Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 1372 | Is Tyler Robinson Protecting Lance Twiggs? Criminal Defense Attorney Explains | Robert Gouveia

Episode Date: July 17, 2026

Allie gets some help deciphering the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing from Robert Gouveia, a criminal defense attorney and host of “Watching the Watchers.” Gouveia breaks down the defense’s strategy and why plausible doubt is more plausible than viewers might think. Gouveia also explains the difficulty of jury selection for such a high-profile case and how Erika Kirk could ultimately affect the sentencing. Will justice be served for Charlie Kirk’s assassination? Gouveia gives his odds, insight, and so much more. Check out Robert’s show, “Watching the Watchers”: https://www.youtube.com/@RobertGouveiaEsq Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠ Share the Arrows is sponsored by: A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.com Range Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIE We Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.com Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Time Codes 0:00 Introduction 1:35 Tyler Robinson’s Preliminary Hearing 14:37 The Defense’s Strategy 45:27 Possible Witnesses 55:45 Jury Selection 59:59 Erika Kirk’s Victim’s Rights – Today's Sponsors: We Heart Nutrition | Check out We Heart Nutrition at ⁠⁠⁠WeHeartNutrition.com⁠⁠⁠ and use the code ALLIE for 20% off. Good Ranchers | If you go to ⁠⁠⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠⁠⁠ and subscribe to any box of 100% American meat, you’ll save up to $500 a year! Plus, if you use code ALLIE, you’ll get an additional $25 off your first order. Patriot Mobile | Go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT. Use promo code ALLIE for a free month of service. Take charge of your health expenses and be part of a community. Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months using code ALLIE at joincrowdhealth.com. Episodes You May Like: Ep 1370 | Tyler Robinson Hearing: What You Missed & What’s Next https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1370-tyler-robinson-hearing-what-you-missed-whats-next/id1359249098?i=1000776671161 Ep 1279 | Charlie Kirk Trial Details, Bondi & Brown Attacks & Living to 100 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1279-charlie-kirk-trial-details-bondi-brown-attacks/id1359249098?i=1000741431170 --- ► Buy Allie's book, "You're Not Enough (and That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book ► Subscribe to the podcast: iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnP Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj ► Connect with Allie on social media: https://twitter.com/conservmillen https://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/ https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/ ► Relatable merchandise — use promo code ALLIE10 for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

The American justice system has one biblical characteristic, and that is that the accused has rights. They are innocent until proven guilty. On Monday, we went through the prosecution's case and evidence against Tyler Robinson, the accused murderer of Charlie Kirk. But today, we've got a criminal defense attorney. His name is Robert Govea, and he is here to talk about the defense's case and what evidence they will present, the theories, and the counterarguments that will be brought. forth by their side in trial and then how the prosecution's evidence stacks up against that.

This is a super insightful conversation from an attorney's perspective. I learned a lot. You will too. We've got all of this and so much more on today's episode of Relatable. Robert, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. Could you tell everyone who may not know who you are and what you do? Yeah, thank you, Ali, for having us here today. My name is Robert.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer, practiced law for about 10 years. And now we post a live stream on YouTube called Watching the Watchers. We go live every day of the week and we talk a lot about legal issues, legal cases like Tyler Robinson and many others that are out there, Supreme Court news, Judiciary Committee News, things that are going on in the Senate. We like to watch the Watchers, keep an eye on our government and we do it with our background as a lawyer and as people who've been in the game and seeing how this stuff happens firsthand. your background, what was your biggest takeaway from the preliminary hearing of Tyler Robinson?

The entire preliminary hearing was something, I think, new for many people to see on the scale in which we saw it. This is not something that is common in criminal law or in American jurisprudence at the scale that we saw it recently. Normally, when people are indicted on murder charges, we see them go through the indictment process. And if you take a look at some other comparable cases like the Luigi Mangione case. This was the defendant who allegedly shot the CEO assassin in the back in New York. He was indicted. There was a grand jury that was convened. And what that means is this all happened behind closed doors. So the prosecutors present evidence to grand jurors and the public is not a part of the process at all. It's all in secret and it's all by design,

something that is not accessible. And what happened there, of course, is he gets indicted. And so we get After that process, a list of charges. He's now continued to be prosecuted and we advance all the way up through the pretrial proceedings into trial. We saw something a little similar in the Derek Chauvin, George Floyd case, where Derek Chauvin, of course, was convicted ultimately of murdering, killing George Floyd with the knee on the neck that we all saw on video and on camera for basically years. But in that case, we waived the indictment. We waived the probable cause determination. And so he just kind of advanced through this mechanism that we're looking at right now and was then ultimately something that we saw progressed through and to trial where we saw a lot of the evidence come out. And so this case is different. In fact, in Utah, when I was looking up some prior cases, the other preliminary hearings that came out of Utah were only one to two days. They were pretty brief. And the reason for that is because it's just a preliminary hearing.

The only thing we're trying to establish right now is whether there is probable cause to bind this defendant over for the trial process. And this is a protection that we have in American law to make sure that if somebody's going to be put through the trial process, it's very grueling. We have a presumption of innocence. And that means we want to make sure

that if we're going to put them through this multi-year-long process, especially in this case where it's a capital death penalty case, that there is a sufficient basis for the judge. charges. And so we're just trying to establish essentially the standard is whether there is a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. We all saw Charlie Kirk get shot and killed. So there was a crime. And then the next component is whether there's a reasonable belief that the person who is sitting sitting in the courtroom is the person responsible for that crime. So it's not even remotely close to the same standard that you see at a trial. And so in many preliminary hearing cases, and

Utah is a little unusual relative to other states because this is their default process. They don't go through the grand jury proceedings like other states do. They do this by default. And it was very extensive. It was very intense. We got to see a lot of evidence at this early stage in a way that we don't ordinarily see. Normally, I mean, you could make the argument that even in this case, it was a little bit maybe gratuitous. I think there's reasons for that.

But it was long. It was extensive. We got to hear from DNA analysts. We got to hear from some ballistics reports. We heard from multiple officers. We had some cross-examination from the defense. And really, many people are commenting that this could have been something that was handled in a day, even a couple of hours.

