The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Tyler Robinson: The Media

Summary

Murder Sheet: The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Tyler Robinson – The Media

Date: March 18, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist), Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Áine and Kevin examine the pivotal role of media coverage and public access in the Charlie Kirk murder case and the prosecution of Tyler Robinson. They discuss the challenges and implications of balancing a defendant’s rights against the necessity of transparency in high-profile cases. The conversation explores motions around courtroom restraints, the debate over cameras, access to evidence, and the broader impact public opinion shaped by media may have on the legal process.

---

Bias and Public Access in High-Profile Trials

[04:21]

• Acknowledgment of Bias:
  • Kevin: "Would it be fair to say that we have a strong bias in favor of as much public access as possible?"
  • Áine: "Yeah, I would say that's consistently our strong bias... I think it's good for society when people can observe the wheels of justice in motion."
• Understanding the Other Side:
  • Both hosts clarify while they advocate for transparency, they recognize situations where privacy may protect a defendant's fair trial rights.

[05:37]

• Switch of Roles:
  • Áine: Notes that, unlike their coverage of the Delphi case where the prosecution limited access, in this case it's the defense advocating for restrictions.

---

Courtroom Restraints, Attire, and Media Images

[07:19]

• Defense Motion:
  • Defense requests Tyler Robinson not be placed in visible restraints or jail attire during court—highlighting how media images could bias public and jury perception.
  • Kevin (quoting defense motion): “The psychological reality is that human beings who serve on the bench are likewise not immune to such subconscious and subliminal influence from seeing a human being in chain to protect others from him.”
• Hosts’ Reaction:
  • Áine: Jokes, "The judge is going to yell, 'godzooks!' and like, jump into someone's arms, like Scooby Doo..." but considers the media bias argument about social media more compelling.

[10:38]

• Media Impact on Public Perception:
  • Kevin: Reads defense's media critique, highlighting 18,000 news search results after Robinson’s first court appearance, describing scrutiny of his appearance and fears of shaping the narrative.

[13:30]

• Speculation vs. Data:
  • Kevin: Notes the defense’s assertions are largely speculative; seeing defendants in jail attire can sometimes provoke public sympathy rather than prejudice.

[14:26] – Notable Quote (Áine):

• "I know for a fact there's been at least, you know, looking into attire of a defendant. I think one of the famous things is like, don’t wear red... there was a Supreme Court ruling that found... it would prejudice a jury to see the defendant in prison garb during the trial."
• Both hosts agree attire can matter, but remain open-minded about its precise impact.

---

Security Versus Fairness: Arguments and Ruling

[19:55]

• State’s Response:
  • The prosecution raises security concerns: easily identifiable attire aids in case of commotion or escape.

[21:50] – Notable Quote (Judge’s Ruling, Read by Kevin):

• “The Court concludes that Mr. Robinson’s right to the presumption of innocence and an unbiased jury supersedes the security concerns of dressing in civilian clothing... Photographs and visual recordings... will likely be shared and disseminated... There is a strong likelihood that a substantial number of potential jurors... may associate Mr. Robinson’s jail clothing with indicia of guilt.”

[25:30]

• Shackling Compromise:
  • Judges allow restraints for security, but restrict media photographing defendant in shackles to reduce prejudice risk.

---

Secrecy, Motions, and Media Battles

[27:24]

• Sealed Filings and Motions:
  • Defense moves to file evidence-related motions under seal, fearing inadmissible evidence could taint the public narrative or jury pool if leaked.
• Hosts Dissect the Defense's Position:
  • Áine: "I mean, I kind of feel like the point of public access is so people are watching what's happening here... if it—why can’t that play out in the public setting?"

[33:26] – On Jury Bias:

• Áine: “I jokingly sometimes call the people who are not into true crime the normies… They might know a little bit about some really high profile cases… most people just don’t care.”

---

The True Crime Silo and Media Environment

[35:00]

• Siloed Media Consumption:
  • Áine: “We are in a siloed media environment. The monoculture is largely dead. We’re not all looking at the same three channels on TV...”

[39:01]

• Defense vs. True Crime Public:
  • Kevin: “They’re accurately describing something real... but I don’t think it is pervasive as they seem to believe.”

---

Core Arguments for Transparency and Public Trust

[41:30]

• Media's Opposition to Defense’s Secrecy:
  • Media Brief (read by Kevin):
    • “No one trusts what happens in a secret criminal proceeding... A lot of people had doubts and concerns in [Delphi] because of the fact that information about that case and that trial were held so closely to the vest. I think that ultimately undermines some public confidence in the verdict.”

[44:47] – Notable Quote (Media):

• “The defense’s constant incantation that this case is somehow unique and has drawn significant public attention cuts exactly the opposite way. That is precisely why it is so critically important that the public be allowed to observe these proceedings and see the court in action... [These principles] are not controversial. This court should not depart from them.”

---

Countering the Defense’s Criticism of the Media

[50:02]

• Defense’s Critique of Media Behavior (read by Kevin):
  • “The news media uses their platform to, for example, call for Mr. Robinson’s death, to have body language experts make irrelevant and entirely unscientific claims about Mr. Robinson’s character, and to transmit video worldwide that is in clear violation of the court’s orders...”

[53:08] – Áine’s Response:

• “Are we talking about national news outlets, are we talking about the local news?... Are we talking about new media creators on YouTube and with podcasts who are often considered more unfettered and frankly, more unprofessional about how they present things?”
• Criticizes conflation of “all media” and argues that most coverage is motivated by generating the best story, not bias for one side.

[56:49] – Kevin’s Observation:

• “It’s a cliche, but I think it’s true. No one is happy with how they’re covered in the media... if our founding Fathers wanted there to be freedom of speech only into stuff that is sufficiently edifying, they could have put something in the Bill of Rights to that effect.”

---

Transparency, Secrecy, and Ethical Media Coverage

[59:41]

• Defense’s List of Bad Media Coverage Kept Secret:
  • Kevin: “...in one of their motions relating to whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom, they apparently included like a long list of what they considered to be bad media coverage...but these examples...are already public...”

[61:47] – Notable Quote (Media Attorneys):

• “Put simply, the defense wants to deny the public access to public information, including publicly created information. The defense cites no authority for this novel argument, nor could it. What is public is public. And the defense cannot make public information secret by putting it in a court filing.”

[62:29] – Áine on Attorney Tactics:

• Contrasts defense teams that go to “war” with the media (as in this case) and those that try to manipulate it behind the scenes. Suggests at least this approach is more transparent, if combative.

---

Both Sides Shape Public Perceptions

[64:36] – Notable Quote (Prosecution):

• “Not all the pre-trial publicity here has been adverse to a defendant. Much of the publicity has also created concerns for the state. A number of conspiracy theories about this murder have circulated worldwide.”

[66:02] – Áine:

• Notes that, if anything, pre-trial publicity has fueled conspiracy theories against the prosecution, calling Robinson a “patsy” or victim of a setup.

---

Logical Fallacies and Conspiracy Thinking

[67:12]

• Áine Explains Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:
  • Áine: “There’s a perception of Charlie Kirk’s death benefiting the current presidential administration by making Charlie Kirk a martyr or distracting from other events... That’s a logical fallacy... It’s... because event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X... That’s not logical.”

[70:08] – Áine:

• “If we’re going to go with a conspiracy route, there needs to be a lot of people involved… and I just find that very hard to believe... It’s important that even though people have very strong feelings... we set aside some of those feelings when we’re talking about the cold facts of a murder.”

