The Charlie Kirk Show - Tyler Robinson Hearing Aftermath: Day 2

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

The second day of a weeklong preliminary hearing in the Tyler Robinson case just wrapped up. Brandon Tatum joins from Utah to talk about the reaction to new Tyler Robinson video and confirmation that Robinson turned himself in. Veteran jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius dissects the strategies each side of the case might pursue in recruiting potential jurors — as well as how the judge can keep motivated conspiracists out of the jury pool. Jobob joins once again. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter.

Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noble gold investments.com. That is noble goldinvestments.com. All right, welcome everybody. We are live here for our special day two of the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson, preliminary hearing. We've got so much to get to. We've got myself, obviously Blake, Brandon Tatum, Officer Brandon Tatum, and Joe Bob all, they're, they're, they're You can see them right there.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming and joining us. Brandon, I know you were in the courthouse all today. I can't wait to dive in and get your POV. I want to set this up just really quickly for our audience before we get into it. Day two was, I think, an absolute bombshell of a day. There was multiple aspects of today that were critically important for the state to establish probable cause, which again is the standard in a preliminary hearing to take it to a full trial. Okay.

The morning started off huge. And gentlemen, this is where we're going to start. We left off last night where they were trying to submit this. The state was trying to submit this video compilation, and they had sort of a John Madden-style version of it that they were not allowed to do. But this morning they got the compilation in. It was more of the raw footage version of it. But it was huge, huge, huge, huge. there was now we've established that tyler robinson was on campus the uv uv ucampus four times uh twice in the

morning uh then during the actual uh shooting and then once in the evening that actually bled into the early hours of september 11th uh officer tateum i want to start with you sir what was that like watching that footage and hearing for the first time four times on the campus of uv u Yeah, I could say, thanks for having me on. I could say it was an incredible relief that we can match up common sense with evidence and get it presented in court as a probable cause effort. And because a lot of people are saying that, not a lot of people, I think people without a connected brainstem are saying that Tyler Robinson wasn't even on the campus whatsoever.

And obviously we see him on camera verified. He was even stopped by law enforcement at 1230 a.m. on the 11th, where they identified the vehicle and they identified. identified him as a person driving a vehicle. Then they compile that and compared that to some of the videos that they had from previous days or the previous day. And it's clear that Tyler Roberts was the one driving the car on campus, even though he's not a student on campus. He has no reason to be there. He lived probably 200 miles away.

So it was damning evidence for the defense team. Yeah. Which they themselves were aware of. Yeah. That's the other part here. The first hour of today was back and forth where. they basically were, again, we're arguing, can we please not show this sequence of video? Even the unedited version, can we not show it because there is a, quote, a realistic likelihood of prejudice to Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial?

That basically, this video getting out there would be so viral, so widely seen. It would just make it, it would make it too difficult for Robinson to have an untainted jury someday. Yeah, well, that, I mean, as soon as this went out, it went viral. all over. Joe Bob, what did you see from your perch as soon as that video evidence was made public and was actually broadcast, too, to Judge Tony Graff's credit? Yeah, so to back up to the kind of the procedural part of it, there was obviously arguing over whether or not this should be shown. And it was interesting to see, I think he's an attorney representing the media side of it saying, hey, well, if Judge Graff is going to make a decision on whether this is going to proceed to trial,

everybody needs to see what he sees, unless of course, obviously, it's graphic. That way, so if he makes an assessment, when he makes an assessment, people can believe that assessment, which is an interesting dynamic in the courtroom. Obviously, we're all grateful that this footage is now out and public. In terms of the internet reaction, it was huge. Like, everybody I knew shared at least some version of one of these several videos they came out and the normal people reacted like yeah this kind of seems like something we knew something we knew was coming and now it's here and then you've got you know two percent of the

population who then decided to take it and run a different direction well but but but but but but okay well there's nothing you can do to please those people but overall this as brandon was saying kind of put to bed a lot of the i don't even know what to call it the the craziness that was out there. Tyler Robinson wasn't even on the campus. Okay. Thankfully, we finally have footage now to make sure that that gets put to rest. All right. So I totally agree. There's still going to be theories that emerge that are, you know, I would say divergent from what the state is posting. We're seeing those online. Brandon, what was it like in the courtroom when that was happening. It felt like there's been a couple instances where I've seen Judge Graff actually get a little

bit. You can see his patience is wearing thin. He's very good at keeping a deadpan presentation, but you could see there was a couple moments. And then finally he rules on this. What was it like inside the courtroom when that was happening? Well, for me, it was an incredible relief. I think I can echo the sentiment of most people there is, you know, that's on the Charlie Kirk team. It's Charlie Kirk's side is that initially it was questionable whether or not they were going to get this amount of evidence or this type of evidence into the trial. But towards the end of the day yesterday, we kind of knew that if we prepared it right, the evidence would be admissible.

But it was a sigh of relief, and especially because we were able to, you know, I think it was a give or take because it was a side of relief because you were able to get the information in. Therefore, the world can see that Tyler Roberts was, it's evidence that he was on campus. But the thing that was a little disappointing in part was that there was the other variation of the video that had some circles and zooms and blurs on it that I think would have been more appropriate for the audience at large. You know, people in the courtroom, we could see what was going on. We knew what we were looking at.

