The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Tyler James Robinson: Disqualification

Summary

---

Murder Sheet: The Murder of Charlie Kirk — The Case of Tyler James Robinson: Disqualification

Podcast hosts: Journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee
Release date: March 19, 2026

---

Overview

This episode dives deep into a key legal maneuver in the prosecution of Tyler James Robinson, accused of murdering political figure Charlie Kirk. The primary focus is on the defense team's efforts to disqualify the county prosecutors due to an alleged conflict of interest—a claim centered on the presence of a prosecutor's adult daughter at the crime scene. Using their signature blend of legal analysis and reporting, Áine and Kevin unpack the arguments made by both sides, assess their merits, and address rumors and conspiracy theories swirling around this high-profile case.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Prosecutor's Conflict of Interest: Setting the Stage

Timestamps: 00:51–03:36

• Background: Tyler James Robinson's defense filed a motion to disqualify the county's prosecutors, citing a potential conflict of interest because the adult daughter of Deputy County Attorney Chad Grenander was at the shooting scene.

• Legal Context: Kevin underscored the unique role of prosecutors as representatives of the state, whose decisions must be impartial and free from bias or conflicts, noting:

  "It's especially important that his decisions and his actions come from a place where no conflict exists or no bias exists." (03:04)

• Prosecutorial Disqualification: The hosts recount that in situations with provable conflicts (e.g., a prosecutor prosecuting a family member or adversary), it is standard to appoint a special prosecutor.

2. Assessing the Strength of the Defense’s Conflict Argument

Timestamps: 03:36–10:38

• Nature of the Relationship: The prosecutor’s daughter was present as a bystander among thousands, not an active participant or close associate of anyone involved.

• Defense’s Tactics: Áine interprets the defense's approach as thorough, if aggressive:

  "...they're doing a lot like they're doing in a way that's like they're trying everything. And which is good, which is what you want. You want the defense team to be open to doing as much as possible..." (08:37)

• Evaluation: Both hosts agree this motion is weak, but not frivolous—a defense duty rather than a bad-faith tactic.

3. The Prosecution and Defense Filings: The Arguments in Detail

Timestamps: 15:31–26:40

• Defense Filings:

  • Raises the possibility the prosecutor cannot "separate his role with a wholly natural instinct to protect and shield his daughter from past and future harm..." (15:31)
  • Suggests the daughter could be called as a witness, thus making her father’s involvement problematic.

• Prosecution Response:

  • Argues no personal conflict exists that requires disqualification.
  • Clarifies the daughter’s presence was not as a key witness; any testimony she might give "would be cumulative of testimony available from literally thousands of other witnesses." (21:01)
  • Reveals she was far from the shooting, had no line of sight, didn't witness the act, and suffered minimal emotional aftereffects.

• Host Analysis:

  • Both Áine and Kevin find the prosecution’s account compelling and the likelihood of actual bias extremely slim:

    "...she needn't necessarily be a part of this case going forward." (26:40, Áine)

4. The Death Penalty Decision: Emotion Versus Procedure

Timestamps: 28:40–31:18

• Defense Claim:

  • Asserts the quick announcement of intent to seek the death penalty might have been driven by office emotion due to the presence of a colleague’s daughter.

• Prosecution Response:

  • Cites office protocol: Prosecutor ran on a tough-on-crime platform and aimed to announce such decisions decisively to reduce speculation.

• Host Verdict:

  • The prosecution’s explanation seen as far more plausible than the speculative emotional theory:

    “...more plausible than the idea that, oh, my, my friend's daughter was upset, so let's execute the guy.” (30:35, Kevin)

5. Judicial Outcome & General Principles

Timestamps: 33:09–34:34

• Judge’s Ruling:

  • Judge found no evidence of conflict, denied the request to disqualify the prosecution. The defense did not meet the burden of proof for removal.
  • Kevin summarizes:

    "You just can't go in and say, oh, I think that there is a chance this guy might be biased, so throw him off the case. You need more than that. And they didn't produce it." (33:09)

• Big Picture:

  • Both hosts reaffirm the importance of stress-testing the justice system and acknowledge that the defense was right to investigate any possible issue, even if the argument didn’t succeed.

6. Addressing Conspiratorial Thinking and Audience Questions

Timestamps: 35:00–44:12

• Public Doubts & Rumors: With the death of a high-profile political figure, conspiracy theories have flourished across the political spectrum.

• Host Guidance:

  • Áine cautions listeners against allowing emotion or partisanship to cloud objective analysis:

    "Try to avoid the siren song of conspiratorial thinking… it’s fair for people to come in and say, what’s the evidence… when we get into conspiratorial, it’s… where we are kind of entering the realm of stuff that really can’t be proven." (36:08)

  • Emphasizes looking for factual evidence, not "vibes" or expansive, baseless plots.