---

Key Takeaways

• Public Access v. Defendant’s Rights: The episode showcases the intricate balancing of transparency, public trust, and the need to protect the right to a fair trial, especially in the social media age.
• Media’s Role: Both mainstream and “new media” coverage are scrutinized; media sensationalism can be dangerous, but so too can excessive secrecy.
• Judicial Compromise: Judges attempt to split the difference—protecting the presumption of innocence without sacrificing courtroom security or eroding public trust.
• Danger of Conspiracy Narratives: Hosts urge listeners to rely on evidence rather than logical fallacies, warning how speculation can damage rational discourse and trust in justice.
• Broader Implications: Restricting public access, even with good intentions, can feed ongoing distrust in major legal proceedings. The solution requires careful, case-by-case balancing, not blanket suppression or unfettered openness.

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• On Public Access:
  • Áine ([04:32]): “I think it’s good for society when people can observe the wheels of justice in motion.”
• On Courtroom Appearance:
  • Kevin ([13:30]): “A lot of what they're saying about the alleged effect of this on jurors is speculative.”
• On Media Secrecy:
  • Media Brief ([41:30] Read by Kevin): “No one trusts what happens in a secret criminal proceeding...”
• On Conspiracy Theories:
  • Áine ([70:08]): “If we’re going to go with a conspiracy route, there needs to be a lot of people involved... that’s not logical.”

---

Suggested Listening Segments

• [04:21]–[06:19]: Discussion of public access philosophy and bias.
• [07:19]–[14:26]: Motions on restraints and courtroom attire.
• [19:55]–[26:07]: Security, judicial rulings, and their implications.
• [27:24]–[39:35]: The debate on sealing court documents and the true crime media ecosystem.
• [41:30]–[46:21]: Media legal arguments for transparency.
• [50:02]–[56:49]: Defense/media critique dynamics and the limits of media criticism.
• [62:29]–[64:36]: Strategies—combative vs. manipulative relationships with the press.
• [67:12]–[73:26]: Post hoc fallacy and conspiracy logic.

---

Tone

The episode is conversational, thoughtful, sometimes humorous, yet deeply analytical. The hosts maintain a commitment to evidence, context, and protecting both public trust and fair trial rights, while acknowledging the complexities and realities of the contemporary media landscape.

Transcript

[A]

Ugh.

[B]

I barely got any sleep last night.

[A]

What?

[B]

Why? I spent hours fighting with AI, all because I was trying to make a website. It started out okay, but then I got stuck just trying to change one button. Okay, okay, relax. Just try wix Harmony. What's that? It's wix's new website builder. Lets you switch back and forth between AI tools and hands on editing anytime. So I'm not just prompting and praying? Nope.

[C]

Just.

[B]

Just try it for [e-mail] Harmony.

[C]

My name is MacKenzie, and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child. So she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help

[B]

support them during this crisis.

[C]

And we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[B]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com, gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe.

[A]

I'm Kevin, and in this episode, we're going to continue our look at what has become one of the more controversial cases in recent times. The murder of Charlie Kirk. Content WARNING. This episode contains discussion of murder. Well, Anya, in this day and age when you have a high profile case, one thing that frankly, both sides need to be aware of and keep in the forefront of their minds is how is this case being presented and shared with the world at large? For the attorneys on the defense side, that is especially crucial because you need to protect the rights of your client. Just because a person is charged with a crime, as Tyler Robinson has been charged here with the murder of Charlie Kirk, that does not mean that that person is guilty. And even if that person is factually guilty, that doesn't mean that there is evidence to prove them legally guilty. You have to protect their rights. You have to do what you can to ensure that a jury pool is not tainted against him. At the same time, people on the other side want to do what they can to ensure public access in this case, that this Charlie Kirk case, the media has been very active in trying to defend public access. Right. So you have to balance all of these interests against each other, and I think that's going to be the primary focus of what we talk about today. Great.

[C]

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

[A]

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

[C]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[A]

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

[C]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[A]

And this is the Murder of Charlie, the Case of Tyler James Robinson. The Media.

[C]

Sam.

[A]

I think it's always helpful, Anya, when we acknowledge our own biases. And would it be fair to say that we have a strong bias in favor of as much public access as possible?

[C]

Yeah, I would say that's consistently our strong bias. It's not to say that we don't understand arguments for the contrary at certain points, but I would say that you and I, as people who cover crimes, me coming from a journalism background, you always being, you know, quite the fan of journalism, I think we tend to like to see a lot of sunshine, a lot of public access on things, frankly, especially a highly politicized case like this where there are political ramifications. It's a big, high profile thing. And I really think that for all the problems that a high level of public access to a case can cause, personally, I think it's good for society when people can observe the wheels of justice in motion a hundred percent.

[A]

I also like what you say about how we understand the arguments on the other side. Just because we love public access doesn't mean that we believe there has to be total public access of everything at all times. No, because that can, in some instances, affect the rights of the defendant.

[C]

I will just say. I want to say this. It's interesting in this case because oftentimes, you know, I think in the case that we, you know, covered pretty extensively, obviously the Delphi murders case, it was the prosecution that was being very cautious about public access, and we were critical of them at times for that. So it's a situation where, you know, and I understand now better than when it was going on, why they were doing that. And I think some of their decisions made sense in retrospect. But at the same time, it's interesting in this case, it's flipped. It's actually the defense saying, no, no, no, we, we. We're concerned about this. So you can see both sides are. It just depends on the case, I guess. But both sides can kind of be a little bit more cautious about what's getting out to the public.

[A]

And it's important that you bring up the case of the Richard Allen case, the Delphi murders, because it's easy to say, oh, the side that's wary of public access is the side that has the weaker hand. The prosecution in that case had a very strong case. They won. Whatever concerns they had about public access, it wasn't them trying to hide a weak case. And so when we discuss the public access issues in this case and we see the defense arguing against public access, we should not assume that means, oh, they think they have a really terrible case.

[C]

I don't think we should. I don't think kind of, I don't know, blanket assumptions like that are particularly helpful. I mean, I guess sometimes everyone makes a blanket assumption. But I think there can be strategic reasons going behind this. I think there can be reasons around, like, you know, working well with your client or protecting witnesses if you're the prosecution, or there's all kinds of reasons, you can be more cautious and want restraints put on public access.

[A]

Yeah, and it's funny you mentioned restraints, because the first thing that come up kind of deals with restraints a little bit, quite literally. Very early on, after the arrest of Mr. Robinson, his team filed a motion saying, we don't want him to have to wear restraints when he comes to court, even for pretrial hearings. We also want him to dress in civilian clothes when he comes to court, even in pretrial hearings. I'm going to read a little bit about this Quote. The use of courtroom restraints has been litigated most often when the restraints are used during jury trials. That's when the dangers of unfair prejudice are most severe. And where, if any restraints are to be used, the usual course is to ensure they never become visible to the jury. Yet the reasons for the limits on courtroom restraints apply more broadly. They weigh in favor of applying these limits to pretrial proceedings. I'm going to go down a little bit. They also write, by necessity, judges are trusted to be less vulnerable than lead jurors to this and other forms of unfair prejudice. However, the psychological reality is that human beings who serve on the bench are likewise not immune to such subconscious and subliminal influence from seeing a human being in chain to protect others from him, end quote. So they're saying, even the judge, okay, see, a person in restraints might cause some sort of a bias.

[C]

The judge is going to yell, godzooks. And, like, jump into someone's arms, like, Scooby Doo. I mean, like, I'm sorry, this seems a Little bit over the top. I don't know. I know what they're saying.

[A]

But like, they also say, hey, if he's wearing a lot of restraints, maybe that's going to affect his ability to communicate effectively with his lawyers. Wow. I don't know. They also say that if he is seen in all these pre trial hearings wearing clothes, the prison garb, these pre trial hearings are shared all over the world. People take pictures of them. That might influence a jury.