I mean, it's pretty obvious. But to the public, with that video being displayed the way it was, it's not very easy to see unless you zoom in. So the video that the judge allowed to be admissible in court but not viewed by the public was a video that I think would have been a lot easier for people to digest. online. But overall, I think it was incredibly powerful, and I think it was a sigh of relief that things were going in the right direction for the Charlie Kirk team. I saw that you posted some kind of selfie videos, Brandon. I don't know if those are on break or

whatever during today in the middle of the different breaks and the action. But you were talking about this theory of like the Patsy theory. And you were talking about could other people have been involved? And that we're still kind of dealing with this, this notion of, and I think, you know, this is coming from Candace that, you know, she doesn't even believe that he was on campus that day. And she doesn't believe that this guy was the right height or whatever. Let's go ahead and play this clip and I'll have you respond 34.

Who do you think is behind this? I don't think Tyler Robinson was there. You don't think he was there? I think he's a total patsy. I think they get lookalikes and they got everybody wearing the same outfit. think he played a role and I believe that what he did was he picked up clothes and he dumped them behind the dairy queen. I think he had a role. What do you make of that? Well, I think people should be able to digest this information and say if a person is going to say he wasn't even there,

he was a patsy and there's no evidence whatsoever presented to back that claim up, then you should probably question what a person is get where the person is getting their information from it is clear as the noonday son he was on campus four times and for him being a body double or something like that even the defense isn't arguing this this the thing that people need to understand is that if how is somebody how is somebody who's not associated with the case has no investigative skills is not investigating anything it's you know any substantive thing um going to argue something that defense isn't even argument. They're not arguing that Tyler Robinson wasn't on campus. They're not arguing

against that. You know, the funny thing that I found in this trial. That's such a good point, Brandon. That's such a good point. Another thing is, as well, is that the prosecution is saying Tyler Robinson is here. Tyler Robinson did this. This is Tyler Robinson on campus. And the defense isn't

even objecting to it because you would think that the defense will object to it because there's still probable cause hearing. They haven't determined that they have probable cause to believe yet that Tyler Robinson is in fact that suspect. But the defense isn't even objecting to the prosecution claiming this is Tyler Robinson. He did this. He did that. He walked here. And I'll tell you something else that the defense messed up on because they're, you know, they're not doing an adequate job when it comes

to this, is that she tried to be impartial when she said a suspect jumps off of the roof. Then she says, and then he did this. It's like, well, wait a minute. I thought you were articulating that this is a common and impartial person. How do you know if it's a male or female? None of these things have been presented yet. Why are you saying he? It's because they know for a fact that it was Tyler Robinson. And at least I think they believe it was Tyler Robinson. And those things are being brought up in court.

I encourage people to look at the evidence, quit listening to people online, especially those who do not have law enforcement experience or experience doing investigations or those who won't even interview people with experience. You have to put those things together. So listen to what's going on in the hearing. Make the determination on your own. but it has to be rooted in facts and it has to be rooted in evidence. I think what we'll see, we've seen it the last few days

and we will see it in the weeks, months, potentially years to come, is that people who are committed to this line of reasoning that Robinson is a Patsy, that Robinson wasn't there, that no one fired a shot from the top of that building. I don't think they're really motivated

by believing a particular source. I think they're motivated, frankly, by malice. They want to believe a certain, in line and they don't, they genuinely don't care what the evidence is. But fortunately, I think most people aren't going in that direction. Something that's on everyone's mind right now is the housing market. Whether you're looking to buy your first home, purchase your dream home, wondering if your current mortgage is still the best fit for you, or you're considering using your equity to pay off other high interest debt with double digit rates, the wait and see

approach may actually be costing you money. That's where Andrew and Todd with union home mortgage come in. These guys aren't just lenders. They're strategists. The market shifts every single day, and there are more opportunities than ever to make your mortgage work for you instead of against you. Right now, Andrew and Todd are offering a completely free mortgage review. No pressure, no obligation. You can do it and review it and say, hey, not right now. Or they can help you. Just a professional review of your current situation to see whether you may be able to lower your improve cash flow, consolidate debt, or better leverage your home equity. Don't leave your biggest investment to chance.

Go to Andrewandot.com. That's Andrew and Todd.com. Or call AAA-Tripple-8-1172. That's AAA-Tripple-A, 1172. Get your plan in motion. Go to Andrew and Todd.com today. I wanted to flag another thing that was very strong besides the four times on campus. I think this gets at the crux of why we can be so confident in this case.

that they actually asked, uh, investigator Hull, did you guys have a suspect in this case until you got news that someone had turned himself in? And he said the answer is no. In fact, I think we, we didn't get a chance to play that earlier.

Let's play it now. Uh, they're asking about this. This is clip 17. And isn't it fair to say that as of the moment that Tyler Robinson voluntarily surrendered to authorities in Washington County? As of that moment, you all did not know who the shooter was. Is that right?