You could just have a couple of the bits of evidence come in to say that we've set and met the standard, that there is probable cause, we'll bind this thing over and then advance towards a trial. But what we got instead was a bunch of evidence, a bunch of evidence, a bunch of bunch of video, a very intense five days, and of course, a lot of people debating what came out of this, what the evidence showed or what it didn't show. And now, I think, you know, the question remains, what comes next only in this process, because we still have a lot of time until this judge is going to make a decision on this. We've got briefings scheduled, and then we're not back

until September. And then, really, the case starts in full. Then we're going to be working our way towards the full trial, which could still be another year or two, maybe long. longer out. Right. So the strange thing, I think, just to the public, people who aren't as familiar with these legal proceedings, is this preliminary hearing, like you said, maybe not entirely unprecedented. This is apparently how Utah does things. But in my memory, I don't remember this drawn out televised preliminary hearing in the past for these contentious cases. And it is strange. I've seen a lot of people, I think, mistakenly say the trial. This is the trial where we're watching the trial because it felt like a trial. Yes, the jury was absent. There wasn't a jury there

deliberating, but it felt like the real thing. And so tell us why. Why was this so drawn out? Why did this take five days? Why did it feel like this was really the defense and prosecution going at it as if it was the real deal? I think there was a interesting line that came out in this preliminary hearing, somebody said back to the judge, they were quoting him, they said, Judge, you had said that sometimes you have to spend time to save time. You have to go through a bunch of these motions in order maybe to prevent yourself from having to do a bunch of additional things down the line. And to me, that hinted it maybe if we lay all this out at this early stage, that that might shake loose the parties into some sort of a resolution, into some sort of a

plea deal. So in other words, rather than having a very short, tight preliminary hearing where we get very little evidence that is released, we can have a much more drawn out process so that people can see what both sides have and what both sides' arguments are in the hopes that maybe this will not result in a full-blown two, three-year litigation process and it may shake loose a plea deal. Now, that may not ultimately happen, right? We haven't seen a lot of the evidence. In fact, I think we're just really scratching the surface, even though it was five days, I think a trial could easily be six weeks, five, six weeks, maybe even longer. And so the prosecution was just kind of scratching the surface on a lot of the material that was presented. And there's a lot of depth.

It was kind of a broad presentation, but each one of the various components that they discussed can go very deep. And the defense will also respond to that with their own theory and their own case in chief. And we might get, if they want to contest, you know, the bullet as being what actually killed Charlie, then they'll have their own expert witnesses who will come in and respond to these things and present their own case in chief with their own theories and their own witnesses. And so we really didn't get into a lot of that at this moment. And we can, of course, dive into each one of these components. But I also think that there may have been a little bit of a desire from the judge to allow the public in a little bit more on this case. We've seen that.

When there is no detail about exactly what went down, people will fill in the gaps, nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. And so when we don't know exactly what happened, people will kind of make it up, fill in the gaps, and speculate. And this is part of the process. I think the defense is going to come up with theories. People in the public will come up with their own theories about how this all went down. And that actually can in some ways help the system.

It can help the prosecution identify what those theories are. and what those thesis might be about an alternative explanation. And then we have this process where iron sharpens iron, right? It's the adversarial system, the beauty of our process, is that both sides come in and they make their best arguments, and then we can whittle down into the truth. But in Utah, things are a little slow. And as we saw, Charlie was killed in September of last year,

and we're just now getting to the preliminary hearing. We're just now sort of seeing some of the evidence that exists. And so if this was not as a long process, if this was very tightly wound and we just had maybe a day or six hours of testimony, then it would still enable that void to exist. And people will continue to fill that void. And I'm wondering if the judge, who is a former prosecutor, is thinking that that might actually jeopardize the case. It might actually create this environment in the media and in the public that undermines Tyler Robbins. Robinson's due process or that enables the jury to be tainted to such a degree that he can come back later after the trial and claim that something perverted his rights and would require this

whole thing to be done over again. Quick pause to tell you about our first sponsor for the day. It is WeHeart Nutrition. I love their vitamins. I've been taking their prenatals before I was pregnant. I was taking their women's multivitamin, their probiotics. I have taken their immunity supplements, their wholesome balance, which helps, with your hormones. I take their omega-3s, their magnesium, everything. Y'all look at the hair and the

skin and the nails because of WeHeart Nutrition. These prenatal vitamins are not messing around. Someone asked me if my nails were fake the other day. They're not fake. They're real. And it's because of We-Heart nutrition and all of these wonderful pregnancy hormones. I'm so thankful for them, started taking their supplements back in 2024. It's been a total game changer for my immune system for my hair, skin, and nails, and for my health. I love that every ingredient comes in the most bioavailable form so that when I'm taking my whole host of supplements that I take every night, I can trust that my body is actually absorbing them and using them, especially iron. I tend to be low iron, especially when I'm pregnant.

So getting a good iron supplement like the one I have from WeHeart Nutrition is so important for how I feel. Go to Weheartnutrition.com. Use code Alley. You'll get 20% off your order. That's weheartnutrition.com code Alley. Do you think it's possible that the judge does not find probable cause? I mean, to me, it seems like there is at least probable cause.

It seems like a lot more was presented from my perspective. Do you think that there's any chance that he doesn't find that? Very, very, very low chance that this does not get bound over. I think he will find probable cause. I think in most indictments, most probable cause determination hearings, unless there's something very abnormal or something very problematic, like, massive tainting of evidence or some major ethical conflict or something, it gets bound over. And the reason for that is because it's just such a low standard.

We're not at beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not even at clear and convincing evidence, which are these kind of gradations of criminality or liability in our law. It's such a low standard. It's just, is there a reasonable belief that there was a crime committed? That's obvious. Charlie's dead. And is there a reasonable belief that this person, Tyler Robinson, did it?

And if you start to go through the evidence, I agree with you. I think that there was a lot presented. And even past this point, the defense is going to have to really come up with some alternative theories on how to explain a lot of the evidence that was presented, whether it's the DNA evidence, the ballistics, the confessions. Tyler Robinson made multiple admissions slash confessions in the process. We had Lance Twigs, his boyfriend, testify that he saw a bunch of these things happen in real time. So they'll have their work cut out for them. But I do think that the judge is being very careful about this. And so we'll hear briefings on this. He's actually ordered both sides to process the last five days and write their main arguments into two competing briefs. And then we come back in September for oral argument on it.