[C]

See, I, that, that one's, I feel like a better argument because I could see that where people are conditioned, oh, he's, he's in chains, he's a criminal, he's dangerous. And I'm seeing it all over social media. That I feel like is a more a stronger argument than like, oh my spook the judge. You know, I don't know. That just seems a little bit silly. But I think the other one is not silly. I think that's reasonable. But I guess, I mean, let me just. A lot of this also is a safety concern. You know, like there's a, there's an element of you don't want a crazy situation erupting in the courtroom where a defendant goes for somebody's gun. Like that would be a disaster. So like I get what they're saying and I actually like, understand and also like, I mean, I think this would be something that would build a lot of rapport with your client if you're able to get them in a more comfortable situation for these pretrial hearings in, in, in more kind of a humane. I'm not, you're not chained up and you're not, you're wearing normal clothes. I think that can be a great win. So I get why they're doing this. I just, But I feel like safety issues kind of trump a lot of things at the same time.

[A]

That's a great point and I want to come back to it in a second, but first I want to read another excerpt from this particular motion from the defense, quote, illustrative of the magnitude of the issue. On September 16, 2025 at 3pm Mr. Robinson appeared for the first time in this case from the Utah county jail via WebEx. The hearing was streamed live and covered by media outlets the world over, including the BBC, Al Jazeera, abc, cbs, NBC, Newsweek, npr, the Daily Mail, Fox News, CNN and countless others, generating approximately 18,000 news search results. Mr. Robinson's physical appearance alone was and is subject to endless scrutiny and speculation. One article described Mr. Robinson during his initial appearance as emotionless in staring blankly Ahead and sporting slightly mussed locks, several days worth of facial hair, and wearing a green suicide smock. With each development in the case generating thousands of articles and comments online, the likelihood of potential jurors seeing and drawing conclusions regarding Mr. Robinson's guilt and or deserved punishment from obvious signs that pretrial incarceration will only increase, end quote, unquote. So I wanted to highlight, first of all, they're doing media criticism there.

[C]

I know. There you go.

[A]

And then we can discuss the substance of that in a moment. But this is also something that sort of thing we're going to see a lot of in this discussion. They're going to be very critical of the news media. What. What do you think about the substance of that?

[C]

I get what they're saying. I'm not going to just be reflexively dismissive of it. I think I get that personally. And this may just be me. Maybe listeners agree or disagree with this personally. Like, I believe, again, to go back to a case where there was also, you know, pretrial incarceration and he. At pretrial hearings, these were not televised, but he would appear in chains in prison garb. Richard Allen. I believe he's guilty, right? I believe he killed those girls. But when I was seeing him like that, prior to my mind being made up either way, part of me felt really bad for him. Like, I wasn't. I didn't see him and be like, oh, my gosh, he's so. Like, he must have done it. I was like, oh, man, like that. That looks really rough. And I. I feel like I've sympathized more with him from that than, like, actually having a negative view of him. I, you know, like, some of the evidence would make me be like, well, I don't know, maybe, you know, like that. That sounds pretty bad, but I. I feel like I wasn't. If anything, when I see someone like that, I almost kind of have a bit of a jolt of sympathy. And then, you know, it's more of, like, reading about what they did or were accused of doing that might make you feel a certain type of way based on the evidence. But for me, that alone is never like, okay, yeah, they did it. I don't know, maybe other. I mean, what do you think?

[A]

I think we should take what you just said and, like, shine lights on it, because you're making an excellent point here, which is essentially, a lot of what they're saying about the alleged effect of this on jurors is speculative. They're assuming that people will see this and oh, he must be guilty. I think a lot. I don't, I haven't seen proof that's necessarily true. I actually had a similar reaction when I saw Richard Allen come out in prison garb and in shackles. This is out of the sight of the jury in the pretrial hearings. There's just something about that sight of seeing this little guy surrounded by all these guards and in shackles. On some level, you can't help but feel a little bit of sympathy, even though it's misguided. So I'm not even sure if this sort of visual is necessarily bad for their client.

[C]

I, I do, I do think now, I don't, I don't have studies in front of me. I know for a fact there's been at least, you know, looking into attire of a defendant. I think one of the famous things is like, don't, you know, like, there's like, almost like, don't wear red, you know, like, like I think there are studies or, you know, kind of academics who look into this stuff who, who do feel that you can prejudice a jury with this. I know there was a Supreme Court ruling that found like, you know, it would prejudice a jury to see the defendant in prison garb during the trial. So I, I'm not gonna dismiss it. I, and say, oh no, you know, everyone must feel like we do and just feel bad for the guy. We might just be weird, you know, and like everyone else is sitting there being like, no, that would kind of freak me out and I would kind of like almost think he's a criminal, like even subconsciously. And, and you know, I, so I, I'm not gonna dismiss the, the possible phenomenon and I think there are possibly some resources there that do indicate that it's a problem. But you know, yeah, I, I think like, I, yeah, I mean, so I guess I'll, I'll, I'm open minded on that. Either way, enough with over complicating your wardrobe. Stop buying trendy, cheap stuff that doesn't last. Curate your style with high quality pieces that you can mix and match. Our wonderful sponsor Quince can help you out with that.

[A]

They are all about accessible luxury. These are the premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time, even as the seasons change.

[C]

We love their comfortable, lightweight Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're perfect for spring. We're also excited to try out their linen bottoms and shorts and European jersey linen T shirts.

[A]

Not only will you be getting high quality clothing for less, it's also important to know that Quint only pairs with ethical factories and artisans that set rigorous standards for craftsmanship. They save you money by cutting out the middlemen.

[C]

Quince's wonderful silk pieces have been some of my go tos this year. I love their black washable silk dress and black washable silk skirt. They elevate my style while being so easy to wash and maintain and pair with other clothes.

[A]

Right now go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. That is a full year to build your wardrobe and love it and you will. It's now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c e.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Wince.com msheet when we started the Murder

[C]

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.

[A]

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.

[A]

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.

[A]

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.com msheet Go to shopify.com msheet that's shopify.com msheet

[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 24 while supplies last. Hurry to your local grocery outlet today.

[B]

Grocery outlet, bargain market.

[A]

You're easy.

[C]

I'm just saying for my personal experience, I don't feel like I have that. But again, like maybe I do and I just not aware of it.

[A]

Other people might. I'm saying I would have liked to have seen more specific reasons and not just speculative here.

[C]

Maybe cite some of the studies perhaps like, you know, like these, these criminologists or these sociologists looked into the effects of this and here's what they found. You know, like that might have been helpful. I don't know. I guess it's not an academic paper, it's a legal filing.

[A]

In the response, the representatives of the state basically raised some of the points you made Anya earlier, which is that having a person shackled, that could be a security concern. They even go so far as to say that if there's some sort of a disturbance, having a prisoner or prisoners in prison garb would make it easier for them to be subdued and identified. That was their response basically that yes, we have to balance all of these interests, but one interest is very important as security, and that has to come first. Do you have any response to that argument?

[C]

I mean, like, that it's a security issue fundamentally and like if he gets out, then they need to be able to, you know, see the prison garb. Yeah, I mean, that makes sense. I, I understand that. At the same time, I mean, you could always make the argument, I guess, that he could get out during trial and then he's going to be in civilian clothes. Right. Like, I guess it's, it's just complicated. Right. And you know, in, in maybe there should be more consideration that if a trial is going to be televised, that the images seen from that are going to influence potentially a jury pool. We live in a different era than we did in the 70s when I think this original Supreme Court around prison attire during, or jail attire during a trial kind of came up. And this is a time where we're, we're spreading around tiktoks taken from Court TV's coverage of all of this. Like we're seeing everything and it's lingering and people who are not watching it live can go back and watch it later. So maybe the defense has a point that we should be considering more of the holistic what's getting out there to the public in the long term. I'm open to that I'm going to

[A]

read you what the judge ultimately wrote in his ruling on this issue. Quote, upon balancing the interests at stake, the Court concludes that Mr. Robinson's right to the presumption of innocence and an unbiased jury supersedes the security concerns of dressing in civilian clothing in this case. The media Interest in Mr. Robinson's trial is arguably unprecedented in the state of Utah. Photographs and visual recordings of Mr. Robinson in jail clothing will likely be shared and disseminated in various public platforms. There is a strong likelihood that a substantial number of potential jurors in Utah county will review these images and may associate Mr. Robinson's jail clothing with indicia of guilt. The danger of prejudice is compounded by technological advancements that allow the images to be manipulated in ways that do not accurately reflect the truth of the court proceedings. End quote.