We had identified a person of interest, but we did not specifically know who the shooter was at that time. Okay. And you became aware that Mr. Robinson was voluntarily surrendering how? How did you become aware of that? That information came originally, I believe, from the Washington County Sheriff to the administration at the control center at the university

the only evening of the investigation or the second evening of the investigation. So that just lays it out. They did not, he didn't get arrested because they'd identified him through a story. We've already heard that his parents became suspicious. They brought in

a friend, I believe they said it was a scout master of his who had a law enforcement, former, something like that. They loop him in into the part of the process and he turns himself in. He calls and said, hey, if we bring if you know if he turns himself in peacefully can we do it that way they agreed he goes and turns himself in and they didn't they had these their command center at the university did not know they

they had a person of interest presumably they'd identified this person they'd seen on cameras so they were releasing photos but i think my interpretation of that was they did not have a name they didn't have a name they didn't have a particular person they were on a manhunt for and then they learned that he had voluntarily turned himself in and that's the defense that's the defense that's the defense saying that Tyler Robinson turned himself in. And that's another thing that these people online have tried to deny ever happened. Yeah, this is, this is incredibly damning to the defense. When you have no idea who the person is, why would a person that had nothing to do with this voluntarily turn himself in? It's not like they had his name, right? It's not like they said,

Tyler Robinson did it. We're looking for this guy. And then he said, okay, okay, y'all got me. I'm going to turn myself in without incident. No, this person voluntarily said, I am surrendering, taking responsibility for killing Charlie Kirk. Like, I don't understand how anybody's still questioning whether or not this boy is involved in this. He voluntarily did it. This flies in the face of the theory that he's somehow being used by somebody else. If somebody turned him in, meaning somebody snitch and said, hey, it was him, and they went and picked him up and it happened that way, then I can see somebody saying he's a patsy or something.

But why with your parents who love you, presumably, I see him in the courtroom, and they go, I'm just going to make this up. I'm going to act like my son did this heinous crime that's going to put him in a bad life for the rest of his life. It's going to go down in history if he's found guilty that he killed one of the most incredible men to ever live in the United States of America. And you're telling me his parents just turn him in because one day they just got a wild hair. and thought it'd be cool to turn their son in for this. And he could be put the death over this. I think the case is closed on that.

Absolutely. Joe Bob, I want to work you in here just a second. But what we're talking about, I think, is a really important vein, and that is what the defense has already just sort of admitted to that Tyler Robinson turned himself in. You know, it's like they, it's the dog that didn't bark kind of thing. You know, this is what's interesting. There was an analyst on Fox News,

who said it was a Mount Everest amount of evidence presented against Tyler Robinson. And these are people that at no prosecutions, that no criminal defense and prosecution. So, but it's crazy because like what else is the defense not saying, right? They're not saying anything about exploding mics. They're not saying anything about Egyptian planes. They're not saying anything about Mossad. They're not saying anything about regicide.

They're not saying anything about any of that stuff. so i just i i just like to our point here kind of like keeping us focused on on what the evidence actually is saying to us now i i i think i have more i want to say but i i was i was going to work in uh at jo bob here jo bob well i don't want to i don't want to jump ahead too far in the day but there's the commentary that i saw online uh was when they got to the dna portion of it and the examiner there uh wouldn't say, well, definitive this, definitive that. When actuality, it's USDOJ policy that examiners don't use definitive language when presenting DNA evidence and specifically in a pretrial.

And to that point, on the crazy side, if the word show trial has been thrown around, if this were a show trial, why would any of the evidence be inconclusive? Okay, wouldn't all of that be tied up? And also, if it's all a lie, if all of this stuff is made up, then you can't use it as your argument. You can't use the perceived inconclusivity as part of your argument. So the whole thing crumbles in the conspiratorial mind. And, you know, I pulled up a Bible verse here that's, I'm sure been referenced a number of times. This is 2 Timothy 3. beware of the worms who gain control over gullible women

who are loaded down with sins and swayed by all kinds of evil desires always learning but never able to come into a knowledge of the truth and isn't that exactly what we are seeing in real time just well nothing is ever enough okay so the DNA evidence the video evidence the admission of guilt all of these things it's all fake it's it's I love that you brought this up Joe Bob I love that you brought this up and Officer Tatum, I'm going to appeal to your experience as a police officer here.

A lot has been made about this ring camera footage that shows Tyler Robinson's car going in front of it. And I guess the owner of the house remembers somebody bald with three people driving the car and with three people in it or something to that effect. So everybody's saying, oh, see, it wasn't Tyler, you know, driving it or whatever. But the ring camera shows what actually happened. and that's that the car was driving by the house. So explain the difference between witness, eyewitness testimony, recollections, you know, the human frailty of memory versus the video evidence pulled from that ring camera. Well, thank you for going to me with this one.

But I think that people have to understand that they're looking at the totality of evidence. In a actual trial, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. So there is a burden that you have to prove that's beyond a reasonable. reasonable doubt. So you put all the evidence together and this is why they don't just talk to the people that live in the house and get their written statements. That's why they have a video. Because sometimes people in a haste or people could be misidentifying certain things. That's why you can't go on their testimony alone either. You have to look at the video and say, okay, now we get what they have said. This is their ring camera. But what do we actually see? There are people that can

look at, we can all, all of us can look at the same person and we may get their height different. You go, I mean, I think that's due to 6-3. Somebody say 6-1. Somebody say 5-10. You take the totality of evidence, and you put it together and build a testimony of what happens. You don't take little parts here, parts there, and try to make a whole case on it. They're going to look at the vehicle as one element of placing him on campus. But they have a plethora of other evidentiary points where they see him here physically getting in and out of the car.

The traffic stop that happened at 1230 on the 11th, where a police officer identified the vehicle and him driving the vehicle around the same time that he's being, you know, seen on the ring camera. So they're going to put all of this stuff together and they're going to be able to present that before jury and they're going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I want people to be very clear on this because you can't put the car before the horse. This pretrial is a probable cause hearing. So all of the evidence that's being presented now is not. does not have to be tested against other experts and scrutinized and cross-examined. It just needs to be presented and eligible to be presented in a pretrial. So the win here would be probable cause being established to go to trial.