And that's all pretty usual in Utah. And I know a lot of people were upset about that. Even I was thinking, we're waiting until September on this thing. That's just going to enable more people to fill in the gaps and to contact. played over what's happening, but then both sides will present their evidence. The judge will make the decision, and I'm 99.99% certain certain he's going to bind it over because there wasn't anything that the defense presented, and they didn't present a lot. They were just kind of responding to the prosecution's main case in chief that would wreck or shatter the prosecution. And so if the judge

is weighing the same evidence that we saw appropriately, I think he's really going to have no decision other than to bind it over. And this case, we'll get back on path for trial. trial. Yeah. You know, one thing I saw people speculate or people say online is that the reason why this preliminary hearing took as long as it did is because the defense was pushing back so hard against the publication or against the release of some of the evidence that the prosecution was bringing forth. So my question for you, especially with your particular background, is twofold. One, do you think that's true? Do you think that the defense's strategy there did link this preliminary hearing and two, what you think about the defense's strategy overall last week?

The defense is doing a very solid job from my perspective, and they've been fighting tooth and nail throughout this entire case, not only at the preliminary hearing, but even before we got here, they were filing motions right at the outset to keep the media out, to keep audio recordings out, to really lock this trial down, probably in part because they know that a lot of the evidence is going to be just damning facially, that if you can see the text messages, if you can see or hear from Lance Twiggs, the boyfriend, and hear his admissions, people are going to start to fill in those gaps with the belief that Tyler Robinson ultimately did this. So they did not want any of that to become public and be a part of the public record, wanted to

litigate a lot of this behind closed doors. And that went on for months. I mean, they fought, they're even appealing a lot of this stuff to the Utah Supreme Court. to say that it's a violation of Tyler Robinson's due process rights, that if you enable the public to see all these things, or if you enable hearsay at a preliminary hearing, which is essentially in the rules that you're going to be jeopardizing his rights. And so they've been starting at the outset in a very, very adversarial position. And then that's not to mention the other strategies that they've deployed.

They said that one of the prosecutors had a child who was actually there at the event when Charlie Kirk was killed. and that that warranted a disqualification of the entire prosecutor's office. And we litigated that for a long time. And so people will also ask, why did the preliminary hearing just happen now? Right. We're now in July. Charlie was killed back in September. Why did it take so long?

And it's because the defense has been doing this from the very beginning. So they tried to disqualify the entire prosecutor's office by saying that the entire case was biased and prejudice because one of the main prosecutors had a child at the event. And so therefore, he's not looking at. at this at a neutral or unbiased perspective. He's actually waging war against Tyler Robinson in order to vindicate his child and what the child witnessed and went through. So in other words, he's kind of a victim. So that was litigated for a long time. And of course, the judge Graff rejected that claim. It's the same prosecutor. They're still on the case. But then there was another back and forth

that the defense jumped all over. We saw that there was that report in the daily mail, I think, is where it started and then it spread across the internet like wildfire where they shared the headline that the bullet of Tyler Robinson's gun did not match the rifle. And that was because they got a ballistics report, you know, a forensic exam that came back from, I believe, the ATF. And it didn't exactly say that. It said that the match was inconclusive. So they couldn't connect it back to the rifle. They couldn't disqualify it from the rifle. When a bullet enters a person or hits a target, it is in mushrooms. Many people have seen these photos, may have even seen the photograph in the Tyler

Robinson case, but it becomes very difficult to match when the bullet gets so perverted and contorted. It kind of blossoms like into a flower and then you can't match the etchings on the outer jacket of the bullet as it goes through the rifle barrel. And so this report hit the media and everybody was sharing it like wildfire. It's, you know, the gun doesn't match the bullet. So therefore, Tyler Robinson is excluded. as the suspect who shot Charlie.

Of course, that's not what it said. It just said it was inconclusive. We couldn't exclude it. We couldn't include it. And so the prosecution then, they went out and they started to correct the record. They were also going to the media, I think, TMZ and other people and explaining that's not what the report said. This is what it actually said.

And so then the defense latched onto that as well. They said, oh, now you are violating a court order. Now prosecution, you have breached something that the court ordered you to do. and that's a procedural problem and an error. And so they made the argument that there should be sanctions for that and they ultimately were sanctioned. But the defense is trying to engineer these procedural exploits essentially to say that if the prosecution does something bad or if there's a bad evidentiary ruling or if evidence is

admitted that should be excluded, that they can then use that as an argument to help their client, which is standard operating procedure in criminal defense law and very aggressive and good tactic, representing your client well. And they, in this case, when that all happened, they wanted the prosecution to be sanctioned and they wanted really the death penalty to be taken off of the table. So you can see it by waiting for a mistake to happen and by exploiting that, you can then come back and make some major claims that are going to benefit your client. And we saw a lot of that happen in the preliminary hearing. We saw that there was a note that leaked out. The handwritten Tyler Robinson and note was actually something that shouldn't have been published. It was published. And then after

that happened, the defense came out and they said, we want all the cameras turned off now. We want all the audio to be turned off now and revert back to that original demand that they had at the very outset of the case, which is to lock everything down. So by, you know, kind of being obnoxious and by being very aggressive, they're trying to engineer a tactical win for their client. And that's just good lawyering. Yeah. So they're basically centering their side. on we are protecting his due process rights and trying to ensure that this is a fair impartial process for him, which of course all of us who believe, I'm talking about, you know, myself and a lot of people out there who believe that Tyler Robinson is the guy. Of course, we want him to

see justice. And it's hard, I think, for some people to think, well, how could you defend someone like this? But we want there to be attorneys who will defend the due process rights of the accused. that's good news for all of us. As you've said multiple times, that is part of our system. But so far, the defense has focused on that, right? They haven't, at least so far, said, hey, like, we don't think that Tyler Robinson is the guy. We don't think our client committed this. I don't even know if that would be appropriate at this point, but it seems like it's more

procedural in their argumentation rather than trying to prove his innocence, correct? Yeah, that's right. We haven't seen their full thesis or theory of the case come out yet. And there's a couple of different ways that you can approach, of course, a criminal defense case. One is to make the argument that he's factually innocent, that he is not the shooter. He was not on the roof. He was not there that day. He has an alibi.