[C]

Yeah, I feel like that's pretty reasonable.

[A]

He's saying, yeah, there is a danger here. These images are going to be seen by potential jurors who may draw the wrong idea from him. He goes on to note that because of the circumstances of this case and the trial, Mr. Robertson is always going to be the only defendant, the only person from jail in the courtroom. So people shouldn't have a hard time identifying him in a disturbance.

[C]

And, you know, I mean, I think. I mean, you'd hope that they just have professional, competent people in the courtroom making sure everything's okay. Maybe this makes it a little bit more complicated for them, and that's unfortunate. But I. I feel like the nature of social media and the nature of our media environment now, where we're saturated with images, you know, even if I feel like, personally, when I see someone in that state, I feel bad for them, that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody feels that way. And maybe, maybe I'm fooling myself, maybe I think that. But then maybe I would secretly, you know, like, maybe there's, like, levels to it where we all kind of have mixed feelings about it. So I feel like. I feel like this is a reasonable and prudent and cautious way to approach it.

[A]

So then let's get to the issue of should he be shackled? And the judge acknowledges Mr. Robertson has no criminal history. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's been disruptive or disrespectful or been a danger since he was charged. And he also agrees visual recordings and photographs of Mr. Robinson shackled may give the impression that he is dangerous and may undermine his presumption of innocence. He goes on to add, though, quote, on the Other hand, The charges against Mr. Robinson are serious. If convicted, he faces potential sentences of life in prison or death. Though these proceedings were focused on legal matters, both Mr. Robinson and court patrons are likely to feel strong emotions. The landscape that lies ahead requires thoughtful and focused work, and the court would not tolerate disruption or commotion that could have been prevented or mitigated by strong security protocols. End quote. So ultimately, he kind of comes down in the middle. He wants him to be shackled, but he doesn't want to allow. The court. It doesn't. Was it the court to allow media to take images of Mr. Robinson shackled? I'm curious, what's your response to that? Because in a way, that is limiting public access to a certain degree.

[C]

Yeah, it is. It is. I mean, given the circumstances, I can understand where this judge is coming from with this. It feels like that's pretty reasonable. I mean, I think it would be pretty wild to not have somebody, I don't know, shackled in this instance, where it is a violent crime. And, you know, I just. It's a pretty. It's a highly violent, like, somebody died. So, you know, I feel like the judge is trying to, like, balance safety

[A]

with everything else while still protecting Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Who knows how a person might react if you're sitting in court and you hear you're going to be sentenced to death or you're going to be sentenced to some terrible sentence of people saying terrible things about you. Who knows?

[C]

Wait a minute. I have a qu. But, like, this is for. Is this for pre trial, or is this for the trial as well? Because I feel like that's also a bit of a. You know, like, obviously, the big question would be, for me, like, are the jurors seeing this too?

[A]

Right. This is for pre trial.

[C]

Okay, that makes. So. Yeah, like. But potential jurors could see it, but that's why they're having him not be shown in shackles. I always feel a little bit iffy about restricting any sort of public access, but, I mean, I can understand it.

[A]

Yeah, he. He could be hearing terrible things affecting his fate. Yeah.

[C]

Yeah. You know, I mean, I think the judge is just trying to balance a lot of complicated issues in an unusual case. And it's unusual because. Because of who the victim was and because of the victim's prominence within, you know, sort of political circles, there is an element here where it's just kind of generated a lot of attention.

[A]

So that was the first kind of public access issue. There have been a few others since Then that I'm going to. They kind of get intertwined, and so I'm going to talk about all of them and some of the arguments for them. At one point, the defense filed a motion about some evidence. I'm sorry to be vague. That. That motion about that evidence is not available because they. They've requested that it be kept from the public because they say, oh, we. We may have objections to this evidence and evidence that is inadmissible. There's not a guaranteed public right to that. And it might. If this evidence that we allude to in this motion is exposed to the public, that might interfere with his right. So there's arguments over whether or not that particular motion should be made public. There's arguments about other motions. There's arguments about. Not only are there arguments about cameras in the courtroom, the defense has filed a motion arguing against cameras in the courtroom, and they want that motion to be kept secret. So they even want their arguments about whether or not things should be kept secret to themselves be kept secret. And so I want to talk about some of the arguments in those issues, if that makes sense.

[C]

Yes, that makes total sense.

[A]

Okay. Yeah, it's kind of confusing. So I. I want to talk about some of the things the defense has done. They've written, quote, while open criminal proceedings give assurances of fairness to both the public and the conf. And the accused, there are some limited circumstances in which the right of the accused to a fair trial might be undermined by publicity. I think we could all agree with that.

[C]

Oh, yeah, certainly.

[A]

The classic example goes back to the 1950s. Sam Shepard, who was guilty. Who was guilty, was tried in a. He was tried in an atmosphere and an environment of intense media publicity that the Supreme Court later found that this was unfair because of all of this publicity. So there are circumstances where publicity might undermine a defendant's rights. The defense writes, quote, at this early stage of proceedings and prior to any adversarial testing, disclosure of initial evidentiary reports will only serve to insert potentially inadmissible evidence into the public narrative, saturating the coverage of Mr. Robertson's case and runs a high risk of tainting the potential jury pool. So, again, they want to file a motion about some evidentiary report that apparently is incriminating to their client. But they don't want the public to know about what that evidence is because they say, who knows? Maybe we'll come up with a good argument to make it inadmissible. I'm just curious, on the face of it, what is your reaction to That.

[C]

I don't know. Can you. Can you run it by me again? I'm not sure if I'm, like, completely understanding what that means.

[A]

They want to file a motion about an evidentiary report, some sort of report that's been generated about a piece of evidence.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

They don't want the public to know what's in that report, even though they're making a motion about it, because they say what's in that report. Who knows? Maybe it won't be admissible. And if it's not admissible, why should the public even hear about it at all and just let us file this in secret? Does that make it more clear?

[C]

Yeah, that makes it more clear. I mean, I don't know. That makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I mean, I kind of feel like the point of public access is so people are watching what's happening here. I don't. Like. I mean, also, I mean, I don't know. I guess without knowing what it is or what's going on with that, it's a little bit hard to say. Maybe they. Maybe it makes a lot of sense. And, you know, I mean, I. I guess on some level, I just kind of. I respect defense attorneys who are zealously advocating for their clients, and it seems like they're really trying their best on a number of different levels to. To represent him and. And really, you know, make his chances at trial as good as possible. So, I mean, I respect that. I. It's a bit frustrating when you're on the media side of it, though, where it's like, okay, but can we have the information on the case? Like, you know, I don't. I mean, if it. I mean, why can't that play out in the public setting?

[A]

They write, quote, defense efforts to exclude this evidence is unreliable would be futile if the evidence has already reached the jury pool through pretrial publicity.