Now here's the other thing that could happen in this that I think people need to consider because Tyler Robinson's team in the defense haven't put in a plea. So it could be a very likely scenario where if probable cause is established, they're not going to, I just don't see them having a chance. hands in the court of law. And therefore, they may even plead guilty at the end of this probable cause hearing. So that's why sometimes it's referencing the court that there may not be a trial. And that is because if the evidence is overwhelming, they may plead guilty.

That's a fascinating, fascinating, interesting. It's a fascinating idea I hadn't considered yet. Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y. Refai. You've probably been hearing me talk about Y. Refai for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.

Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America. And we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.

Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com. That's the letter why then refi.com. And remember, YREFI doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to why refi.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. Here's one other thing that I want to get your take on because I saw this going around on social media as well. And this is, again, when the exam.

of Officer Hull was ongoing, the defense brought up the fact that there was another bullet found on site. Let's go ahead and get this, and I want to get your take on it. The unfired bullet that you refer to, is your understanding that that bullet was accounted for? That's my recollection, yes. Okay, and it possibly belonged to an officer that could have maybe been clearing his weapon? Yes, that's what I recall being told about that particular item, yes. When you said that it was possible that that round was from an officer clearing his weapon, what exactly did you mean by that?

Our standard practice in our department is to carry a rifle cruiser ready. I'm sorry? We carry our rifles in a situation which is called cruiser ready. What does that mean? It means we don't have a round chambered. so if an officer deployed with his rifle he would chamber around once he had done whatever task it was that he was doing in order to put that weapon back he would eject the magazine and eject the round sometimes in doing so rounds are dropped or not accounted for so i don't know if you've ever been part of a cruiser ready team brandon or if you have any experience with this but explain clearing the chamber what this means have you ever encountered an instance in your professional career where a bullet went missing?

Explain all of that to me. And how do you account for how many, you know, how much ammo you have as a police officer, etc.? Yeah, perfect. I think every police officer in America probably go by these standards. They call it cruiser ready. So you don't want to have a round in the chamber while you're driving around with your rifle in the car. Because if something goes wrong, it depends, but more than likely you don't want to have it that way. because a lot of people carry their rifles in a bag in the trunk.

And so you don't want something to happen where you get into a crash or something hit the trigger and a round goes off from the back of your car. So you ride with no round in the chamber. Normally the boat is, you don't want to have the boat locked either because then you can drop a round in if you hit a bump. So you normally have the chamber, the boat forward with no round in the chamber. Now, when you get out the car because it's time to get busy, you got a chamber one.

And so a lot of times they'll rack one and put it in the chamber. Now, if you don't get into a shooting of anything, you've got to get the gun back ready to put back into your vehicle. So a lot of times what you do is you drop the magazine out and you, you know, you hit the round and it comes out. Now, in a campus situation where there's an active shooter potentially, I can see an officer getting their rifle ready and leaving the round because they don't have time to stick around and wait for it. A lot of times what I would do is pick my round up, right? Because you have to be accounted for every round that's in the magazine. So it is a possibility that an officer could have done that, where they ejected around because they were getting ready to make their rifle ready to put back in the car.

Now, another scenario that could have happened that I think that the detective or the investigator alluded to was there are sometimes where in the heat of the moment, you may not know if you have a round in the chamber or not. And so you're going to make sure that there's one chamber. So you may rack it in order to make sure there's one in the chamber, but there's already one in the chamber so you accidentally eject a roundout. Now, if you're doing that in a heated situation, you're not going to go back and grab the round. You're going to go and you're going to go wherever you need to go with your rifle loaded. So that could have been the case.

But nonetheless, we all know what the autopsy has alluded to, at least the evidence that have been presented, that it was a 30 caliber round that was found in Charlie Kirk's body. So the round that was found on the ground on the other rooftop was a 5, 5, 5, 6, 223. That's not consistent with the caliber round that was found in Charlie's body. so that is not applicable whatsoever anyway. So I think that if somebody wanted to question that, they should divert to what the detective said or the investigator said on the stand,

as this could be the possibility of that round, ending up where it said, plus he was told that that was the case in the first place. Yeah, and I think that was a great explanation, honestly, and your personal experience with this is invaluable. And it would make sense, by the way, I believe the round was found on another rooftop, and I'm sure that that was kind of the first place

these guys were going to go check anyways, right? Or they may have already been on a rooftop to some degree, and that could have been the reason why they ejected the round right there on the, on the turf. No, but it was a great explanation, actually. So the, we have a couple other clips on that, but I think we've kind of dealt with that. I wanted to get to this point in the proceeding where it was David Englehart's letter. And it was kind of a purpose of the org and Charlie's faith.

And man, that took so long, so much back and forth. I think it was the lawyer's name was Novak for the defense. And that was another moment where I saw the judge get visibly sort of his patient was wearing thin. Joe Bob, were you watching that? And I mean, as a non-legal expert, who is a Christian, who knows Charlie's, how his faith was so intermixed with him with what he did, his campus debates. What was going through your mind in that moment? Yeah, getting pulled a lot of different directions.