He was at work or he was at somebody else's house. You know, the DNA matches are all just a coincidence. You know, it was his gun maybe, but somebody else took it. He was a patsy. There was a body double. all of these things, exploding microphone, and so on and so forth, they haven't made those arguments as far as we've seen yet. And even as to some of the other main components of the evidence presented against Tyler Robinson, like his confessions and the text messages between him and Lance

Twigs or the discord messages or even the testimony that was provided by, it wasn't testimony at the time, but it was testimony provided by Lance Twigs about the conversation with Tyler Robinson. A lot of that hasn't been rebutted yet. yet. And it doesn't really need to be rebutted at this time. They can save these arguments for later down the line when the trial comes out. They will certainly do that. But I think we can read into the fact that they didn't cross-examine some of these main points as evidence that they don't have a lot to cross-examine on. And so one example of this would be the text messages. The idea was that Tyler Robinson confessed essentially to his boyfriend Lance Twiggs over text message.

sent text messages, communicated inside those text messages, a lot of non-public information about stashing the rifle in the woods, about waiting to make sure that a police officer was not there so he could go retrieve the rifle. He was also talking about the rifle being covered in a towel that had a bunch of DNA all over it. So these things were not public, and he was communicating those back to Lance Twigs. Lance Twigs also testified at the preliminary hearing and confirmed all of that. if the defense had strong evidence that would rebut that, if they could exonerate their client or at least smash that component of the testimony, I think that that would have created a bunch of doubt,

even at this early stage, that would have made the judge question the case a little bit more. So, for example, if they would say, we got the cell phone extraction records, we got actually the GPS location data, and we could show you that Tyler Robinson was not at, at that location because we know that their prosecution and law enforcement, they executed search warrants for everything. And this is what I meant when I was saying that there will be a lot

more evidence that comes out. But they've got everything. As far as I can tell, they've got location data, GPS data, all of the individual device identification numbers, everything that happened on these devices, including on the vehicle, Lance's phones, Tyler's phone, the Discord servers, all of the cell services, all were just gobbled up. And so that should have been, and I believe it was, already provided over to the defense. So if there was something in there that was exculpatory, I would imagine they would bring that up and use that because it would be damning for that piece of evidence and that pillar that they're using.

But it just simply didn't do that. One theory would be that maybe Lance Twigs was the person actually sending the text messages. So he's got both phones. He's sending messages to himself and he's having this fake conversation. So I think if there was something there, there, that that would have already been introduced. Otherwise, it wasn't. And doesn't mean that it doesn't come out at a later point in time, right? They might have an expert witness who comes out when trial starts and can offer an alternative

explanation for these things. But because they haven't done those things, those are substantive explanations of the evidence. and it would take a bit of evidence that has been admitted and just give it a better explanation. But they didn't really do that. And the only other really big thing that they did was trying to undermine the validity of the evidence. So to your original point, they've been trying to preclude evidence. They don't want stuff to come in or at least don't want it to come out into the public arena. But they can also try to explain it away or undermine the validity of it.

And we saw some of that with the DNA evidence where when the examiner, was explaining that, you know, Tyler Robinson was a major contributor on a lot of things, multiple areas of the gun, the screwdriver that was found on the roof, the towel that was enveloping the gun on the actual bullet casings that were found both in the woods and back at his home. They weren't really trying to deny that. They were just trying to undermine the validity of DNA evidence, right? It's a science. In science, nothing's perfect. There is a margin of in all of this testing. And so they were hammering the witness about that.

It's not 100%, right? And these things could be problems where they convoluted and you've got, you know, multiple samples coming out at the same time such that you can't get a good read on these things. It was more trying to basically attack the validity of that evidence rather than saying it's not accurate, that the DNA is not there. Kind of acknowledging that it's there, but maybe it's not to the same levels or to this efficiency that the prosecution would perform. quick pause to tell you about good ranchers y'all we've been using good ranchers for about five years in our home and it's made our life so much easier to have this box of all american meat sent to our front door on dry ice every month never have to think about it it saved us money i don't have to go to the grocery store worry about all the changing prices worry about the origin and all the quality of the meat that i'm buying because it is so consistent with good ranchers also love that this is another christian family owned america loving

company who started this company because they felt called by God to support American farmers and ranchers. And now every time you buy from Good Ranchers, you are a part of that mission. They've been so reliable with high quality meat from the very beginning. Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley. You'll get $50 at checkout. That's good ranchers.com code alley. And that is just how DNA evidence works. They say things like it is three trillion times more likely that Tyler Robinson that this is Tyler Robinson's DNA than someone else. And the defense knows that. So is that just kind of a tactic?

Like I would think that would be more of a tactic for a jury than a tactic for a judge because the judge understands how DNA evidence works too. But I could see that kind of language working on a jury that, well, you just heard this witness. It's not 100% that it's this person's DNA. So how can you convict a person without knowing for sure? So I think it's interesting that they are already kind of bringing that up,

right now in the pretrial hearing, which kind of leads to my next question is, do you think that there's going to be a different strategy or different things presented by the prosecution and the defense once they actually get to trial? And if so, what do you think those strategies are going to be? I do think that the prosecution is very likely just going to double down and triple down on the evidence that they've already presented. And so we started to see a little bit of a snippet of that at the tail end of day five on the preliminary hearing, we had a bunch of video that was played, and then at the very end,

there was apparently this extra video that was played. They turned the cameras off in response to a sanction based on the fact that that note leaked. So Tyler Robinson wrote, according to the evidence, a handwritten note, put it under his keyboard. That was one of the bits of evidence that was an admission. And so he then texted his boyfriend, hey, look under the keyboard, opens up the note,

pulls the note out, reads it, it's a confession, right? This is what I did. This is why I did it. So that bit of evidence shouldn't have hit the public yet. And it did. People got a screenshot of it because the camera just happened to be on when they pulled up the exhibit. So the judge then essentially sanctioned the prosecution at the very end of the hearing. We then saw there were a bunch of people in the courtroom who got to see that enhanced version of the video. And there were a bunch of other exhibits that we just didn't see. And there were other exhibits that were kind of glossed over. For example, in the Lance Twiggs testimony, because it was a preliminary hearing, this was the boyfriend, he was allowed to testify in video form without cross-examination,

because hearsay is admissible in a preliminary hearing. This is not a trial. And so that will not be allowed at the trial. He's not going to be allowed to just play a video. So they're going to have to bring Lance Twiggs back into the courtroom. And he'll be subject to cross-examination. and I think it's going to be ripe for a lot of very aggressive cross-examination. And so putting on the defense hat, Lance Twiggs, if I am with the defense, is going to be one of the main scapegoats of this entire trial because seemingly he was pretty complicit in a lot of what was happening. In fact, he was almost helping conceal a wanted fugitive, right?