[C]

I mean, that's assuming. I mean, I don't know. Listen, I know some people like to denigrate our jury system and be like, oh, the jury. They're just gonna convict you if you're wearing a red shirt or whatever. Maybe some jurors will. I think there have been bad juries. I'm not one of those people who's like, always respect the jury. We're the jury respecters. No, I mean, like, the O.J. simpson jury botched it. You know, Like, I'm not gonna be, like, nice to them, but. But that doesn't mean that I think that, like, I think a lot of people in cases I've Followed where I've like, you know, or watched or whatever. The jury takes it very seriously and they try their best to come to a fair conclusion based on the facts they've heard and they take it seriously. I'm not, again, I'm not saying every jury's perfect, but I'm just saying that like if that's not presented at trial also, I think sometimes this kind of overestimates how many people care about.

[A]

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I think one problem I have with a lot of the defense arguments on this issue is, oh, we see a potential issue here with tainting the jury pool. Therefore we just have to lock everything down, just deny access. And I think there's a lot of remedies already in place for this sort of thing, which is to have a very vigorous questioning process in the jury selection process. As you say, a lot of people, God bless them, don't follow true crime. I use the football example. I don't know who the quarterback of my local football team is. I have no idea. People who are football fans would be astonished by that because to them it's very, very important. We follow true crime. We know a lot of details about these cases. People who don't follow the true crime would know about it. I think through a vigorous jury selection process, asking the right questions, you can weed out people who have been exposed to this.

[C]

I call, I jokingly sometimes call the people who are not into true crime the normies. Right. Because it's like they're the normal people who aren't really getting all morbid when you talk to them. They might know a little bit about some really high profile cases, cases that are dominating the mainstream media or, or cases that previously dominated the mainstream media. Things like maybe they might ask you about Nancy Guthrie. They might ask you about, you know, they might talk about O.J. simpson or JonBenet Ramsey a little bit like cases that at one point were everywhere. But they are, they are not following this in any sort of depth. And frankly, I'm not saying they don't care. You know, I mean, and I. If you don't think those people exist, I encourage you to expand your friend group because it's great. I mean, it's great talking to people who don't care about true crime because I feel like a lot of them are actually more open minded than some of us who are in the true crime field because we're, you know, we've got all these opinions and all this stuff and they're just like hey, what's the evidence? All right, that makes sense. Like, I mean, like, it's, it's, it's kind of refreshing, I guess. But we talked to, you know, neighbors, people in our community, people we run into, friends that, I mean, I have, I have friends where they're just not into true crime. And I'm like, telling them about what's going on with some of the drama, and they're like, oh my gosh, are you okay? Like, you know, like it's, it's a situation where you have to. Most people just don't care. And this is something where I just. We are in a siloed media environment. The monoculture is largely dead. We're not all looking at the same three channels on tv, getting our news from them. We are having our computers and our phones tell us things that they think we want to hear based on our previous news consumption. And there's ways for people to be completely siloed off from any of this and I think come into it with a completely open mind.

[A]

To go back to my football example, it's entirely possible that as I consume media, maybe I have at different times encountered headlines about a quarterback locally, maybe he has a contract issue or something like that. So I may even have a little bit of information about the football team and the players, but that doesn't mean I have any hard and fast opinions, and that doesn't mean that I wouldn't change my mind on those issues if I get more information.

[C]

And like, you don't care. You're not emotionally invested in that.

[A]

Yes. So again, a rigorous for our dear, get jurors who don't have hard and fast opinions. And I think a lot of this is mitigated.

[C]

Yeah. And I think, you know, and I think stuff like the image based stuff around him being in prison garbage, that's something where someone could be scrolling through and just see a picture and maybe that influences them a little, even if they don't care that much. So I understand mitigating that, but like, preventing public access to like all these, you know, different things. Like, I think that's overkill. Personally, I understand why the defense is doing it, though. I'm not criticizing them, but for me it's like, just seems a little over the top. But I mean, I get it. They want to be as cautious as possible.

[A]

I'm going to read another quote from the defense. Quote. The court should also be dissuaded of the notion that bias in the potential jury pool created by disclosure of evidence that may ultimately be ruled inadmissible would dissipate with time. In this particular case, we no longer live in times where cases like Mr. Robinson's are subject to a 24 hour news cycle, with each article or post easily replaced in the minds of the public by a new story of the day. The appetite for this case is voracious, and each new development in or out of court proceedings does not become an archived story. Rather, it becomes a part of ongoing narratives that live and breathe on social media and the Internet generally. The evidence at issue here would undoubtedly become part of any number of narratives and conspiracy theories pervading the public sphere and be repeated ad nauseam up to and even during Mr. Robinson's trial. Regardless of this court's admissibility determinations, the only way to prevent potentially inadmissible evidence from becoming part of the narratives that lead to bias and tainting of the jury pool is to not file the potentially inadmissible evidence publicly. End quote.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think they're right about.

[A]

I think they're right and wrong.

[C]

Yeah. But I. I think what they're saying about the living, breathing, kind of seething mass of true crime, where it's all like part of this never ending story that's accurate.

[A]

I think that is highly accurate for people within these silos that you speak of, people like us, people who follow true crime cases. We haven't even covered the Guthrie case on this program. I'm sure we've remembered every single detail and are making little narratives in our mind. That's how people like us think when we consume true crime. I don't think this is how most potential juror members think. So I think they're accurately describing something real, But I don't think it is pervasive as they seem to believe. What do you think?

[C]

I think you're right. I mean, the nightmare scenario is you get somebody like that on a jury. Right. And I think, you know, that is always a possibility. And that's what's scary about this. It's like all it takes is one. One person who's completely, you know, made up their mind already one way or another and is not treating the process with any sort of respect. So that is a concern. I mean, I understand being concerned about that. I think they've described true crime somewhat accurately where it's a kind of this, like, attracts the kind of obsessives. And I say that as somebody who is in that category. I'm not critical of it. It's just more of like we're all going to be paying a lot of attention to it. Other people aren't. You kind of want the people who aren't obsessed with it. You want people who are open minded. But as for. Yeah, I mean, I, I mean, are most people in the true crime space? No, I would say most people are probably not. That doesn't mean those people who are not are necessarily like, don't follow any true crime stories. But as I mentioned, they follow the big ones. This is a big one. But I wouldn't say it's Nancy Guthrie level at this point in terms of the coverage. Nancy Guthrie got like wall to wall coverage for days. And it's still something like people who are just not into true crime, they'll like, when we're talking to them, they'll, oh, you guys have a true crime podcast. What do you think of that? Whereas this one, not so much. I don't know why that. I don't know why some cases are that way and others aren't. This one, I think is a top tier one in terms of getting a lot of high profile coverage. It's maybe not quite broken through in the same exact way or this to the same exact extent, but I mean, it is big enough that I think it's a reasonable concern for the defense. Do I agree that everything should be shut down as a result? Not really. But I mean, I can see why they're making the argument, I guess.

[A]

I want to read something that the media filed in this case as a response to some of these. As I say, some of these pertain to different things. Cameras in the courtroom keeping evidence, evidentiary motions secret. This is the media. Quote, no one trusts what happens in a secret criminal proceeding. Not those who support the prosecution, who wonder whether the case was properly presented, not those who support the defense, who wonder whether the defendant's fair trial rights were respected. And not even dispassionate observers who are deprived of their right to see how the judicial system works. Along the way, the court's credibility is irreparably damaged, perceived accountability for alleged crimes is undermined, and public confidence in the result is diminished. This is why public judicial proceedings are a bedrock and axiomatic principle of our system of justice. Not as a quirk of history, but as a funding founding tenet embedded in the Constitution, end quote. I find that compelling because I think we saw something like this in Delphi. Whether you support the prosecution in that case, whether you support the defense in that case, whether you are just in the middle trying to figure out what you think about that case. A lot of people had doubts and concerns in that case because of the fact that information about that case and that trial were held so closely to the vest. I think that ultimately undermines some public confidence in the verdict. I agree and I think they are correct that people don't trust secret proceedings.