One is probably similar to what Judge Graff is feeling. It was like, this is a lot for this. To my understanding, again, not a lawyer. It would have been some sort of enhancement to the charge, being that Charlie was an outspoken Christian. There's obviously a cultural angle of the organization and did Tyler Robinson act on Charlie's faith or the cultural presence of the organization,

which is obviously why they would include the letter. I think there's a part of me that wonders, you know, okay, there's a lot of obviously there's a lot of evidence there is this super necessary especially with how long that took but then there's another another side of me that thinks you know so often there are instances where something happens to a some sort of I don't know racial minority or ideological minority and that's the only thing that matters it was a a Muslim person here who's the victim of something or a gay person here is a victim of something, and almost never, never is that brought up, okay, well, the victim was an outspoken, devout Christian, as was the case in Charlie's case. And so while I, you know, there's not going to be an enhancement that's going to be, at least, again, to my non-lawyer understanding that's going to be higher than aggravated murder, it is good to put it out there and be public about it. Hey, this was at least part of the decision that Tyler Robinson allegedly made to kill Charlie,

and Charlie was motivated purely by his faith. Yeah, and, you know, he's in a gay relationship with a trans-identifying person, Lance Twigs, obviously. And by the way, I recommend anybody out there. I think I'm going to tweet this out soon just to kind of help get it back out there. But the Turkey Tom video I've been told has been authenticated. Turkey Tom is a YouTuber who interviewed extensively one of their roommates or friends that kind of lived and kind of hung out with these guys and can give a very first person experience of what it was like to be around their relationship. And I mean, it's a very depraved Lance Twigs nesting. Nesting.

The audible sexual relations upstairs. The manic depression. The weird way where everyone kept speculating, oh, my love. Actually, that is how they talk to each other. Yeah, that is how they talk. And by the way, throw this up here, to your point, throw this up. This is the 143. This is what investigators say they found these text messages between them.

And to your point, Joe Bob, this enhancement of that Charlie was killed for his political and religious beliefs, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. Ironically, here in the same text, though, by the way, it explains why we might have seen Tyler Robinson on campus that night, right? Because he goes, if I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it yet.

So that might actually kind of be that full circle from why he went back on campus late in the evening on September 10th into the wee hours of September 11th. But that first part is establishing motive. and that was what that letter was all about. And you're right, you're not a lawyer, but I've been talking to lawyers all day. And I'm sure Brandon understands this well. The death penalty has to be, you have to establish these enhancements, which would be killed for religious political beliefs. Right.

So the defense is trying to undermine this argument and take the death penalty off, which makes me think, Brandon, kind of about what you're talking about with this potential plea deal. if he's going to plead at the end of this, right? Because if they could establish, if they could get the enhancements off by Judge Graff and get the death penalty off the table, they might be more motivated to take this thing to full trial. But if they know they're staring at a death penalty trial,

you know, that might factor into their calculus. What do you think? Yeah, I think they have to utilize some tactics here because I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming. And when they finish putting all the evidence together, I think it's going to be very clear to anybody who's willing to listen but they they do have to the prosecution does have to prove probable cause for 10 different charges so you have 10 charges they're going to have to methodically go through and say this is

our probable cause statement that a person who observed this evidence would reasonably believe that Taylor I mean that Tyler Robinson did this they got to go through every element and one of the elements is the enhancement and the enhancement is very clear that Tyler Robinson oppose Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs. He opposed his political beliefs. And here's one thing that they were trying to differentiate, which I think the judge called. The defense wanted to make a difference

between political and faith. And these two things overlap. Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs or his political beliefs stemmed from his faith. And so Tyler Robinson's hatred towards Charlie Kirk was

political, but Charlie's political statements were a faith-driven statement. So his lifestyle that he lived, Tyler Robinson lived, some of the reasons why he hated Charlie was all coupled with his political beliefs and faith. Now, this is the reason why this is very important that they're going to have to prove later on in this hearing is that they charged him with a enhancement based on political beliefs. And so the defense is trying to say these two things are different. So the prosecution didn't meet the burden of identifying that this is political, inside. of this statement from Eccles, I think I may have saying it's name.

Englehart. Englehart. Englehart. Englehart. Because Englehart's document was mainly religious. But I think the prosecution to be able to identify that there is no separation between these two things. They're virtually the same. And that Tyler Roberts's lifestyle was antithetical to

what Charlie was saying, which is why he wrote those things and then eventually shot and killed Charlie. Angel Studios has a new feature film that is a must see and I really, really mean it. This film tells the untold story of George Washington before he was a general or a president. At just 20 years old, Washington faced crushing failures, near-death experiences, and pivotal moments that forge the courage, the character, and the leadership that would one day shape the United States. Angel Studios and Wonder Project have joined forces to bring you a high-quality

that doesn't erase the values that made George Washington who he was. It's not some woke film. Directed by John Irwin, who did Jesus Revolution, I Can Only Imagine, American Underdog, House of David. This epic film brings history to life with authenticity, scale, and truth. With these incredible people behind it, you know it's going to be good. Starring legends like Andy Circus, Ben Kingsley, and Kelsey Grammer, Young Washington arrives in theaters this Independence Day, right on the 250th anniversary of America's Founding. Angel tells the stories America was built on. No apologies or rewriting just the truth of who we are. Their curated library of films and shows honors this country instead of tearing it down. This is an awoke version of history. It's bold. It's authentic. And it's true to who George Washington really was.