Tyler Robinson, according to his story, admitted that he did this thing, that he was wanted on the run. And then Lance was helping to keep the whole thing a secret, you know, kind of facilitating the escape of a felon and covering up and concealing somebody who was a wanted person at the time. So he could have been charged with crimes. And he wasn't. Instead, he got immunity. And so from the defense perspective, I think they're going to really hammer on that. They did not have that opportunity during the preliminary hearing because it was just a video testimony. But when he's there in person, I think that they're going to try to shred him to bits and to say that everything coming out of his mouth is biased, it's prejudiced, it's something that he's saying just to save

his own skin. In fact, he's much more complicit in this. And there is evidence that his DNA was also on a bunch of other items, not to the same degree that Tyler Robinson's was. But they lived together. They were in the same house. You know, they were lovers. And so DNA's all over the place. But the idea that they're just going to let that part of the testimony stand, I think, is not realistic. He's going to come in. And unless Tyler Robinson's theory is still somehow to protect Lance Twigs, which maybe it is, then I think that Lance Twigs will be the subject of a lot of cross and a lot of undermining his credibility to make him more complicit in their theory, maybe than Tyler Robinson was. Maybe that Tyler Robinson was acting on behalf of Lance Twigs.

He was under duress. He was coerced to do this for his boyfriend or something to that effect, to mitigate the seriousness or at least the aggravators of the murder charge to maybe beat the, you know, a severe penalty when it comes down to sentencing, to make him more complicit than not. And from the defense perspective, we haven't really seen a lot of theory. Like, what is the theory of the case? If it's not a 30-od-sixth round, what is it? If there's another shooter, who is that other shooter? There's other interesting developments.

I think in the preliminary hearing that we learned about, there was a gun with a holster in a holster found in the courtyard where Charlie Kirk was shot. There was also a 2-2-3 round, I believe, was found on the roof of another building that was accounted for as an officer, you know, rechambering his rifle. And so it spit out another round on the roof of another building. And from the defense perspective, I think that a big part of their argument will be about the absence of evidence making their job essentially impossible, that these other angles were not investigated. And because Tyler Robinson turned himself in, what that did is create this chain of events that ultimately led him to being the subject without an investigation into any other possibilities. And once he was turning himself in, it then stopped the investigation. And so it didn't give them any evidence to exculpate their client.

There was nothing else that they could latch on to related to maybe the other round, maybe related to the other holster. Maybe they didn't investigate somebody who looks like Tyler Robinson. Many people are saying there's a body double with a different height. There was also walking around campus that day. And the point from the defense will be, we don't know if that is true or not, but you didn't investigate these loose ends. As soon as you had your guy, everything came to a skidding halt.

And so we have no opportunity because of your failed investigation to do our due diligence to exonerate our client. And try to create some reasonable doubt around that angle. Well, but then you've got to comport all of the admissions and the confessions against those things. So then you've got Tyler Robinson, who, according to Lance Twigs, was working on ingratiress. waving bullets with a Dremel in their household a week before, at least, the shooting actually occurred. So you've got testimony that will come out saying that this was kind of a premeditated thing and that Tyler Robinson was involved in it at every step of the way.

And then he goes, actually commits the shooting. Then immediately after the shooting makes an admission to Lance Twiggs in text message saying, I did it. Look, you know, get the handwritten note. the handwritten note is another admission that was at another point in time. Then before he turns himself in, story goes that he sent a message to a discord group of about 20 people with another admission. Then you've also got Lance Twig saying that they met each other after the shooting in person

and that Tyler Robinson again essentially confessed to him saying, I did it and was even sad about it, was even crying and almost remorseful and very nervous kind of doing a bunch of things around the house in order to keep his mind off it. Then you've also got the parents who helped to turn him in, presumably, we don't know the details about that specific evidence yet, but the parents presumably got another admission. So Tyler Robinson is not being turned in for nothing. He said he had some role in this. And so whether or not, you know, that evidence all comes out, I think is yet to be seen. But I would fully expect the prosecution to then layer that on top of all of the other evidence, the DNA evidence, the surveillance evidence,

I think that the electronic forensic evidence is going to be extremely compelling because you're going to be able to pinpoint his vehicle, track his phone. I think it will rebut the idea that somebody was in the same position, in the same location, texting themselves, two people, two different locations, and it, I believe, is going to corroborate very closely with where the rifle was found. In other words, the, cell phone will be on campus. The cell phone will be in the woods. The cell phone will be in a car as he's texting waiting to go retrieve the rifle. And so there'll be this convergence of evidence from the prosecution side that will be very significant. And the defense will have to go through

each one of those and knock them out one by one or have a better explanation saying, you know, maybe Tyler Robinson was drugged in the back of a car or something. And somebody else was moving him around into these locations. But it's going to ultimately come out. We'll see what their theories are, but a lot of that should could and might just be being saved for motions practice and for a trial. Yeah. And just as a reminder to people, I always have to remind myself of this when we're looking at these trials. The defense's job is not to prove Tyler innocent. And they don't actually have to give evidence for alternative theories. They don't have to say, no, we think this guy, did it and here's here's our case for that guy all they're doing and you can correct to me if i'm wrong

in my wording in this is trying to present a reasonable doubt they are trying to tell the jury correct that there is a reasonable doubt that this person committed this crime and therefore they should not be found guilty it's guilty or not guilty in a court of law it's not necessarily guilty or innocent and so they just have to put as much doubt against the prosecution as possible and again against Tyler Robinson being 100% guilty as possible in order to do their jobs well. But then you're saying like the prosecution could easily come back and say, look, it's not reasonable. We've got all this evidence.

We've got the surveillance footage. We've got his former lover saying this. Why would he have turned himself in if it was another guy on the roof? If it was another bullet, that doesn't make any sense. If he wasn't really the one taking the shot, then why would he have, you know, why would he have confessed on discord? Why would he have sent these tax messages and all of that? So it's not either, like the prosecution doesn't even necessarily have to go through all of the

defenses theories one by one specifically. They just have to be able to say it is not reasonable to believe anything the defense is saying in defense of Tyler Robinson. Is that correct? Yeah, that's exactly right. And there's this interesting thing that some judges will do during jury selection. I don't expect to see it in this case, but they'll ask a full pay. panel of jurors, they'll say, okay, how many people here think that this man who's about to stand

trial is guilty, right? And there'll be a portion of jurors who raise their hands, right? Now he's guilty. Cops charged him. He's sitting here in court, so he must have done something wrong until they'll raise their hand. Then the judge will say, how many of you don't know whether this person is innocent or guilty? And usually a bunch of hands will go up. But that's also the wrong answer because the right answer is even at trial, even while he's seated there, he is presumed innocent at that very moment. And so the burden of proof resides with the prosecution. And that's a little bit different than what we saw with the preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing that we just went through, the evidence is looked in a light most favorable to the prosecutors.