[C]

I'm going to tell you something. Just from the reaction we've gotten to our first episode, I think there are a lot of people who are concerned about these proceedings, who are concerned that there's a bigger story here. And I'm not going to just dismiss them or say, oh, they're conspiracy theorists, they're wrong. I understand where they're coming from. Even if I disagree and even if I feel like their conclusions are likely wrong. I think it's important to showcase what the evidence is and showcase how this all works. Because I think if you don't do that in this case, you do run the risk of it having a much longer life as something where people are saying, oh well, you know, there was a cover up and there was a cover up because it was secret and therefore we can't know. And it's like that. You don't want to get into that. That undermines everything about our system.

[A]

Yeah. I'll repeat something we said early on in our Delphi coverage during the pretrial phase of that case. We have a bias in that case too. What we want is at the end of the day, we want there to be a verdict in that case that is properly understood by anyone interested in the case. And it's a verdict they have confidence in because they have information enough to thoroughly understand it.

[C]

That's right.

[A]

And that aim is harder to accomplish if information is held close to the vest.

[C]

That's exactly right. Even if those reasons for holding it close to the vest are valid or they are understandable, it's it. You know, sometimes the, you know, this stuff can be bigger than just one case. It can be about public confidence in our justice system.

[A]

I'm going to read another quote from the media's response here. Quote, the defense's constant incantation that this case is somehow unique and has drawn significant public attention cuts exactly the opposite way. That is precisely why it is so critically important that the public be allowed to observe these proceedings and see the court in action, ensuring defendants rights are protected and the prosecution's ability to present its case is preserved. Again, these are bedrock principles of our system of justice enshrined for hundreds of years. They are not controversial. This court should not depart from them. What do you Think.

[C]

Yeah, it's pretty stirring. You know, I mean I, I've expressed sympathy with the defense position here and I've also expressed that we should be knowledgeable about how our media environment has changed and therefore be able to tweak protections of defendants rights along with that. But I also don't think we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater of, of having public access to trials because it's like. Yes. Would everything be technically safer if we just had secret trials in a basement with no one allowed in? Yes. But obviously we can all understand when I say it like that, that that presents the opportunity for pretty.

[A]

Abuse.

[C]

Abuse and egregiousness. That's not what we should want. Even though like that would technically like, you know, lock everything down. So there's obviously needs to be compromises. There obviously needs to maybe be tweaks. But should everything be just, you know, secret and silent? No.

[B]

Honestly, I put off building a website way longer than I should have. Then I tried WIX Harmony and it was way easier than I expected. I just described what I wanted and I had an incredible looking website. The best part, I could change anything myself or ask my AI agent for help. I had everything my business needed right there. So if you've been procrastinating, this is your sign. Start building a website for [e-mail] Harmony.

[C]

Absolutely not. That is, that is completely antithetical to how this is supposed to operate, frankly.

[A]

The media also says, quote, no court has ever held that the mere possibility that evidence would be excluded at the trial court level is sufficient to prophylactically seal all evidentiary motions until a ruling is made to reach that conclusion. Return the presumption of access on his head and permit every single motion to exclude evidence to be filed under seal contrary to the very right of access. Yeah, again I think that that's a good argument

[C]

also. I don't, I mean, I guess I just don't really understand that argument in the sense that like if it gets thrown out then the jury's not going to hear it at trial. If.

[A]

Well, the argument is, well, just the fact that it is admitted publicly. There's going to be so much talk about it.

[C]

Yeah, it's like not, not with everyone. Also, here's the thing, here's what you have to remember. Okay. Like this is again deli. I know we use that for everything, but we lived it and we've never left it in some ways. Deli, we're in Indiana. We live in Indiana. If you go up to a Random person. They've probably. I mean, I think, like, oftentimes they've heard of Delphi, at least when you're in Indiana. But sometimes they'll like repeat back to you details that are just wrong, or they. They won't remember all of the details or they'll kind of get it conflated with something else. And I think that's important to remember. People remember the high level stuff. They remember, oh my gosh, Charlie Kirk got shot. Remember that. They're not necessarily being like, did you see that filing? Wow, that was a doozy. They're not following it with that level of granularity. Like, it's. They're just not. And to act like they are is kind of to conflate the true crime community with everyone in society.

[A]

And we do have a time honored system in place, the roir dire, the jury selection process, where we can weed out people who have been exposed to information and who do already have strong opinions about where that information looks leads them.

[B]

Yes,

[A]

the prosecution filed some stuff that kind of echoes some of the things the media was saying. Quote, the mere fact that a court has not ruled on the admissibility of certain evidence cannot be a sufficient basis for restricting access to a record discussing that evidence, end quote. So again, the defense wants to file something discussing some evidence, but they don't want people to be able to access that because apparently that information is bad for their client. And they were just worried that even discussing it in a public filing would be disastrous. The prosecution says. Nor does defendant explain, even in general terms, why exposure to information about the evidence in the motion would so taint potential jurors that he could not receive a fair trial. As the United States Supreme Court has held, pretrial publicity, even if pervasive and concentrated, cannot be regarded as leading automatically and in every kind of criminal case to an unfair trial. End quote.

[C]

Mm.

[A]

The defense, of course, gets their licks in again, writing, quote, the news media frames its opposition to Mr. Robinson's motion with the absurd assert assertion that the defense seeks to litigate this case in secret. Nothing is further from the truth. Again, they argue that this is just them trying to protect his rights. And they are very critical of the news media. Quote, the court and the news media need only to look to the news and media's own publications since September 10, 2025, to note the overwhelming emphasis on matters that have no bearing whatsoever on the public's ability to see how the justice system works, how this court makes its decision, and the role of the press in Ensuring confidence in the public that justice is indeed being done. Rather, the news media uses their platform to, for example, call for Mr. Robinson's death, to have body language experts make irrelevant and entirely unscientific claims about Mr. Robinson's character, and to transmit video worldwide that is in clear violation of the court's orders. End quote. One more line here. It is entirely disingenuous for the news media to lay blame for harmful content emanating from their electronic publication of courtroom proceedings on secondary or subsequent publishers. End quote. So they're saying the news media is acting like they're doing this great and noble thing by educating the public about the nature of the trial process. But golly, some of their coverage isn't so edifying. Some of it is pretty bad. And even if they just take stuff, even if somebody is just using the feed and broadcasting the feedback, other people out there are using it in their own ways. What do you make of that?

[C]

I feel like I've. I feel like time is a flat circle and we've gone back to the Idaho murders all of a sudden, because I remember a very. Well, I mean, a very similar tenor to some of their filings around the media where it's like they're trying to come kill our client. The news reporters are, you know, storming in and they want him dead. Remember that? I think it was. I think it was Jay Logsdon filed a really, really over the top filing about, like, you know, these journalists are gonna get our client killed. And it was like, okay, you know, there was a little bit of, like, let's, you know, this is. It gets over the top. I think it's really interesting that they're conflating, like, all media. Like, I don't think CNN ran a headline saying we want Tyler Robinson to die. You know, I mean, like, I. And also, it becomes meaningless when. I mean, to me, I. This might be controversial, but to me, when people are complaining about the media, which is something I do also, I mean, I'm.

[A]

I'm.