• Defense’s Competence:

  • Kevin reminds listeners the defense team is experienced and aggressive; if evidence of a frame-up or conspiracy existed, they would pursue it.

• Assessing Claims:

  • Áine reinforces that large conspiracies are, by their nature, highly implausible and unsupported:

    “If someone is selling you... a vague narrative about a conspiracy... and that conspiracy would require dozens, if not hundreds of people to be complicit... I think it is reasonable to dismiss those things barring any sort of evidence that points to them." (44:12)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On disqualification standards:

  “You don't want even the appearance of that, frankly, because that could undermine public trust in the system...” — Áine (03:36)

• On the defense’s approach:

  “They’re trying everything. And which is good, which is what you want.” — Áine (08:37)

• On cumulative witness testimony:

  “Any testimony she would give would be merely cumulative of testimony available from literally thousands of other witnesses...” — Quoting prosecution response (21:01)

• On conspiratorial narratives:

  “If the CIA or Mossad or whatever is functioning as wizards in…the murder that you are telling yourself, I think that is conspiratorial thinking.” — Áine (36:35)

• On defense diligence & public expectations:

  “The defense team is far more likely to have information proving or disproving the existence of a possible conspiracy than random people on the Internet.” — Kevin (43:40)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Background on disqualification motion: 00:51–03:36
• Assessment of argument’s merit: 08:37–10:38
• Filing excerpts and legal analysis: 15:31–26:40
• Evaluation of witness credibility: 21:01–26:40
• Death penalty decision rationale: 28:40–31:18
• Judge’s final ruling & conclusion: 33:09–34:43
• Discussion on conspiracy thinking: 35:00–44:12

---

Tone and Language

Throughout the episode, Cain and Greenlee maintain a measured, rational tone, balancing empathy for those affected by the crime with clear-eyed analysis of legal process. Their banter—often wry and direct—invites listeners to resist sensationalism and focus on facts. Their legal explanations strive for clarity over jargon, making complex arguments accessible to non-legal audiences.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode offers a model of careful, fact-driven criminal justice journalism. Listeners emerge with a nuanced understanding of the Tyler James Robinson prosecution’s procedural wranglings, the standards for prosecutorial disqualification, and the value (and limits) of skepticism in the face of emotionally charged crime.

---

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states. The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. And the every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time, scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

[B]

I'm Kevin, and today we're going to talk about the efforts made by the attorneys for Tyler James Robinson to disqualify the prosecutors in that case. And of course, that is the case in which he is charged for the murder of Charlie Kirk. Content Warning this episode includes discussion of murder. So, again, a lot going on in the Charlie Kirk case. And one thing that's gotten a lot of attention is the fact that the defense attorneys in the case have tried to get the prosecutors removed because. Because of what they feel is a potential bias or a conflict. And so we will talk about that today.

[C]

My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[C]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[C]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[B]

And this is the murder of Charlie Kirk, the case of Tyler James Robinson. Disqualification. Well, before we get into the meat of this, I. I think it's good to state an obvious point. I think we can both agree there are circumstances in which a prosecutor may have conflicts that make it impossible for him to proceed with a case.

[C]

Yeah, certainly. And that's when you appoint a special prosecutor.

[B]

Yes. And a prosecutor's role is also make this obvious point is a unique one. If I'm a defendant, if I'm a private person in a civil suit, I'm hiring someone to represent my interests. The prosecutor is representing the interests of the state. And so it's especially important that his decisions and his actions come from a place where no conflict exists or no bias exists.

[C]

Fair to say this you cannot have A prosecutor who is going to be tainted with anything or even, frankly, I would say. I mean, I think a conservative, prudent approach is probably best. You don't want even the appearance of that, frankly, because that could undermine public trust in the system when it. When prosecution goes from something that is, you know, proper and based on the law and these people violated the law or we're accusing them of that, and then there's going to be a process versus, like some kind of one man or one woman emotional tirade against someone that they maybe have problems with or whatever, or, you know, whatever kind of conflict of interest it is, then it becomes extremely problematic. I mean, like, you know, you wouldn't want a prosecutor prosecuting his ex wife who he had a contentious divorce with. Is that fair to say?

[B]

That's fair to say.

[C]

You know, that would be something where it'd be like you. That's where maybe. And listen, maybe the ex wife violated the law or there's good reason to believe that. But then there needs to be someone new coming in to take over.

[B]

And with all this said, it's also important to note that just because a defense attorney is worried or concerned or claims to be worried or concerned about the potential for a conflict or bias, that doesn't necessarily mean that that bias or conflict actually exists.

[C]

That's. Yeah, that's fair.

