← The Watch Floor with Sarah Adams
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome to the watch floor. I'm Sarah Adams. Right now there is a lot of noise around this case. We have strong opinions, constant coverage, and a growing narrative about what people think happened. So let's just stop for a minute and ground this in facts. You know, when we discuss things like evidence, you know, I've been an investigator for many years and intelligence analyst so much longer, you have to use the evidence, right, and follow the evidence to really get to the facts of things. Like, we can make a assumptions and have gut feelings and think something's going to go a certain way, but we can't have the bias in there because it's so easy to only look for information that backs our bias. So it's always good to go in with a clear mind. And when I went to investigate Benghazi, I had to do this. I had to say I need to set everything aside that I knew from inside the US government, like the biases around groups and how, how they connect and how they communicate. Cause I cannot make the assumption that we have it right. And what I learned is the US Government had so many gaps and so much misunderstanding. And even I was serving in Benghazi, we knew nothing about Al Qaeda's network there. I learned all that after the fact on my own, you know, during in depth investigations, talking to people on the ground, collecting the evidence, you know, and it takes time to, it's a lot of work. But when you do it the right way, you will always get the right outcome. And we need to keep that in mind. What we do know is on September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while holding outdoor rally at Utah Valley University. The man accused, Tyler Robinson, is heading to a critical phase of the legal process, an evidentiary hearing. Now this is where in a case, it really starts to form its legal shape. So this isn't going to be based on commentary, it's going to be based on evidence. Now the evidentiary hearing is scheduled right now for April 17, but there are multiple real valid reasons why that could get pushed. So I want to walk through, through that because we are at a point where the pushing of the date could lead to a lot of assumptions and misinterpretations. So we can just kind of stop that right at the beginning. So what's actually happening here is the defense has stated clearly that they're still waiting on some critical discovery. Now this isn't some minor thing, right? This is core evidence they're referring to. And some of that evidence is coming from federal authority. So it's not from local investigators, and you have less control, obviously, getting that in front of you. And it puts in place a few levels of risk. I want to walk through three of those levels. First off is control. You know, the prosecution isn't fully in control of the timing of federal disclosures. Right. That's just an honest fact. Secondly, we have analysis time. So when the defense gets this material, they don't just review it. They have to send it to experts, analyze it for technical data. They need to test assumptions, and then, of course, build legal challenges to it. All of that takes time. Third, there just is the concept of legal fairness. So if in the evidentiary hearing, the defense is going to challenge the admissibility of evidence, pretty simple. But if they don't have the full set of evidence, they obviously can't do their jobs effectively. And the court would not push a process forward if they're undermining due process, especially in the case where you have the death penalty on the table. So we have to remember everything needs to be done right. There's also a strategic layer here that we should discuss. Obviously, if new evidence comes in, it can trigger a number of things. First off, new motions, obviously, requests to potentially suppress this evidence, and then requests for additional hearings. And as you can imagine, all of that then also adds on the their own time issues, constraints, and it shifts the timeline. We're also looking at the fact that the preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for May. Again, that date is based on the same issue. Right. The discovery. So any movement or delays we see in the coming months is not unusual at all. It's how the system works through a number of issues, including evidence collection, evidence disclosure, and the legal right to even challenge the evidence. This case won't move along a calendar exactly. It will move forward when the full evidence is on the table. So what does this hearing actually do? And this is what clarity matters. So this is not a trial. There is no jury. The. There's no verdict. There's a judge. So this is judge Tony Graf Jr. And he acts as, like, a gatekeeper. So he's deciding a few crucial things. He's deciding what evidence the jury is allowed to see, what evidence gets excluded and whether law enforcement followed proper procedure to collect such evidence. This also includes challenges to confessions, digital communications, forensic evidence, physical evidence, and then, of course, any witness statements that are available. So here's what matters. Not all evidence automatically goes to trial. It first has to pass this legal scrutiny. And so this is a really important piece. And what gets decided here is actually what ends up being the foundation of the case. So Judge Graff has already said he presumed this hearing will be open, but he did lay out that it could be partially closed for a number of issues. One being safety concerns, another being to cover any sort of sensitive material. And lastly, for any, like, specific legal arguments that come up because of who the victim is. Charlie Kirk. This case has drawn significant national attention. And with that comes, you know, extensive media coverage, public commentary, and narrative building.
- [07:32]
B
Thank you. Your honor, with respect to this motion, I think as we've expressed in the past, we all, everyone in this room shares the same goal, and that is to ensure that there's a fair trial that happens in this case. And we recognize that the court's pre trial publicity order was, is intended to further that goal. And again, as I've stated before, the state plans to try this case once the state is also committed to complying with its ethical duties with respect to pretrial publicity. We have complied with those duties. We will continue to comply with those duties.