[C]

I'm breaking my own rule here. But, like, you know, I complain about the media, but then when I think about it, it's like, okay, there's. There's a lot of different facets to that. It's kind of like complaining about law enforcement in the way that you might have some very good points. But are we talking about the FBI or your local police or the local county sheriffs or a large city police department or an individual squad on that police? Like, what are we talking about? Or are we talking about like practices that are generally done across the board or that are specific. And that's where I feel like with the media, things go wrong. Because when, you know, are we talking about national news outlets, are we talking about the local news? Are we talking about highly partisan media outlets that are mostly kind of focused on the political aspect of it or kind of putting out a specific narrative? Are we talking about new media creators on YouTube and with podcasts who are often considered more unfettered and frankly, more unprofessional about how they present things? Are we talking about just social media commentators? What are we talking about? You know, because again, I really doubt that CNN ran a headline or something about like, you know, like, we want this guy to die. That just doesn't, you know, you can criticize CNN and maybe they're doing things in a way that you don't like. But like what they're kind of acting like all the media is doing is certainly something that all the media is not doing. And I don't know, when I see that kind of over the top rhetoric, it just kind of makes me roll my eyes a little bit, even though I, I know what they're saying. And I'm, I'm sympathetic because, listen, I've been very unhappy with a lot of media coverage of high profile trials. I feel like covering a trial and covering a case is becoming a lost art. Everyone likes the shallow takes, the quick updates, you know, bringing on an expert who's just retired law enforcement to kind of spout about stuff. And again, sometimes that's great. Sometimes you have an expert who's great and can talk you through it. But other times it's like the reporters themselves are not doing the work necessary for them to really understand what they're covering. And they're relying on just, you know, these kind of banal takes that then get made into sound bites. And I think, again, I see that happen a lot. So I'm, I'm sympathetic with that. But the idea that frankly, the media has a bias against the client in this position, I don't know what's the evidence for that? I mean, I think the big problem with the media in terms of bias is actually usually across the board, they want the best story possible. And that's unfortunate because sometimes crimes are not that interesting and the best story is not really necessarily what the truth is. And so, like, to me, that's a bigger problem. But, you know, like, again with this, it's like, what are we talking about here? Let's be specific. Do they cite any like, specifics here. Like, oh, these guys said this, and

[A]

they're, you know, I'll talk about it in a second. But first I want to say it's a cliche, but I think it's true. No one is happy with how they're covered in the media. No, that's a given. And everything you've said is true. A lot of coverage of crimes and trials is bad. A lot of coverage of everything, frankly, is bad. But the last time I read the Bill of Rights, there was not an asterisk there saying, well, you only have freedom of speech if your speech is sufficiently edifying and doesn't do anything silly. If you go back to the age of the founding Fathers, I'm stepping on your toes here. Yes, there was a lot of bad coverage of early American politics. A lot of vicious stuff.

[C]

Look what they did to John Adams.

[A]

Yes. We don't even need to go into details, but there's a lot. There's always been bad media coverage is not like bad media coverage was something that was invented in 2010. So if our founding Fathers wanted there to be freedom of speech only into stuff that is sufficiently edifying, they could have put something in the Bill of Rights to that effect. So I think criticism of media coverage is fine and interesting, but to some extent, it's irrelevant. And also, I want to echo and amplify what you said, which is that there's also a distinction between mainstream media, social media, and all this other stuff, which I don't think they're addressing at all.

[C]

When you have mainstream media, the problem is typically, in my view, shallowness of coverage, misunderstanding key points, or having a subtle but certainly palpable bias for one side or another. That is something I've seen again and again. It's all unfortunate. Is it something that means, like, all journalists should be kicked out of the courtroom forever? No, I mean, what you want is just better coverage. But again, as you said, that's not really at issue here. When you're talking about the new media creators, things go off the rails in a bigger way. Things go off the rails in terms of people saying things like, oh, the defendant should be taken out and lynched. I mean, you do have that. So, I mean, that is more of where the Wild west is. The other side is. Is not so much, but there can still be problems. You know, this is why we often end up, like, touting local media coverage, because I sometimes feel like that's where things are a little bit more specific and grounded versus national coverage. Not always, but sometimes. But that's neither here nor there.

[A]

I want to wrap up here in a second, but before I do, you kind of inadvertently, I think, raised an issue I want to discuss with you that might make your head hurt. Oh, no. You said, Kevin, did the defense provide any listings or any examples of what they consider to be really bad coverage? Apparently in their motion, in one of their motions relating to whether or not there should be cameras in the courtroom, they apparently included like a long list of what they considered to be bad media coverage. And I say apparently because I haven't seen it, because they filed motions saying, oh, this list of publicly available information should be kept private because if we republish it in court, it's going to attract more attention to it. But these examples they cite are already public. They're taking examples of things in the public discourse which they say are bad, but then say people shouldn't be allowed to see these examples, even though these examples are already out there.

[C]

Do you think they're just trying not to tick off whoever they're criticizing?

[A]

I don't know. Again, their argument is, oh, if, you know, let's say there's something that says, Kevin is really good looking. And I don't want people to know about that, so I want to keep that under my hat.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So if I say, oh, here's an example of something I don't want people to see about me, I don't want to give it more attention. I may be reluctant to mention that because just by me mentioning, oh, this particular article saying I was good looking embarrassed me, that might draw attention to it. That would. That would be their argument, that by bringing it up, by talking about it publicly, they may be drawing attention to discourse and discussion that they feel doesn't merit the attention.

[C]

Right. I mean, that makes sense. I think it's really unfortunate that you put the Kevin as a cutie community on blast like that. But, I mean, I. I guess that's, you know, you don't want that out there. But I. Yeah, it. That just seems it. Okay. You know, like the kids say, you're doing too much. That's how the defense strikes me on some of this. At the same time, I understand it. I think, like the Idaho defense team who were, you know, defending a person who I'm not going to name because he deserves to be forgotten for what he did to those four. Four young college students. But like them, they're put in this position where they're trying their best in a very wild media circus and they're making decisions that, frankly, Seem a bit egregious and maybe even a bit kind dumb to us. But when you're in the center of the circus ring, I could perhaps understand them. I'm trying to empathize with that. I think I can understand it. I don't really think that all of these should be done because I, I think the, the harm of that is that it. I know they're saying we don't want a secret trial, but like it seems like they want a lot kept in the dark. And I just think the harm in that is that, you know, it undermines the public's ability to know about what's going on in an important case. And I don't think that's good.

[A]

Here's what the media said about it. Quote the references. The defense wants to keep secret or public information that in many instances are statements by the public. Put simply, the defense wants to deny the public access to public information, including publicly created information. The defense cites no authority for this novel argument, nor could it. What is public is public. And the defense cannot make public information secret by putting it in a court filing.

[C]

Wow. The, the media lawyers are, are on fire, I think. I mean, I like some of their.

[A]

Yeah, it seems bizarre. Here are some public. Here are things that happen publicly that I don't like. Oh, by the way, the public can't see these examples I'm citing. That's, that's bizarre.

[C]

One thing that's interesting to me is the difference between the defense attorneys in high profile cases who try to cultivate the media by leaking to them or by, you know, kind of sucking up to them behind the scenes is something you and I have directly seen in, in front of our faces. But there, there's that side and I find that also pernicious because I think that oftentimes is used to try to try the case in the media. And reporters always fall for it, always because access is access. And that's also bad. I don't like that in this case. I kind of respect it more because they're, they're kind of just going to war with the media. It reminds me of Ann Taylor's team. It reminds me of that J Lock hogs and filing words like hey, reporters, we don't f with you, like come fight us. And I. There's something more honest about that, I guess, because it's not trying to like manipulate things. It's more like, let's just fight. And I guess for some reason that that makes me kind of, I don't know, it kind of amuses Me. And I feel it's a bit more like, I don't know, like more of Marcus of Queensberry rules. Right. But at the same time, I don't think it's super effective. But again, they, they, you know, I don't read into it that, oh, they have a terrible case and they're going to lose. Definitely, necessarily. But it, it definitely, it definitely indicates to me that, you know, they, they're not, they're not posturing to win a popularity contest here because going directly to war with the media is usually not an indication that you're trying to, you know, get a bunch of flattering profiles in magazines.

[A]

That is true.