[B]

Let's say I'm the prosecutor and someone is charged with a crime and it's someone who previously got you in trouble for stealing boxes of cereal. Maybe I have a grudge against that person. Maybe that's going to affect my judgment. What if it's not the person who charged you with a crime that I'm making charges against? What if it's that person's cousin or brother? You know, at some point, yeah, maybe a conflict exists, but at some point, maybe. No, it doesn't. And I bring all of this up because what's going on in this case is that the adult daughter of one of the deputy county attorneys on this case, Chad Grenander, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that this adult daughter was present at the scene when Charlie Kirk was shot. And you can understand, maybe there's a possibility for an issue there, maybe there's not and not Was she present, but she sent text messages to. That her father received family group chat. A family group chat. He received these text messages and shared them with other attorneys in the office. And so the defense is claiming that those facts create the at least the possibility of an issue. And in one of their filings. They also went so far as to include statements from some of the witnesses to the shooting who were really traumatized and upset by it. And I can understand why a person who saw this shooting would have those feelings. You and I, Anya, obviously we were not in Utah. We were not present at the scene. We saw the video of the shooting repeatedly. And wasn't that upsetting?

[C]

It was deeply disturbing.

[B]

So I can imagine if you were actually there and saw it happen close up, that could be pretty traumatic. And in addition to that, if you're there, maybe you're hearing a bullet going past you, maybe people are panicking, you don't know what's going on. At the very least, isn't there the possibility that could be really, really upsetting?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Would you be concerned if you were the defense and you found out that the adult child of one of the prosecutors was there?

[C]

I mean, like, I don't know. I. Not really. I mean, I, I guess I would be more concerned if like the prosecutor, you know, one of the deputy prosecutors themselves, was like the head of the Charlie Kirk fan club locally or, you know, like that, like, that would be more of, okay, this guy's taking it really personally because he loved Charlie Kirk or something like that. I mean, to me, that would be, to me, like, oh, your kid was there, and let you guys know that she was, you know, safe after a shooting and let you know what happened early on. I guess I just, like, I'm not gonna fault the defense for trying or to kind of like try everything the way I see, I mean, we've kind of just started covering this case, but the way I've seen this defense team operate so far, it really seems like they're doing a lot like they're doing in a way that's like they're trying everything. And which is good, which is what you want. You, you want the defense team to be open to doing as much as possible to, you know, get, get their client the best chance possible? I mean, I don't know. I. It. To me, this doesn't seem compelling. I, I know. So, so just because I like using names. It's attorney Catherine Nestor, right? That, that is Tyler Robinson's attorney. So, you know, she also did the Corey Richards case recently. So she's had two big, high profile Utah cases. I just see her in this case at least as somebody who is like, let's just. We have this, you know, is it, is it like a huge projectile we're going to be able to lob at the prosecution Maybe not, but we got to throw it anyway.

[B]

Yeah, I would certainly agree with that. And I think certainly as we go on in this, in our discussion and look at some of the actual factual details here, I think it would become apparent that the argument they're making is not a particularly strong one, the argument the defense is making. But that doesn't mean it's a stupid or frivolous argument. I think in some other cases we've covered, such as, frankly, the Delphi case, there were some arguments made by the defense that were stupid, that were just completely a waste of everyone's time. I don't think this one is that. I think it's ultimately a weak argument, but I don't think it is a stupid or a frivolous argument.

[C]

Like, how dare you bring this up? It's like, well, nice try. You know, I mean, I, I felt like generally in the Idaho murders case, there were mostly arguments that I felt like I understand what they're going for here. There were a couple ones that I would label as stupid, but there were a lot more that were just kind of like, well, I get what they're saying. Doesn't really seem like it kind of crosses that threshold though. And I think that's kind of what this defense reminds me of so far.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, I agree completely. And I should say that not only are they saying there's a possibility of, of a bias or a conf. They say it's possible. We've already seen evidence of that because soon after the arrest, very soon after the arrest, it was announced that they would be pursuing the death penalty. And they say usually you would expect that sort of decision to be announced a little bit later. Isn't it possible that they announced it so quickly because they, as an office were so upset that the adult child of one of their co workers was there. It was an emotional decision.

[C]

Well, I mean, couldn't it also be just such a high profile killing too? I mean, it's like there are other unusual circumstances about it that where it was considered like, you know, it was kind of the top news story for a couple of days. And it was, you know, something that people were reacting to and it was something that, that was getting national attention because of Charlie Kirk's political connections. So like, you know, also that all

[B]

of that's very true. But of course, when the defense is making a filing in a case, they're

[C]

not going to say, well, maybe it was this.

[B]

It's not up to them to explain, to present all the nuances. And possible they're trying to present.

[C]

I'm not faulting them, I'm just, just saying that, you know, I think that's kind of weak. Yeah, when we started the Murder Sheet, we didn't really know if podcasting was even going to work out for us in the long run. Like, what if no one listens to us? That would be awkward. I'm really glad we tuned out those doubts and went for it because it's been an absolute dream come true. But the kind of uncertainty we face is what stops people from betting on themselves, chasing their dreams and starting their own businesses.