The biggest blockbuster of the summer, timed perfectly with America's 250th anniversary, where you can become a premium angel member for only $15 a month or $135 for an annual membership. You need to see this on the big screen. By becoming a premium member of Angel, not only can you get tickets to see Young Washington, but you'll get access to their whole library of content where you can stream other patriotic films and shows like green and gold,

Mike Rose Something to Stand for, Homestead, and the Last Rodeo, stories of freedom, sacrifice, and the people who made this country what it is. Join the Angel Guild today. Go to angel.com slash Kirk. Take advantage of our special offer and become a premium member for the lowest price of the season.

You'll get two free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day and be a part of making this film the number one movie in America for our nation's 250th birthday. I want to get to two more things here. I want to get through the DNA, which was a really, really laborious thing.

I mean, I don't know. I see you're shaking your head. I mean, it was hours. Hours. You can tell that they brought this attorney on to the defense team specifically for forensic cross-examination because this guy was asking very much in the weeds

and eventually the judge did basically try and rein it in because it was dragging. It was going and going. I just want to make sure we play this because it came after our last segment just where they're asking. They had items that had intermingled DNA of Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson

and they were laying out the odds that this was anyone other than Tyler Robinson on this. object. Let's do clip 31. Male DNA was obtained from item 7 sub 1. Item 7 sub 1 was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is twigs. The DNA results from item 7 sub 1 and are 1.7 octillion times more likely if twigs and T. Robinson are contributors than if twigs in an unknown, unrelated person are contributors.

male DNA was obtained from item 8 sub 1. Item 8 sub 1 was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is Twigs. The DNA results from item 8 sub 1 are 30 quintillion times more likely if Twigs and T. Robinson are contributors than if Twigs and an unknown unrelated person are contributors. Do you know if Lance Twiggs's DNA was obtained for comparison in this test? Yes, it was. how was that DNA obtained? It was obtained by law enforcement officers. Okay, so quintillion.

I don't even know what that is. That's after a trillion. That's a lot. I don't know, I'm not good at the maths, but I can tell that's a lot. And the first one I think was 1.7 octillion. Octillion. So eight times I'm, so I want to make a point here because I've seen the internet run in while with this one too.

So Lance Twiggs DNA was also found on the tax. out and a lot of it actually. And I don't want to get like down some weird, you know, you know, rated R kind of thing. But it's, these were two men that were living together. And who knows where that towel came from. I'm just going to leave it at that. Some people have been running with that it had apparently had more of Twigs' DNA on it than Robinson.

Same with the screwdriver. I wouldn't be surprised at the obvious explanation is that Robinson just took those items. Right. From Twigs. From Twigs. Yeah. So, but here's, let me just make this clear. As a reminder, Twigs is believed to be cooperating with the prosecution and may be receiving a limited immunity in exchange.

Now, of course, and I think Tatum, you said this on one of your videos. If it comes out that he actively participated in the murder, that immunity would presumably go away. and I would be totally in support of that, okay? As I would be in support of if it comes out and is revealed that other people had foreknowledge, other people radicalized him, other people involved. That's not what this case is about. This case is about did Tyler Robinson kill Charlie, okay? So I just want to make that extraordinarily clear.

Do I still have questions about how did he get radicalized? Who influenced him? How did he get to that point? thousand billion percent. And I have questions about Lance Twigs. A lot of questions about Lance Twigs. But for this purpose, he is a state witness against Tyler Robinson. Officer Tatum, do you have anything specifically you want to say about that?

Yeah, I think the kind of sum up this DNA question mark is, I think that the purpose of the questioning by the defense was to just prolong and draw the thing out. They never got to any foundational conclusion. I don't understand how the judge allowed them to do this for three hours. This is a probable cause hearing. The only burden that the state needs to prove is that is this admissible and is the documentation reliable because the source is reliable? That's it and it should be admissible in court. They drugged this thing on and the judge said several times reminding both counsel that this is a probable cause hearing.

So I think that this was just a tactic by the defense to draw this thing on so that the defense or the prosecution couldn't cross-examine the witness and get the facts out the way they should have been presented. Also, the Lance Twigs thing, the limited immunity, the reason why you would give somebody limited immunity is that they are involved to a point where the things that they say could get them in trouble. And so you say, I'm going to give you immunity up until the testimony that you give, and you give. And you could give us the testimony and you won't go to jail over this. Now, if we find out later through other investigative methods that you are involved, you're still going to go to jail for that. But the testimony that you give, because it could be incriminating to you, and obviously it probably was, that's why they gave them limited immunity,

you can feel free to tell us everything you know and how you were potentially involved in this. Now, the DNA aspect of it is that I think they were trying to prove that the items couldn't have been something that wasn't associated to Tyler Robinson. Because if the towel was just found in the bushes, it could be anybody's tile. The towel could have been placed there by somebody else. But because Lance Twigs and Tyler Robbins's DNA are on the items, it draws the connection to Tyler Robinson because they live in the same place and the items must have come from his house. And so when you have the gun, I mean, it leads to a screwdriver and the towel, both of those things

associating the two individuals together would indicate that this couldn't have been external. This couldn't have been somebody planting it on Tyler Robinson and putting his DNA on there mysteriously. It had to have been something that came from a domain or dwelling that they both shared. And I think

Lance Twigs may have prepped some of this stuff for him, which is probably how he got the partial immunity and then he's going to testify against Tyler Robinson in court. One other thing here real quick and then I want to throw to Joe Bob with this story that came out from inside the court

and Erica. But, you know, I see people saying that, you know, is there any footage of the shooting and the prosecution saying no? You guys have probably seen this. A lot of people are running with this on social media. Don't run with anything. That is not what happened. What actually

happened, and this is about the compilation video, they're asking, basically, was there anything visible about the shooting in that video? And they said, no, in that specific exhibit they were asking is there footage of the of the shooting in it they said no but but even then

even then we don't need to go for that far down it because we have footage of the same person showing up on campus repeatedly him going into the position where our ballistics evidence and our video evidence suggest the bullet came from he's there at the time the shooting happens right he's running away after you don't need a video of someone firing a gun if you have every single piece of surrounding evidence supporting the idea that someone went there and shot a gun.