[C]

Which again, I don't think you should be in defense, being a defense attorney to get that. I think you should be in it to do your best for your client, whatever that means, whether that means a really good plea deal, whether that means getting them acquitted or, you know, whatever that means that they should come first. And when I see defense attorneys do this, even if I don't agree with it, I at the very least feel like they're not show ponies.

[A]

I agree.

[C]

They're very angry workhorses.

[A]

The prosecution also made what I think was a good point in one of their filings on this quote. The court should also note that not all the pre trial publicity here has been adverse to a defendant. Much of the publicity has also created concerns for the state. A number of conspiracy theories about this murder have circulated worldwide, end quote.

[C]

That's the thing. Okay, go ahead. You want to say, because that's why I'm so confused. Like, I think a lot of the pretrial publicity in this case and just stuff we've heard, you know, we've had some emails and some comments from folks who listened to our first episode and, and they were all very polite and I really appreciate those people kind of sharing their thoughts with us, but a lot of them are kind of like, I don't know, I feel like there may be something weird going on here that's bad for the prosecution. Okay. Why the defense is also being like, no, we don't want any of this. I, I don't know what they're seeing, but most of what I've seen I would think would be more bad for the prosecution and making people be more of like, Tyler Robinson is a patsy, he's getting set up. The government is behind this. And again, that would make you acquit if you actually believed that. So that's, that's a little bit baffling where I would almost Expect the prosecution to be more on the side of like, let's lock it down. And the defense being like, no, everybody go nuts. Let's speculate who could have done this, you know, and to see it be kind of the opposite is interesting. And I don't know what to make of that.

[A]

This is, this is speculation, or maybe it's just an observation. You mentioned that in the Idaho case, the defense in that case took a similar posture to what we are seeing here. And I think one thing that the, those cases have in common is that in both cases it was pretty readily apparent that the prosecution had a strong

[C]

case and the death penalty is on the table. Yeah, I'm not saying the death penalty is necessarily influencing things here, but it's like the margin for error is your client might be executed. And yeah, to me, the strength of this case is something that should be noted. You know, I think that is. Yeah, I don't, I don't know. It's. But it. But at the same time, really, though, like, a lot of the, A lot of the kind of media frenzy around it or a lot of the social media frenzy at least, would be something that would be more damaging to the prosecution.

[A]

And I think this is a good place to stop this discussion.

[C]

Can I actually add something, though, when we talk about. I think, you know, because again, we have heard from people and I appreciated them, you know, reaching out, certainly. I think, though, I guess, like, I want to talk about a concept that I do see a lot when we're talking about this case in particular. And it's unfortunately something that kind of gets thrown around a lot in other instances too. And I wanted to kind of like throw this out there to people because, you know, I think I understand where people see a high profile case and they start saying, well, there maybe is more to it or maybe this happened. So then that means that must have been the case. I just want to. Let's just kind of like talk about logical fallacies and how that can work. So there's a concept called. It's Latin, post hoc ergo propter hoc. That means in Latin, literally, it means after this, therefore, because of this, this. And that is a informal logical fallacy. That is an informal fallacy that essentially means. An informal fallacy is like an argument that's illogical. And what it means is that because event. This is how it's literally defined because event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X. And the way I see that formulating in this Charlie Kirk murder with Tyler Robinson is there's a perception of the Charlie Kirk's death benefiting the current presidential administration by making Charlie Kirk a martyr or distracting from other events. That's what I. I'm not saying that myself. I'm just saying that that's what I've heard people have said. Well, I think that death benefited people in power because it caused all this chaos and it did all this. And therefore it makes me suspicious that the people in power caused his death. That's a logical fallacy. That is the same logical fallacy that prompts people to say that. Because let's say, let's take a mass shooting. Let's take a really heinous mass shooting. A mass shooting happens. People get outraged. People start calling for gun reform, gun control. They start saying, we need more gun control. We can't have all these classrooms of kids getting shot and murdered. And we have conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork and say, well, I actually think that this was a false flag operation set up by people who want gun control because the outrage, the ensuing outrage benefits people who are in support of policy goals towards gun control. So it's really important that we set aside that kind of thinking. It's not logical, okay? It's not, you know, it's. I mean, do you, do you hear what I'm. Am I making any sense?

[A]

Yes, you are.

[C]

I understand it. It's a. It's an attractive mode of thinking. It's an attractive mode of thinking, but it is also not logical. And it does not have a place in this. In order for, you know, if. If we're looking at the concept of Tyler Robinson being some kind of patsy for a long, either being one, framed or two, being kind of lured into something and encouraged to do something by powerful people, you know, that is something that, if that is to be borne out, then it needs to be borne out by evidence. That's not something that we can kind of play games about and say, well, you know, maybe he's been threatened. You know, at this point he's facing the death penalty. I mean, like this. What is more threatening, you know, if he has something where he is able to say, hey, look, see, like these people got me to do it, or, you know, like, here's the frame job. Great, we'll all hear about that in court, I imagine. And if there's nothing there, then there's nothing there. And in acting like we have to, you know, that's not. Again, I'm just asking people, let's follow the evidence. Let's look at the evidence. And if. If the worldview that you're adopting is that the government at both the state of Utah level and county levels in Utah and the federal government and all of these people who worked on the case and the prosecution team and even people close to Robinson, including his romantic partner and his family, are all in on this, then I would just ask you to question, like, is that really feasible? Is that a realistic scenario? Because maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a smaller, leaner conspiracy that could fly here. But for my view, looking at the evidence as presented in the probable cause affidavit, if we're going to go with a conspiracy route, there needs to be a lot of people involved in making that happen and making sure it runs smoothly. And I just find that very hard to believe. And I think it's important that even though people have very strong feelings about this case because of the politics, you have a lot of people who very much are upset about Charlie Kirk dying. They agree with his politics. They are very upset. They feel under attack by this. And then on the other side, you have people who didn't like his politics, and they. They didn't want him dead. I mean, they didn't want that to happen, but they feel like maybe his death is being used as something more sinister. Right. And in either way, it's important to kind of maybe set aside some of those feelings when we're talking about the cold facts of a murder and look at something. I will add that there are instances where, you know, law enforcement gets to a person who might be planning an attack, and they kind of encourage it so they can arrest them. Right. And there are always questions of entrapment around that. But that off, you know, that can come out in court, and that can benefit a defendant. Like, look, my client was vulnerable and maybe like mentally impaired, and this FBI agent said, hey, let's do a terrorist attack. And then suddenly they got caught up in this. So, you know, there are defenses around that. I feel like if that's something that's the case here, we would hear about it from this defense team. I don't. I don't think it's helpful for us to be just looking at things through the lens of a logical fallacy.

[A]

I think that's very well said. So today in this episode, we talked about the defenses concerned that the public, potential jurors could be influenced by some outside forces in this case, namely media coverage. I think in our next episode, we're going to look at the defense's concern that the prosecution team itself was influenced by an outside force, namely the fact that a relative of one of the prosecutors witnessed the crime. 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/murder sheet. 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.

[A]

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.

[B]

Work moves fast. Every email report and proposal counts. That's where Grammarly comes in. It's your one place to think, write and finish. Grammarly's AI agents help you find natural phrasing, fine tune tone and confidently write wherever you work. It's the premier writing tool that 93% of users trust to get more work done in a world of generic AI. Don't sound like everyone else. With Grammarly, you never will. Download Grammarly for free at Grammarly.com, one

[A]

of the biggest challenges of earning a degree as a military veteran is transitioning your goals and experiences to your next phase in life. National University gets it as a veteran founded Yellow Ribbon School. They offer post 911 GI bill acceptance, dedicated military support and advising services, and credit for your military experience. That's why 30% of their students are military affiliated NU Education that serves those who served.