[B]

For all of you out there looking to kickstart your own dreams, partnering with Shopify is one of the best decisions you can make. It gets you on the right track. From day one, they take the uncertainty out of business.

[C]

Shopify is your one stop commerce platform that supports millions of businesses around the world.

[B]

Shopify makes you efficient and fast. You can upload new products, improve existing products. Shopify's AI tools can help you with product descriptions, page headlines, and better product photography.

[C]

And don't worry about nobody buying your products. They help you get the word out. Shopify puts the power of a whole marketing team behind you. You can create email and social media campaigns with just a few clicks.

[B]

Shopify supports you with inventory management, international shipping, processing returns and more. Whatever the challenge, they're there to make things quicker and more convenient. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.commsheet Go to shopify.commsheet that's shopify.commsheet Save money, look better. Shop our sponsor Quince today and refresh your wardrobe with some new styles for spring.

[C]

Quint is our favorite clothing brand. They are all about getting you luxury styles at affordable prices. No markups, no mil middlemen, just high value, high quality fashion pieces that will transform your look.

[B]

They've got everything organic cotton and Mongolian cashmere sweaters, breathable linen, soft Pima cotton that looks great and doesn't pill washable silk pieces. I mean Quint's is a go to for me at this point. I love their work shirts and sweaters and I can't wait to try out some of their new pieces for spring.

[C]

Same here. I'm really looking to try out their linen pieces as the temperatures turn warmer, but since it's still pretty chilly out, I'm relying on my Quince Mongolian cashmere sweaters to weather the changing seasons. I'm regularly wearing all of them and they've held up so great despite my constant use. These things are great.

[B]

A wardrobe refresh does not need to break your budget. All you need is a few quality pieces that pair well and hold up pieces that don't go out of style. Quince has got you there. Check out their website today because Murder Sheet listeners will get a great deal right now.

[C]

Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it. And you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling. For clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c e.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns.

[A]

Quince.commsheet this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states.

[B]

The defense also writes, quote, in assessing the irreconcilable conflict that exists here, the court should consider that the production of discovery in this case has only recently begun and there is no way to say with absolute certainty that this adult child would not be a witness in this case. This defense is not in a position to make this assessment and should not be required to do so. Similarly, expecting this prosecutor to separate his role with a wholly natural instinct to protect and shield his daughter from past and future harm, from his role in the prosecution of the individual alleged to have caused harm to many is not realistic. So they're saying it's possible that as the case goes on, there is going to be the possibility that she may be called even as a witness because she was there. And golly, wouldn't that be terrible.

[C]

Okay, are they naming this prosecutor or are they redacting?

[B]

Mr. I mentioned his name. I'm not sure how to pronounce it. Chad Grenander. Okay, so that's, that's his, that's their claim. And they, they also added that since he has a supervisory role in the office, his conflict extends to everybody in the office, especially because they believed no steps were taken to like seal his conflict off.

[C]

But like, okay, I mean, if his daughter worked for Charlie Kirk or was like, you know, married to Charlie Kirk or something, I could understand this more. But just happening to attend an event with, you know, hundreds of other people. And seeing this, you know, I guess I'm just like, how does that. No one. I mean, no one really wants anyone to be shot in the head. Right? You know, but, like, that doesn't mean that he's gonna be like, well, that means Tyler Robinson definitely did it. Like, you know what I'm like. What I'm trying to say is that, like, of course everyone's gonna be horrified that their kids saw that. But it's like, it doesn't really predispose you to be like, well, it's this guy. Then it just makes you want to catch the killer, which is kind of the prosecutor's job anyway. So what's the issue?

[B]

Let me play devil's advocate here. If you were a potential witness in a crime, to a crime, and I'm the prosecutor of that crime, and I know, gosh, Anya is really messed up by what she saw. Anya's falling to pieces about it. She's having a rough time. It's possible that I may alter my strategy as a prosecutor. Perhaps to shield you from having to testify. Is also possible. I'm so upset. I look at you, you're falling apart. You're a complete, total mess. You're a disaster. That may make me pursue stronger penalties than I would have otherwise.

[C]

It seems to assume a lot about circumstances. And it also. I don't know why she would even be a necessary witness, because we'll get

[B]

to that in a second.

[C]

Hundreds of people saw this, and it was on video.

[B]

Yeah, we'll get to that. And you're also previewing something else. Just saying something, just speculating something isn't the sort of. Isn't enough to get you to the place where you can justify taking the rather extraordinary step of disqualifying an entire office.

[C]

Like, maybe this is closer to that than like the average case where there'd be nothing to cause that. So maybe like, they took a couple seconds. Steps in that direction, but yeah, you. You. They have to cross the finish line. And I'm just going to say this too. If the daughter had been the one to see the perpetrator, like, running around on the rooftop like the police officer had, okay, well, maybe then that she's a more crucial witness and we can kind of. Maybe then there's a couple more steps to be added here. But if she's just one of many people who saw the. The. The. The, you know, horrible incident, then.