- [08:10]
A
So the defense, as you can imagine, has argued the environment is kind of like risking a tainting of the jury pool. And they've specifically raised concern about a few issues. One is a public disclosure of alleged confessions. Another is circulation of evidence details. And then, of course, high profile political commentary, like even what was said by President Trump. But, but, you know, the court pushed back. Judge Graff made his position clear. He said, hey, much of that information was already public. And also we have a system in place that addresses each of these things. First off, we have expanded jury pools. We have a detailed juror questionnaire. And then, of course, you can do direct questioning of the jurors during the jury selection process. Right. You have all these things in play, you know, to circumvent those fears that you have. One thing to understand is pretrial publicity doesn't stop a case. It just might change how the jury gets selected. And we're going to see that in this case. Now, let's walk through what evidence actually exists in this case, what the investigators and prosecutors have identified. When we first kind of look at how the attack was carried out. You know, prosecutors say the shooting occurred. And of course, we all know this. During that rally on September 10th, it was a large outdoor event. There were 3,000 people in attendance. And the fatal shot came from a roof overlooking the crowd. It was a single round. And that matters tactically. So the rooftop position provides distance, elevation, and of course, that clear line of sight. The surveillance then showed that the suspect arrived on campus he was carrying a concealed long gun. And then, of course, he was also moving in ways that were consistent with him trying to, like, hide the weapon. So this establishes presence, movement, and, of course, opportunity. Now, let's chat through the forensics and the physical evidence. This is one of the strongest components so far. Investigators say that DNA linked to Tyler Robinson was found found on the towel wrapped around the suspected rifle, and then a screwdriver recovered on the rooftop. And, of course, later on, the weapon itself was also located. This matters because it's not just circumstantial, you know, it's a physical linkage to the attack. Investigators say they've also discovered, you know, this handwritten note. It was hidden under a keyboard, and. And the words on it said, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. This is critical because it goes directly to, as you can imagine, intent, planning, premeditation. And in a capital case, premeditation is a major factor. If validated, this really becomes one of the most significant pieces of evidence in this case. Now, prosecutors say Robinson also sent messages to persons after the attack. This included text to a roommate and then even directions on where to find that note. Now, he also reportedly had communications with a romantic partner. Prosecutors characterize these messages as post incident admissions. What this does is it helps establish a timeline. It shows awareness and immediately after the event, and it potentially reinforces the intent. Now, there are also claims that Robinson confessed or implied involvement to a family member, and then that individual later reportedly cooperated with investigators. So this can be powerful evidence. But as you can imagine, there's some important questions that surround this. First. First is, was it clearly a confession? Second is, was it interpreted correctly? And the third is, what is the credibility of the witness who provided this information? There are also additional investigative threads. We still have a lot of open questions. So investigators, as you can imagine, are still looking at his online activity, his discord communications, and. And whether anyone else had some sort of prior knowledge or even involvement in plotting this event. And what's important is that some of this federal evidence hasn't been fully disclosed yet. So it's not even clear what all is in that pocket of information. And that's then, as you can imagine, where we loop back around to the issue of the timeline and the fact it could still. So that's the evidence as we know it right now, which we are pretty confident is being brought forward in this evidentiary hearing. Of course, you notice I didn't bring up the bullet, which was fragmented, and that's because we've already heard that obviously it makes testing harder being fragmented. In this case, they weren't able then to link it to the gun because of the quality of the fragmented bullet. So it's not saying it isn't the bullet with the gun. It's just not going to be strong enough evidence to put forward in the case. So we're not presuming it's going to come up in the August 17th hearing. So let's now talk through the charges and the legal strategy around this case. First off, Robinson is facing aggravated murder. Now there are additional charges, including discharging a firearm, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Prosecutors have said they will attempt to seek the death penalty. So they're pointing to their belief that there is alleged targeting, premeditation and aggravating factors. The defense is responding with challenges to the pretrial publicity, as we've already talked about, concerns over access to the evidence and then arguments around the fairness and the process. So these aren't side issues. This is all going to shape how the case unfolds. So this April 17 hearing is where the case can get defined and we really have three possible outcomes. So the first is just simple, like all the evidence gets admitted and. And prosecution moves on to the full case. Second is the evidence gets suppressed and key elements could be removed or obviously it could heavily weaken the case. The third is you can have some sort of mixed ruling where some evidence is allowed and some, of course, is excluded. The third outcome is where cases usually land, and that's what we can probably expect. So cases don't turn on like some kind of dramatic moments. It's really like the decisions like this that make a case. There's a difference between what is said about a case and, of course, what actually can be proven with the evidence on hand. And right now there's so much attention around this case. There's a lot of commentary and actually a lot of topics brought up that you didn't even hear me talk about, because they're actually not evidence in this case. And so we have to remember sometimes to sift through some of these narratives and, you know, focus on some of these key elements. Now, the court, of course, is solely focused on the evidence, the evidence it has right now in front of it. And then this issue, like I said, that there is more discovery coming in. So once they compile everything, they have to do two important things. They have to decide what's admissible and. And what's reliable. And then when they do that, they'll be able to decide, you know, what the jury is allowed to see in the case. So this is such an important piece of the process. So as this trial moves forward, what we really should do is focus on the evidence, right? Not the noise, but the facts. And that's what we try to do here in the watch floor. Thanks for tuning in.