So if the judge is receiving this evidence, there's some doubts about it, he's going to say, well, this is their interpretation. And because it's at such an early stage, we're going to give the government the benefit of the doubt. But once we get into the trial, then it's kind of an inverted standard. And it is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which is a much higher standard. And in practice, the defense, I think, does a better job. If they do have an alternative theory, they can go through and kind of knock out each one of the government's main components. They could say that the DNA evidence is bad. So what? If his evidence, the DNA is on the screwdriver, So what if it's on the gun?

It doesn't make him the shooter. It doesn't put him on the rooftop at that time. They could say we've got all this surveillance footage. And so we can see him walking around campus. They'll say, so what? That's not him. It's a body double. Look, the heights are wrong.

The heights don't match up. Or it's a different body structure. Or he's got a different gate. Bring in an expert to talk about that. Say that the text messages were all spoofed. We've got the cell phone records. And so we've got no admission on the cell phone. phone records or he was drugged or something. He was in some sort of diluted state. So his in-person

admissions to Lance Twigs were all perverted and something that is unreliable and shouldn't be held against them because the government hasn't met their burden on these things. And they can go through and just knock, knock, knock, knock out and kind of cut the legs out from each pillar that is presented by the government. But largely, I think that the defense can do better if they have a theory, if they have a thesis. Like if Tyler Robinson is factually innocent, if he is not the shooter, who was the shooter? And does he have an alibi? Like, where was Tyler Robinson on that day? Was he at work? Was he with his family? We know he wasn't at work. We know he wasn't with his family. Lance Twiggs says he wasn't with Lance Twigs. So if the defense is going to come up with an alternative, what is that going to be

and who is it going to be? And I think that Lance Twiggs would be the most obvious option that he's being immunized. He's being granted protection from future charges. And it's a quid pro quo, essentially. He's not doing that for free. He's getting a protection in order to say certain things. And so you undermine his credibility and substitute some of Tyler Robinson's guilt with Lance Twigs' guilt. And then you create, you know, doubt about the entire case based on that reframe. And you present that to the jury. So the jury has something to latch onto rather than just we don't have an explanation. but it wasn't our guide. So as this advances, I think that we'll start to see what the defense arguments are.

But I think as the record develops more, we start to see that there are harder things to rebut. Like one of the main theories on the internet largely was that it wasn't a 30-od-6. And there's a lot of questions about that because of the size, the caliber of the bullet, because of the wound. You have experts kind of across both sides of the spectrum. many people who are gun experts with gun credentials on either side with completely different interpretations saying that what we saw happened to Charlie, it's perfectly reasonable.

Bullets do strange things, even if it's a big round, goes in, hits bone, deflects, you know, bounces around inside the body doesn't actually create an exit wound. And you have a whole separate side of other people saying that it would 100% create an exit wound every single time you shoot and that it's a factual impossibility that it would not create an exit wound. And so, you know, we may see that debated, but they'll also then, as we now know, have to contend with the fact that they pulled a bullet that they classed as a 30-0.6 bullet and various bullet fragments out of Charlie's body.

So that, you know, fact then will have to be contended with. If it's not Tyler Robinson with the 30-0.6 on the roof, who was it? and how did that 30-od-six round get inside Charlie's body, such that they can disqualify that, right? Every one of these little avenues needs to be disproven, essentially, or at least reasonable doubt needs to be created about the accuracy of that testimony. All right, let me tell you about crowd health. This is what we use as an alternative to health insurance.

I have seen how the health insurance industry just doesn't seem built, actually care for families. It is so complicated. It can be so expensive, especially when you need real care. just want someone in your corner. It feels like the system is working against you, but you're going to get something totally different with crowd health. They put the care back in health care with a community-focused, low-cost alternative.

There are a community of people who have decided to stop letting profit-driven insurance companies called the shots. Instead of networks and restrictions, you get freedom. Personal care advocates who fight for you, bill negotiators who slash what you owe, prescription discounts, and a database to help you find great affordable doctors if you need them. No one ever pays more than their set maximum. members crowd fund eligible bills with a 99.9.9% funding success rate usually in just seven days. Together, crowd health members have already saved over $56 million. So be part of a community focused on advocating for your family's health.

Join crowd health to get started today for $99 a month for your first three months using code alley. At join crowdhealth.com. That's join crowdhealth.com code alley. Crowdhealth is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. Join crowdhealth.

com code alley. who do you think we will see take the stand for either side? Well, I think it's going to be a lot of the same people that we saw. I think that maybe the, well, two or three big ones, I think will be Lance Twigs, as we've already mentioned and talked a lot about. He was not cross-examined. His testimony was cut off. They played a 20-minute video of him, but huge portions of it were fast-forwarded through.

And it felt light. It felt very light to us. So I think that he'll be on the stand for quite a long time. And there'll be a lot of questions about what he knew and when he knew and why he was covering up for his boyfriend until it was basically a foregone conclusion. When Tyler Robinson said that he was going to turn himself in, then it all kind of came to a close. So I think we'll hear from him. I think we'll also very likely hear, I would imagine that the government subpoenas and calls in Tyler Robinson's parents. there are some questions about what happened there, you know, whether or not he confessed to the parents.

We would suspect that he did based on the fact that the parents felt it was sufficient enough to ultimately, you know, turn him into law enforcement. But there was also reporting that Tyler Robinson's mother was responsible for identifying him. Once the FBI started sharing those videos of the suspect who was still at large, she saw the photograph and reportedly thought it was her son. And so she called her son to say, hey, where are you? What are you doing? And I think the reporting was that he responded to her and said that I'm sick, right? So I'm not there. I'm sick. I'm fine. But it wasn't me, essentially. So she could even make that identification. Lance Twigs could make that identification. He said so in his testimony that he was looking at the surveillance photos and said, yeah, wearing the same pants, we're in the same converse, wearing the same hurly hat. And so recognized him by his figure and his clothing. And so I would have to imagine we hear from the parents. You know, we may also hear from the law enforcement officials. So the parents, father, too, you know, sat down with their son, Tyler, evidently.

And we're talking to him about this. And they were concerned that, you know, they might be raided soon. The evidence would come back to them at some point. So they called a law enforcement friend who then brought them out and helped to turn them in. And so there's also questions about that story, about, you know, what ultimately happened here? What were confessions that were made? And whether they'll, they'll, testify and what they'll say, you know, what they'll actually say, whether it is something that implicates their son. You can imagine that's probably the hardest thing that a parent could do is to take the stand and say, my son told me he did this thing. And then you act as a witness against your own child in, you know, the biggest political assassination of our lifetime. So I would expect them.