[B]

And let me jump to this, you've mentioned a couple of times, there were hundreds of people there, actually, they say there were 3,000 people.

[C]

Oh, okay. Well, then there you go. Are they going to put all them on the stand?

[B]

I can't imagine that they will. I'm going to read how the defense concluded their original filing. Quote, the perception of a fair trial is critical in any case, in nowhere more than here, where Mr. Robertson's life is in the balance. The rigors of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution demand exacting scrutiny on those tasked with enforcing the law. These protections demand the disqualification. So they made their case. They made it as well as they could, I think, especially considering the fact there is a lot of speculation there. The prosecution filed their reply, and I'm going to read from that quote. The court should deny this motion because the attorney does not have a personal conflict of interest requiring his disqualification. And even if such a personal conflict were to exist, it does not extend to the entire office. Any testimony his adult child could give would be merely cumulative of testimony available from literally thousands of other witnesses and would relate solely to uncontested issues because the adult child has no personal knowledge of the actual murder. Moreover, the adult child's comparatively minor emotional reaction could not have had a greater impact on the deputy attorney and the prosecution team than the significantly more harrowing experience of many others at those the event. So let me stop there for a minute. When we say her, any testimony she would give would be cumulative. That's basically saying in lawyer language what you said a minute ago. There were literally thousands of people there. She did not have a unique vantage point. There is nothing she saw that she was the only one to see. So when we say something's cumulative, that means what she would testify to would be the exact same thing that thousands of other people would be testifying to. There's nothing special or unique about it.

[C]

Like, I was there, I saw him got shot.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah, okay.

[B]

So, yeah, I think that's a great point. They also point out that she did not actually see him get shot.

[C]

Oh, okay.

[B]

Well, I mean, yeah, then she was there. She heard noises. She. She. People were running around. She wasn't really aware of it until later. It was an upsetting experience to her, as you could imagine. But since then, she's basically gotten on with her life. She hasn't had to have any therapy. She's not having flashbacks. So they're saying she hasn't really been harmed by this. Plus, she's not going to be a witness because nothing she saw was unique or special.

[C]

She's not even in the tier of people who saw him get shot. I mean, so that makes her. She was there, but I mean, she didn't really witness that much.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Let me read from what they wrote. The adult child was standing on the far right side of the amphitheater, as you look down from the top on its upper edge, some 85ft from where Charlie Kirk was seated. There was no line of sight between the adult child from her position at the amphitheater and the shooter from his position on the center's roof. Because the Sorensen center stood between them, she would have had to move 75ft to the southeast before establishing a line of sight with the shooter. So she wasn't in a position to see him. She was a considerable distance away. There's thousands of other people there. She's not what you would call an important or crucial witness.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So I think that certainly affects my thinking on whether or not there is a conflict here.

[C]

That really does affect my thinking, too. I think I maybe would be a little bit more sympathetic towards the overall argument if she was some kind of crucial linchpin in the case. Maybe that would prompt a father to act differently or whatever, you know? You know, I'm not. I'm not even saying. I would necessarily say, okay, I'd throw everybody out, but I would. I would be more open to that line of argument. But when we're talking about someone who didn't. Didn't see anything meaningful and.

[B]

Because what, didn't even know there was a shooting.

[C]

No, like, you know, that's. It's interesting that she was there, but it's not. It doesn't matter for the case. I think one thing that I've learned, as we've done the podcast and just through reporting on crime, is that, you know, there's a very. It's much more narrow in a case. What's relevant to the case, as far as a trial goes, you know, as far as, like, anecdotal true crime. Come on the show and tell us about your experience. That's a much broader category. Someone telling you, oh, I was actually there. And it was, you know, I saw the crowd, but I didn't know what was going on. That's interesting, but it doesn't matter for the case. The case. Basically, what they're trying to prove is that Tyler Robinson did this. And everything the defense is going to be putting on is to counter that. And everything the prosecution is going to put on is to prove that. And the defense is also going to be, you know, countering that, but also kind of trying to raise reasonable doubt and anything that's not going to. Those two things doesn't really matter.

[B]

And I do. I think it's worth stressing, Anya, that this adult child wasn't even fully aware of what was happening at the time. She did not see Charlie Kirk get shot. She'd actually turned away from Charlie Kirk and was looking around the audience at the time the shot rang out. She hears a noise, someone yells something about a shooting. She crouches down, she runs away, and then is getting information from people later. This sort of stuff is very harrowing to go through and I imagine it was scary, but it's not really the sort of thing that needs to be offered in a courtroom. Or if for some reason you think this sort of testimony is very important, you have literally, literally thousands of other people who probably experienced something very, very similar.

