who actually committed the heinous murder on Charlie Kirk. And the burden, and the standard is such a high burden. So for a preliminary hearing, you. You don't have to show all your cards. You don't have to do everything. You don't have to do the dog and pony show. Although they did put out some things there. And you and I talked about it during the hearing where we were like, oh, maybe they. I'm surprised they were going this far in depth, but they didn't have to do that. Now at the trial for Charlie Kirk, if this does go to trial, then Twigs does have to be there. He does have to present himself. And at that particular time, he'll be subject to cross examination from Tyler Robinson's defense counsel.

[Host 2]

Okay, so speaking of the cross examination, if this goes to trial, Lance Twiggs is there on the stand. In his video, he said that they didn't really talk about LGBTQ issues, meaning Lance and Tyler, and that they never talked about Charlie Kirk. You know, he made all these statements that was like, oh, that's odd. You guys live together. You obviously are two gay men anyways. What could the defense in a cross examination do with that statement?

[David Gelman]

Well, look, it's about credibility, all right? That's really what's going to come down to for Lance Twiggs. So the defense really is going to try to muddy him up. They're going to try to say, look, you said this in your statement, but why did he have engravings on the bullets and all? You did not know that? You're trying to tell me if I'm a defense counsel. I'm going to be talking to him. You didn't really. You guys live together. You guys are lovers, you guys are boyfriend and boyfriend, whatever it is you trying to tell us that you never talked about LGBTQ stuff. You know, we don't really believe that. And they're going to really try to break down Lance Twigs. And again, it's a credibility issue. They want to make him not credible to a potential, to a jury, and that's what the defense counsel is. That's what they have to do. They want to muddy the waters. They want to put all this stuff up there to make the jury think, hmm, you know what? Look, we do have a lot of evidence and, you know, people are saying this and, you know, from the witness stand and all, but there's a lot of questions, and questions are a defense counsel's best friend, because the more questions a juror has, the more likely they are to vote not guilty or at least have a mistrial.

[Host 2]

And on the prosecution side, again, they got Lance Twiggs to be that virtual witness, so to speak, in the preliminary hearing, which that information, if this goes to trial, will all be, you know, on record. If the prosecution can prove that Twig said something false in his statement, maybe the being, maybe they find someone that said, no, we talked about as a group, I was their friend. LGBTQ issues all the time. If the prosecution can prove that Twig slipped up and didn't say the truth or provide accurate information, does the use immunity still apply?

[David Gelman]

Well, it depends. It depends on what he said. Look, could it have been a mistake, you know, something like that? Could they, could the prosecution clean it up? All right, by saying, look, we saw this, we understand that you said this in the video, however you came to us later on, or we found out later on that that may not be the case, that, you know, and Tyler Robinson did actually talk about this type of subject, isn't that accurate? So they clean it up. It's really not going to do anything to the use immunity. Now, if he totally lied about that and maybe something else, then, yeah, the use of immunity would go out the window if they choose, if the prosecution chooses to do that. But most of the time, for something like that, if they say something in a, in a recorded statement and it's wrong or, you know, maybe they just, they forget it. A lot of times a prosecutor can clean that up at trial. Most of the time at least, you know, so I, I, I don't, I don't anticipate the use immunity going away too, too easily.

[Podcast Tagline Voice]

That's so criminal.

[Lyndon Blake]

Still ahead, the one charge that could actually stick to Lance Twigs and why David Gelman thinks this case may never see a jul.

[Host 2]

What other arguments or charges really could Lance Twiggs face outside of this? Use immunity. There's been phrases like an accessory after the fact that's been thrown around.

[David Gelman]

I don't. That's a good question. Look, he'd have to have done something. He'd have to have taken some type of an action to really be charged. Now, again, we don't know everything. All right? I want everybody to really understand that. Look, the preliminary hearing, we learned a lot. I'm not going to say we didn't. And I thought, frankly, the prosecution gave us more information and gave the defense more information they probably should have because the burden, again, is much lower there. So they really don't have to prove a lot. But at the same time, there's still information that we do not know. So unless Lance Twiggs literally did something after the fact and not that something being, oh, he just didn't call the police immediately after being told of this or after questioning Tyler Robinson, that's not going to be an accessory after the fact. But I'm talking about, did he go and do something? Did he try to hide an object? Did he try to go online potentially and, you know, or, and, or give a false tip to the, to the police and to the authorities, something like that, potentially to help out Tyler Robinson, that is an accessory after the fact, but just not telling them immediately that's not an accessory to the fact. They cannot charge you for that. Or I guess they could. They could charge you for anything. But would they be successful in the fact, the prosecution? I don't think they would. So unless there's something else, it's going to be very, very difficult to go after Lance Twigs for an accessory after the fact or an accomplice liability aspect of it. I just, I don't think it's going to be realistic to do so. You and I have talked about this, and I'm going to repeat this again because I truly do believe that this is not going to go to a trial. I keep telling everybody this. People are like, you're crazy. All right, maybe I am. But at the end of the day, I just think that there's just too much evidence against Tyler Robinson for this to go to trial. I really do believe that what will happen is the state, meaning the prosecution, will take the death penalty off the table and they will say, all right, you don't have to worry about the death penalty. You're going to have. The plea agreement is you're going to spend the rest of your life in a prison with absolutely no possibility of parole. And I think at the end, that's what's going to happen. I don't. Look, I'm not guaranteeing it, but if I was going to bet, that is where my money's going to go.

[Podcast Tagline Voice]

That's so criminal.

[Host 2]

Hopefully, that helped clear up some of

[Lyndon Blake]

the gray areas in this case. And again, remember, the next hearing for Tyler Robinson is scheduled for September 1st. Lyndon Blake. And you've been listening to that's so Criminal.