I think we'll also get a lot of details, you know, DNA evidence that'll come back. All the ballistic stuff will have a lot of that to really unpack. And there are some questions about some of the There was some reporting about the ballistics fragmenting. So, you know, a bullet is lead wrapped in a copper jacket. And so once the bullet hits, the jacket kind of, you know, dissipates and breaks off. And it created these other lead fragments inside of Charlie's body. I think the defense will bring their own expert to at least talk about that. I don't know if they're going to want to say something like it wasn't a 30-a-6th round.

And it was some other shooter with a different. a different caliber gun, but I think that they will try to attack the ballistic evidence. They'll say that when the, and this is documented in the case, but when the actual bullet jacket was pulled back out, so the, you know, the bullet kind of explodes and turns into this mushroom, it creates these very brittle petals on the back end of the bullet. So when they then put that into, you know, an evidence envelope and transport that over from the medical examiner over to FBI ATF, there's some documentation that some of those fragments broke off, so it created actually more fragments, or that there was a receipt of fewer fragments

that ultimately came to the ATF. There was some very short testimony about that, that the person who was doing the examination on the bullet and the fragments got less fragments than were originally pulled out. And so chain of custody is really what, what, this boils down to. Evidence gets transferred from one person from A to B to C, C to D, D to E. And the defense is looking for things in that chain that are perverted. And if you can make the argument that it was so perverted that some evidence is being, you know, denied or inaccessible or was deleted or covered up, then the argument is you can invalidate that entire chain of evidence. It's fruit of the poisonous tree. It's something that is suppressible and something that can be

precluded. So if that expert from the defense comes in and discusses that, or even before trial, we litigate this out and we say that this is not admissible, right? That's going to be a big win for them. And so I think we'll see a lot of that. We'll see a lot of more motions practice, more litigation in writing that says search warrants were invalid. You didn't have a good basis to go get this cell phone record or the GPS data from the car and so on and so forth to just kind of slowly not. these things out, but I would fully expect to also hear from the cell phone and the data technicians, the people who are getting the warrants and analyzing the data, because I think if what the search warrants are saying that they got, if what was received matches what they got, it's going to be

very difficult for the defense to overcome some of the location data. It very well may put Tyler Robinson right there, right, in the stairwell, right on campus, right over by the woods this entire time. But I would expect to see a lot. We're going to see a lot of additional witnesses. And it's going to be, I think, a very long trial if it gets that far. And we won't hear from Tyler Robinson, correct? Good question. Probably not. We don't generally see defendants testify. That's usually the best advice from defense attorneys to their client. There are exceptions to that rule. If you remember the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting that took place in Kenosha, Wisconsin, I believe, he took the stand. And he was ultimately acquitted in that

case because he explained himself. He had an alternative theory. It wasn't just that, you know, he's not guilty because he was exercising self-defense. He actually got in front of the jury and got very emotional, cried on the stand, explained his level of fear and told the story through his eyes. And his defense team credited that testimony with the not guilty verdict in that case. Now, I don't know that Tyler Robinson has anything like that to add. It's not a self-defense case. It's not like he was running around getting chased down by three different people. But if he's factually innocent, you know, there's really not a lot of downside to having him testify. He's already facing the maximum penalty under the law. They're seeking the death penalty here. So if he can

come out and communicate, even about the death penalty capital aggravator. So in Utah, the reason it's a capital case is because he committed a murder, allegedly, but did so in the process of doing so, knowingly endangered people around him. In other words, that there were kids in the crowd, there were a bunch of people, there was the person asking him the question right before Charlie was killed. And so he's up on the perch, as the story goes, shooting past all of these other people. people knowingly creating a danger for everybody else in the arena, in the location. And that aggravates things and makes it capital eligible. So if he wanted to take the stand, for example,

and at least communicate about that point, about that element of the entire prosecution to say that he couldn't see anybody and he didn't know or explain that away in some other argument, then that might minimize his capital exposure. But again, I think, you know, he, that's going to be a difficult one to overcome because he knew it was a big event. And if you accept everything else is true, that he was walking around the campus that day,

and he saw the event, he saw what was going on there, you know, it would have been difficult to believe that he didn't know that he was shooting past a huge group of people. But there may be some other reason for him to testify. Unless he, and his theory is that I'm not, the shooter, right? If he's got a very serious alternative explanation, it might be the best witness to explain where he was that day. If we can't put him in any other location, he may be the only one to explain that. And what happened that justifies this argument that it's a body double or

that it wasn't him, the DNA matches and these things, there's maybe an explanation for that. The defense just hasn't unleashed yet. Last sponsor for the day is Patriot Mobile. The stakes right now could not be higher. We finally have a president and an administration fighting hard for America first, but if conservatives lose focus, the same people who created this mass are ready and waiting to resume power and resume their destructive progressive agenda. So by protecting this momentum, we can ensure we can ensure the future of our country stays intact. And part of that is not just voting at the ballot box, but voting with your dollar, aligning with companies that are helping advance the causes that we

believe in rather than working against us. This is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider, Patriot Mobile. They offer premium priority nationwide service on all three major U.S. networks, unlimited data plans, the mobile hotspots, international roaming, and 100% U.S.-based customer support. You can switch in minutes while keeping your phone number and your phone. Go to Patriotmobile.com slash alley. Use code alley for a free month of service.

Patriotmobile.com slash alley. PatriotMobil.com slash alley. Do you think I've seen this question a lot that all of the chatter online about this makes it really difficult to get a jury that really is impartial. That can kind of come in and say, look, I'm just going to see the evidence as it stands

and then make my decision based on the arguments. I know that's a big concern that maybe the defense has, but a lot of people who care about do process have. Yeah, it is a very interesting and I think astute question because ordinarily the answer is it shouldn't, you know, know that we shouldn't have a conversation about the case ultimately impact the jury. We had, if you remember, the George Floyd case where we had video of Derek Chauvin, you know, every single day, essentially, for months on end with his knee on George Floyd. And that resulted in a trial. And the judge said we could validly put together a jury.