[C]

Yeah, that's a, her experience is not unique enough to warrant her being some kind of star witness. And I don't want to denigrate how traumatized she may have been by this because certainly, even if you do not see the actual shooting being around it, that can be extremely scary. And that's, that's a valid way to feel. And I, you know, I, I, my heart goes out to anyone in that scenario. And it's just the fact of the matter is that, yeah, she needn't necessarily be a part of this case going forward.

[B]

Yeah, there's no reason for her to be a witness. She didn't see anything important. Whatever upset she suffered seems to have been relatively minor and her life has gone on is normal.

[C]

Did they say that in the filing?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Oh, okay.

[B]

Yeah, they said on the fact she didn't seek counseling, nothing like that. So it wasn't a huge deal.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of people can go through something negative like that, something scary, something upsetting, something horrible, and they come away from being like, that's awful. But we can't necessarily ascribe trauma or long lasting effects of trauma to somebody if they're not necessarily feeling that way.

[B]

Yeah, I could imagine it also possible for someone in that situation, maybe they didn't see it, but they were still upset in a lasting way.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

It doesn't appear that that's.

[C]

Everyone's different. Everyone's trauma response is different. And it's not something where it's like we're all cookie cutters, where, oh, if we see X amount, we're going to feel X. Maybe sometimes you see less and it's still bad. Maybe sometimes you see more, but you're a different kind of Personality and it doesn't affect you as much. And there's nothing wrong with either of those two things.

[B]

So she's not going to be a witness. She didn't see anything important. She wasn't especially traumatized by it. All of these things certainly argue against the idea that her father and indeed the whole office is somehow emotionally compromised. Would you agree with that?

[C]

I would strongly agree with that.

[B]

The other issue, which of course we've mentioned, is the claim that the prosecutor in this case decided so quickly, so quickly that he wanted to seek the death penalty, that it is in somehow likely that his decision was influenced by an emotional component, because he was influenced by the fact that a member of his team had a child who witnessed this. And the prosecution replied to this by saying, no, that's not the case. I'm going to quote the decision to file a death penalty notice on the same day he filed the information had nothing to do with adult child's presence at the event. He filed the notice immediately because the prosecutor Gray determined that the evidence of aggravated murder is substantial. Prosecutor Gray ran for elected office almost three years earlier on a commitment to seek the death penalty in appropriate cases. And three, Gray learned in an earlier case that waiting to file notice when the evidence is substantial only fuels speculation and misinformation. And for Gray wanted to minimize the speculation and misinformation in this case, end quote. So what he's saying is this was a death penalty offense. There was strong evidence of that. And I, in fact, have run on the platform of seeking the death penalty when appropriate. And I felt that in previous cases, when I've delayed making that decision public, it has caused speculation and misinformation. And so that's why I did that. That's why I made the decision to act as I did and not wait. Yeah, I find that explanation plausible.

[C]

Certainly.

[B]

Certainly more plausible than the idea that, oh, my, my friend's daughter was upset, so let's execute the guy.

[C]

It. It almost. The defense is almost theory of that, almost seems to presume that professional attorneys who are elected prosecutors are behaving like children or lemmings where it's like, my friend's daughter's upset, let's kill him. You know, I. That. I don't know. I'm sure you could get some prosecutors who are unfit for office who might be so emotionally influenced by something, I guess, but it just, you know, it seems unlikely, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

[B]

Yeah, the prosecution has, quote, defendant grossly overstates the fierce and irrational Loyalty that is likely to arise in a father whose adult child is in a situation like that. End quote. Yeah, I keep coming to. Back to something I think we did say earlier, where a lot of the arguments the defense made on this matter seem to be speculative.

[C]

Oh, highly speculative.

[B]

And if you had a witness who said, oh, the prosecutor was weeping and he was tearing his clothes, saying, oh, isn't it awful what happened to my friend's daughter, that she had to see this, let's nail him because of that, then, yes, that would be bias. But it doesn't sound like there's any evidence that anything even remotely like that happened. Certainly I don't blame them for seeking an inquiry into getting the facts.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Seeing if something like that happen. But I think it's pretty clear that there was no bias in this case, no conflict.

[C]

Listen, from the defense's perspective, you can't know what you don't know, and you have to look into it in order to get answers. And so rather than leaving this stone unturned, I think it's reasonable for them to be asking those questions and saying, did this factor in? I don't. I don't think we should be faulting them or dunking on them for asking that at all. I think that's part of their jobs and they need to make sure they're leaving no stone unturned for their client. That being said, I think now that there's been responses and there's been back and forth and maybe there's been more illumination around what actually happened, what was seen, what was not seen, who was involved, how, how did this play into decisions. I feel pretty firmly convinced that this is a non starter and we can move on.