So to be clear, no, the prosecution did not say there's no footage of the shooting. The prosecution said the exhibit, which contains a compilation of surveillance footage of Robinson, moving around on campus, didn't contain graphic footage of the shooting. That was relevant. By the way, Erica needs to know that stuff too. The victims sitting in the courtroom need to be aware of that. Go ahead, Mr. Taylor. Yeah, Andrew, I think you made it an agreement.

credible point that I think if people weren't sitting in the courtroom, they wouldn't have understood this. The purpose of the clarification, and the prosecutor actually came back and clarified that there is video of the suspect getting on the roof, going to a prom position, and the shot is believed to be fired

during that position. But they wanted to clarify so that Erica didn't have to be in the courtroom witnessing Charlie getting shot. So they were saying that it's not graphic in nature. So you're going to see the suspect get on the rooftop. He's going to get into a prone position in this area

we believe the shot happened is not very clear and conclusive you know that the shot happened but you can use deductive reasoning and time stamp and everything else. When he's sitting in the prone position which is exactly when Charlie was shot. And he also admitted to it right?

So you got you got a ton of people that heard that the shots happened. You have him on the roof at the time that the shot happened and then you got him turning himself in as a person responsible for shooting Charlie Kirk. So I mean, this is why they put the totality of evidence together and they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think that with the evidence that we see, it's not going to be a challenge for them to prove to a jury to say, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there's no reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson did this when they put all the evidence together?

And it's going to be clear. You don't have a video of a guy who was identified by his parents going up the stairwell, getting into a proposition, admitting that he's, took the shot. The shot is being heard by multiple people at the same time. They even look back at the direction where the shot came from with a clear line of sight. You don't get all of that and people have a doubt. It's going to be very clear with the totality of evidence, in my opinion, that he was 100% the one. And Lance Twigs is going to be the key in this case. And I think that as the pretrial continues, his testimony is going to get brought up. And I cannot wait to hear what he has to say. And I wouldn't imagine that if he's a witness for the state, he must be giving

incriminating evidence that points to tolerators. Correct. And reminder everybody, the cop from yesterday said, I heard a rifle shot. I identified as a rifle. The medical examiner report identifies the cause of death as a gunshot wound, you know, to the neck. So there's, I mean, there's all kinds of stuff that when you when you talk about this totality of evidence uh officer tatum joe bob you wanted to bring this up this uh apparently erika there was a story you know they're gonna claim that i planted this story i had no idea about the story i even know what a l.com was but anyways go ahead please tell everybody no it was uh so during the during the trial you're watching on screen but there's obviously a lot of lulls and boring moments for lack of a better term and so i sometimes take the time

and scroll through some of the live feeds on different newspaper websites. The New York Times has a live updated feed. The Associated Press also does too, so I'll scroll through the Associated Press. And during the lunch break, I don't know if this is on video, but it's in print. The

Associated Press reporter asked one of the people who was inside what the experience was like, and I think we have a graphic of it. This is a woman attending the hearing says it's been emotional. Deney Branch, this is again, I'm reading from the Associated Press, who had lined up with friends at midnight to get some of the few public seats in the courtroom said she teared up during the hearing and Erica Kirk reached over and offered her a tissue.

I'm quoting from Branch here. She says, she doesn't know if I'm Team Erica or not yet she handed me a tissue and I lost it, Branch said, during the lunch recess. She didn't know if I was a friend or not and she showed love. And I in the midst of all of this In trying to sort through all of the The stuff going on in the actual court I couldn't help but just like isn't that Erica Like isn't that just like typical classic Erica

And one For those of us who know Yeah it is Joe Bob Yeah yeah yeah yeah Everybody that got this normal that know Erica We're not shocked You know what she does It's just

So the first time that I saw Erica, you know, kind of face to face after all of this happened was backstage at a big event in Phoenix. And I, you know, I didn't, I don't know what to say. Like, what do you say? I mean, obviously, I've talked to her before, but like, what do you say? And she's walking down the hall and goes out of her way. I think, Andrew, you were there, breaks kind of the, the big pack that she's in, comes over and gives me a hug and says, good to see you. And I, like, I, I lost it, but also that's just the person that she is. Like it's showing kindness and love to anybody in the vicinity who's willing to accept it. That's just Erica. And when I was scrolling through this,

I was like, yeah, like that tracks, you know, amid all of this stuff, of course. Yeah, this is, this is classic Eric. Well, Officer Tatum, Joe Bob, thank you guys so much for joining us. We are going to be joined next by an expert on juries. And she's got a CV that'll blow you away. Hi folks, Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y Reefi. You've probably been hearing me talk about Y Refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare

anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Why Refi can help. Just go to whyrefi.com. That's the letter why then refi.com. And remember, why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to whyrefy.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. We are now joined by our next guest who is a jury consultant. She's a jury consultant.