And normally the protections in this process occur in a process called void deer. So the judge and the defense and the prosecution will all be asking prospective jurors questions about what they've seen, whether they can be fair and impartial. And I guarantee you that it's going to be very extensive. Lots of questions from both sides. People will be asking, you know, do you watch turning point? Are you a turning point fan? Did you ever subscribe to Charlie Kirk? Do you ever see a Charlie Kirk video?

On the other hand, do you watch Candace Owens? Do you watch these other commenters about this case? Where are you at politically aligned in this process? And those people will very likely be disqualified, I think, on both ends. Anybody who's overly friendly to Charlie as a victim will likely go. Anybody who's very questioning about the government's case will probably go. and we'll have a lot of unpacking of those issues. Now, that was supposed to protect the case in Derek Chauvin,

where we were supposed to make sure that we could go through that process to whittle out any problematic jurors. But that doesn't always work, honestly. The story after Derek Chauvin was convicted was that there was one juror who was not honest or accurate on those forms and didn't actually tell the truth. And there was one juror who actually was found after the trial was over to have been at a George Floyd protest was actually out there on behalf of George Floyd and even had a t-shirt on called, you know, like get your knee off our necks, like a t-shirt that he was wearing. So when he went through the void deer process, he was asked about all that.

And he said, I'm, you know, I'm perfectly impartial. I'm perfectly neutral. He got put on the jury. Derek Chauvin, as we know, was convicted when he went in prison for a very long time. and has no appellate rights. It has not been able to get any of that reversed on the fact that his jury was very clearly tainted. And we've seen similar patterns in the Galin Maxwell trial. There was a juror who was literally in her jury room who was telling other jurors about his victimhood as somebody who was a victim of sexual abuse.

That was on the void ear list. Have you ever been a victim of sexual abuse? He flies through it. He says no, gets on to the jury. Turns out the answer is yes. Her conviction stands as well. So a lot of these protections sound really great. And like you should be able to solve this just by asking people to be honest and truthful and accurate.

And it should protect everything. But then you see, you know, they slip through the cracks and you have to ask yourself whether or not that ultimately impacted the final verdict. In this case is the assassination of our time. I mean, it's maybe the most politically volatile criminal prosecution that we've ever seen, especially related to the death of somebody that everybody knew and had a lot of opinions about. But how do you discharge that in this process and how do you prevent people from being, you know, dishonest or lacking in truth when they're going through the process? It's going to be some work for the judge to cut through.

Right. Another person that could affect the outcome of this case is Erica Kirk, correct? Because Utah has victims rights. Could you talk about what that could look like? Yeah, I think victims' rights are, you would say, subordinate to the defendant's rights. So the defendant who's currently being prosecuted has the right to do process, has the right to have the format unfold in a way that doesn't jeopardize him. or the actual finding of innocence or guilt. Victim's rights, I would say, will likely come into more play during the plea negotiation process or during sentencing.

She has a right to be in attendance at these things. She has a right to participate in the proceedings and to make her voice known as, you know, the victim of a brutal assassination. But more likely than not, you know, we saw this emerge in the preliminary hearing. her defense team was making the argument that certain things should happen a certain way. And from my read, the judge was saying, thank you for your input, but we're going to go back to the parties who are actually litigating this case. Now, if there is a plea deal, so as I mentioned at the outset, Judge Graff said something like, you know, sometimes you have to spend time in order to save time.

So now that all of this has been laid bare, if the defense team is seeking or communicating with Tyler Robinson about a plea deal and they say, hey, we'll take a life in prison deal with no parole if you just give us and drop the death penalty. Goes back over to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will then say, let me talk to the victims about this. The victim will then have an input so Erica could say, you know, I'm okay with that outcome or I'm not okay with that outcome. Of course, prosecutions offices are generally not bound by that, but it's a nice kind of courtesy so that the victim is a part of the process in getting justice because ultimately her husband was taken from her. So whether, you know, a plea deal is contemplated or not, I think we'll see.

But then, of course, at sentencing, when the judge is now having to flesh out the sentence, I think she'll have a big role in that in talking about the impact and the harm and the damage is caused to her and her family. And there was a motion just filed by her and her lawyers saying, we, also have a right to a speedy trial, right? We have a right to have justice delivered in this case expeditiously. And, you know, that's, that is true, but the real invocation of the speedy trial right is for the defendant. And so in this case, Tyler Robinson has been waiving a lot of those speedy trial rights, right? You don't want to end up in a situation in our legal system where you're

charged with a crime and the government just waits, you know, 15 years like the county Monte Cristo, where you just kind of locked away forever without any process ultimately unfolding. The defense can waive that speedy trial right. So this thing could take years. Erica Kirk can have her say in that process. And Erica Kirk, I've been really appreciative of her because she's also been making her voice heard in saying she wants all of these opened, opened up to the public.

She wants cameras in the courtroom. And her and her team have submitted briefs to that regard, saying, you know, my husband was shot and killed on camera. up, there should at least be cameras in the courtroom. And so as both sides are kind of duking this thing out, and there was a time at the very beginning where the prosecution was also saying, we may not want cameras in the courtroom. We may want to lock this thing down even more. We were outraged about that.

But then I think when Erica and her people come in and they say, we actually want more accessibility, we want more transparency, I'm sure that carries weight for the judge. And so, you know, kind of those things around the margin are all relevant. And I think Erica has a say in that. But her most recent motion was about really the fact that this thing is going to be settled in September. And a lot of people were outraged about that. They said we just sat through this five-day preliminary hearing, what's taking so long. Now we're going to have briefings from both sides.

Then we'll have oral arguments, future down the line. But then Erica said she wants this to be settled quickly, but she was also essentially in agreement with the judge's decision. So if you look at the final sentence of her motion, she said, you know, we want expeditious ruling on it, but please make it no later than the date you've already scheduled, which I think is September 1st or some early date in September. So she's not asking for things that are, you know, accelerated. Like in other words, the judge didn't say we're going to do it in September. And Erica, her filing was not that we want to do it in August. It was just, hey, we want to make our position known. Please don't delay it any further than this because we also have a right.

for a speedy resolution on this issue. Right. Thank you so much. That was such interesting and helpful insight. We'll continue to track this. We'd love to have you back on in the months to come. Hopefully not the years to come because I'm with Erica. I hope that this truly is a speedy trial, that it's not justice deferred.

So thank you so much for following this, for tracking this and giving us your perspective from your criminal defense background. Really, really helpful. Thank you, Al. I really appreciate the time. Thanks. Okay, everyone go subscribe to Robert's channel. We'll make sure to link it in the description of our episode. Thank you so much.