[B]

Yeah, there's been. There was a lot of back and forth on this issue. I don't know if there's anything more we really need to talk about in regarding it, but I will note that the judge issued his ruling and he ultimately came down on the side that there was no conflict. There was no reason to disqualify the prosecutor and the whole team, that the defendant, Mr. Robinson and his team did not meet their burden of establishing that there was a basis for that. You just can't go in and say, oh, I think that there is a chance this guy might be biased, so throw him off the case. You need more than that. And they didn't produce it.

[C]

What do you think that that makes sense? You know, I think that's not surprising.

[B]

So the current prosecution team will continue. I want to repeat, as we said before, I don't feel that this was a frivolous thing to pursue. I think it was worthwhile even though the argument was not particularly strong. You also don't really know in some cases how things may go, and you always miss the shots you don't take.

[C]

Exactly. We can say, hey, this doesn't seem very strong, without necessarily condemning the defense for making an attempt to get answers.

[B]

Yeah. So I think with that, we have covered most, if not all of the high points in this case so far, and we're going to make an effort to continue covering this case. Now that we're kind of caught up.

[C]

Yeah, now that we're caught up. And I, you know, I've seen some responses to our coverage so far, so I appreciate everybody's feedback, everybody's thoughts. That's always very helpful for us as we can kind of continue to mold and shape coverage and maybe answer some questions that you all have and that you're sort of saying, well, what's, what's going on with this aspect that helps us know what our audience is interested in. I would say that, you know, one thing I've been interested in is I do see a lot of comments, you know, we've gotten emails from some folks, you know, just kind of like expressing doubts about this case, saying maybe there is a conspiracy. And I think we've gotten that, interestingly enough, from people across the political spectrum, people maybe who are more conservative, people who are maybe more liberal, people are more on the left, people more on the right. So I feel like there is kind of, interestingly enough, some bipartisanship to that, to this kind of suspicion of like, this is a high profile case. Would one guy really just do this? You know, what's the truth? Could someone powerful have been, had a problem with this, with this guy Charlie Kirk, over his conservative political activism? What's going on with that? And so I understand when we have a high profile person like Charlie Kirk was, when we have him die, when we have him be murdered, I think it's an understandable reaction to say, what's the real story here? Right. We have kind of an instinctive reaction to be like, is there more to this? Right, Right. And I, and I think that's okay. And I think I, I don't want to invalidate people or say, hey, you're a conspiracy theorist just because you're asking questions. Although we all know that just asking questions is one of the classic cliches that conspiracy theorists say. I don't, I don't inherently say, okay, well, just because you're like, oh, this is weird. You know, you're falling into that. But I would caution folks to try your best. Regardless of your political beliefs, regardless of where you're coming to from the story, try to avoid the siren song of conspiratorial thinking. And here's what I mean, the difference is, I think it's fair for people to come in and say, well, what's the evidence against Tyler Robinson? Can we stress test it? Does it hold up under scrutiny? Is it possible that, you know, there's more to the story? Those are all good questions I think everyone should ask of every case when it gets conspiratorial. It's, I think, where we are kind of entering the realm of stuff that really can't be proven. When we're saying, well, high level people in the intelligence services must be fabricating evidence and planting it, you know, but you, but we can never know that for sure because they're so super spy that we'll never know. You know, once we can start saying stuff like that, it almost is like, if we can, if we can start almost positioning certain entities or governmental entities in the story, much as you would like, just kind of a lazy author might hand wave away, well, hey, this part of the story didn't add up. Oh, well, wizards did that part using magic. You know, like, that's not sad. As if you're reading a murder mystery novel and somebody, they're like, oh, what about this part? Well, it was wizards, it was magic. No one would like that. If, if, if the CIA or Mossad or whatever is functioning as wizards in, in the story of the murder that you are telling yourself. I think that, I think that is conspiratorial thinking. I don't say that with any criticism of anyone necessarily, because I understand the appeal of that. But I think we are going to be very much hunkered down on what can be proven. And I would remind people gently that we have an adversarial justice system.

[B]

That's a great point. And over and above that, in my reading of this file and in my knowledge of this defense team. This defense team is well regarded in the state of Utah. And when I look at this filing and read the filings in this case, they have presented a very vigorous defense. If they come across evidence of a conspiracy, if they come across evidence that, oh, this piece of evidence that allegedly incriminates our client is actually, has actually been faked. It's faked, it's not real. I think these are issues we can fully expect them to raise with the court.

[C]

And if they. We do not see them being raised, then we have two options. We expand the circle of conspiracy to include the man's own defense team. Which doesn't really make any sense to me. Like, how big does this thing have to be to work? And at some point you have to question, is this too big to work? Is this too many people who would have to be knowingly participating in a conspiracy to frame somebody? Although I don't. You can sell me. You can sell me on a conspiracy. I will, I will admit that you can sell me on a conspiracy in almost any case. But I need the conspiracy to be discreet, portable, bite sized. I need it to be something where it's plausible that all the people involved could shut up and get away with it. I, I'm not going to buy something that involves like the entire state of Utah and defense teams and prosecutors and state level people and county level people and federal level people across all the board. I just, I, that is, that is not a plausible scenario that's being outlined. It simply isn't.

[B]

I agree. And I would say what you would need to convince me of a conspiracy is evidence.

[C]

Yeah. I'm saying I would just be open to one if someone would actually.

[B]

Yeah, I'm not saying there's no conspiracy in this case. What I am saying is, up to this point, I have not seen any evidence of a conspiracy in this case. Maybe tomorrow there'd be some dramatic revelation. I don't know.

[C]

I'm open to anything. I think we all have to be. But I think it's a situation where I haven't seen anything either. And I also, I've seen what people have been positing I feel is incredibly unrealistic. And I think it's really important for folks because in a case like this, people get emotional. It's an emotional thing. Some people really liked Charlie Kirk. Some people really did not like Charlie Kirk. And when you have intense emotions over this or intense feelings or an intense aversion to his political views, or an intense sympathy with his political views, there can be a tendency to let that override just the basic facts of the case. And people make it into something more than it is. And they're either saying, well, my enemies, my enemies did this and covered it up, or, you know, it becomes this bigger thing. And I would just encourage, let's just treat it like a murder. Let's look at the evidence. Let's not be saying things that can never be proven. You know, if, like the, when people are Saying things like, oh, this was planted, that was planted, but we'll never know because it was the, like the top level people. That's kind of the same thing as saying, like, aliens might have done something, but we'll never know because then they flew away in their flying saucer. Like, we can't. No logical person should be dealing with that. No logical person should be kind of, you know, paying lip service to that. It should be about the evidence. And if there's problems with the ballistics, if there's problems with the DNA, if there's problems with how things were handled by law enforcement, if there's problems with the text data, if there's problems with any of that, I think we should trust the defense team to raise those. And if they do not, and we see them act competently otherwise, and we see them doing a generally vigorous job and they're throwing everything at the table, then I think that should mean more to us than hypothetical things that maybe kind of reflect our own personal worldviews. And again, I say this as somebody where I get swept along into this kind of thinking too. I'm not immune to it. I have to always try to course correct myself from kind of launching into what I want to believe. Right? It's, I mean, I'm, I'm the same as anyone else. So I kind of have my initial reaction of like, okay, this is kind of what would, would satisfy my own personal worldview and what I think of the world. And then I have to kind of step back and interrogate that and say, well, okay, but what's my evidence for that? And then I think by, by doing it that way, you can kind of step back from, from the initial, you know, kind of emotional reaction and then delve into more of something that is based on the facts made available through the process. And the adversarial nature of this is that the defense is highly motivated to pick apart anything and everything. And if they do not, then it is unlikely to be part of a conspiracy that they are suddenly a part of. It is more likely that they do not feel like they can argue that in court.

[B]

Yes. And I, I would add that I think the defense in this case is far more likely to have information proving or disproving the existence of a possible conspiracy than random people on the Internet. So if, if such information did exist, if there was a real reason to doubt a particular piece of evidence, they would be in a better position to make that call than you or I would.

[C]

And if someone is selling you, selling the public a Easy but vague narrative about a conspiracy involving any kind of murder. And that conspiracy would require dozens, if not hundreds of people to be complicit or at least somehow completely oblivious to a very complex scheme. I think it is reasonable to dismiss those things barring any sort of evidence that points to them. And I mean like direct evidence. I don't mean like vague hand waving, you know, of like. Well, this seems weird to me. It's like, that's usually because you don't know how criminal trials work. But when it comes to we cannot be doing this on vibes. We have to be doing this based on facts. And I think we need to hold that stuff to a strict standard because I think it's incredibly corrosive. And I hate to see good people get sucked into conspiratorial thinking. I think that can be very damaging to individuals. I just do. I don't like seeing people get swept along that current. I, I wanna, I wanna hold out like a hand and drag people out of it because it's like, you don't deserve that. And once you start app that to one case, I'm sorry, I think it, it's cumulative. People start going down that, going down the river and I'm just not, I'm not here for it. I don't want anyone to go down that route. It's not, it's not fun. And it also makes you, I think, incredibly paranoid. So let's all help each other not do that and stick to the facts.

[B]

Well, thank you for listening. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail]. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[C]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with

[C]

other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a Name youe Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

[C]

Score big savings this week at Grocery Outlet. Your Extreme Value Headquarters dinner just got easier with 1 pound of 93% lean grass fed ground beef for just $4.99. Plan A nacho night with all the toppings or serve up a big pot of warm chili. The meal possibilities are endless when you can stock up without breaking the budget. This deal is only available until March 24th. While supplies last, hurry to your local grocery outlet today. Grocery Outlet Bargain Market.