Which I think is really important in this instance. And you want to bring her in? Yes, yes. She's actually a local in this area. So we were hoping to have her in, but she had something pop up with her work. And so we're having her by Zoom or joined by Joellen Demetrius. And correct me if I got any of this wrong. but you have quite the CV as a jury consultant.

For those who are not familiar with her, she helped out with the O.J. Simpson defense team with their jury selection, which a lot of people regard as quite the feat of jury selection. More recently, you advised Daniel Penny's defense team, the Kyle Rittenhouse defense team, so involved in three of the most high profile trials that we've had. And we wanted to have you in to,

because we're already looking ahead, This is a preliminary hearing, but we're looking ahead to the trial that we know will eventually be coming. And what sorts of strategies even now the prosecution and the defense might be looking towards because we know this is quite the case. And my main interest, Joe Ellen, is just because this is the first high profile public assassination of a political figure in the social media era. And how does that change everything with all the conspiracies and stuff? So welcome to the show. Thank you for joining us. Well, first of all, Andrew and Blake, thank you so much. And I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I'll definitely take a rain check.

I would love to be there in person. What a lot of people don't know about my background is that actually probably the first eight years of my career, I did capital cases in California. So I am intimately familiar with what is not only happening now in the first. preliminary hearing, but what will happen at trial. And as you know, and you've probably had guests that have shared right now, the responsibility is up to the judge that the prosecution has to show probable cause, that the judge would then say, okay, I've seen enough probable cause, we'll move on to the trial. And of course

the trial is a whole different standard, the standard being reasonable doubt. So So you're right, I think Andrew, in talking about social media and the impact that that is going to have and is already having on the jury population in the state of Utah, you know, so many things are being said from both sides, all sides of the spectrum. And, you know, depending, I think, upon where you rest politically, you know, people are picking up on those things that tend to support what their political views are. You know, in a preliminary hearing, what's unusual certainly is that the defense does not have to put on any witnesses. They only have the ability to cross-examine the witnesses.

What to me is fascinating at this point is that the prosecution, I think very adroitly, has indicated pursuant to a rule of the court. 1102 in Utah that they're going to be putting on Tyler's roommate via the video that he took while he was being investigated so that the defense will not have that opportunity to cross-examine him. Everything now is going to be viewed through that fine-tooth comb called the camera in the courtroom. And I can certainly speak to cameras in the courtroom, certainly based on what we saw in OJ, how, you know, my goodness, we had witnesses that were impacted by other witnesses and their testimony and reactions to the testimony.

And now it's certainly just ballooned because of social media. So what's happening right now in the jury pool? You know, I think to some degree we all want to think this is captivating every everybody's attention. I think it certainly is an important component of what's happening in our society right now. But we tend to forget that, you know, the average person who isn't really up on what's happening in courtrooms and they're just concerned about how much they're paying for their gas or where their next meal is going to come from, they're not necessarily going to be glued to social media about this. that said I want to go out that a bit joellen which is when we get to jury selection

what level of selection are they going to have here in terms of are they going to be trying to find people who are really oblivious who maybe can't remember who charlie kirk even is i have a question on that too like are they able to say who do you follow on social media can they actually like review like who they follow and who they engage with is that level of granularity available to the prosecution of the defense? Absolutely. And I would certainly,

and I say this to my clients, I think there's a level of perhaps misconduct by attorneys who don't use social media searches. What I'm worried about is a consultant. And I think any consultant who may be working on this case or weighing in about the case is that someone who may have an agenda, a hidden agenda. You know, they may choose to, if they find out they're being summoned for jury selection, they may, sadly, scrub their social media if it has something that is favorable to Charlie or something that's favorable to Robinson. And that's where so much is going to go into the teams on both sides about a

a juror questionnaire to ask specific questions about knowledge about the case, to look at their social media, what their internet collection may be. And then judging all of that by what the oral responses are during the Voigair process, what's interesting about a capital case is that there's two phases. The first is the guilt phase. The second is what we call the punishment phase. And that would be hypothetically if the prosecution goes ahead and charges of the death penalty, they would be questioned about their views about the death penalty. So there's a lot of layers to jury selection that will occur, you know, if the judge sends this to trial. And certainly social media is a huge component of that for both sides.

So I'm just curious kind of the sequence of events here. So a person gets a jury summons in the mail. They have to show up to the court or whatever. At what point is, say, the state in this instance, the prosecutor is aware of their jury pool that they have? And would they be aware that that person is going to, be brought to, you know, sit in this instance, the Tyler Robinson trial before the juror does. So I'm getting to the point of would they, would the juror even know they have time to scrub

their social media account because they're thinking, oh, I'm going to get called for the Tyler Robinson trial? You know, a great, great question, Andrew. And every judge is different. I can share with you that when I worked on the Enron case, obviously that's not capital punishment, but summons were sent out to jurors. I want to say like, gosh, two months, a month and a half before the actual trial, the questionnaires were then sent out by the court to the jurors, and we, the teams, were able then to review the questionnaires prior to ever seen the

jurors. So your question as to when both sides would know who the people are is really going to be contingent upon the judge in this case and how he's going to proceed with the process. And I'm sure there will be motions on both sides about how that process should exist. Should it be that those people that are summoned, they receive a questionnaire in the mail or in other cases, that hasn't happened until the jurors have actually showed up in the courtroom. Needless to say, I think the judge is very solemnly looking at all of these things and ultimately determining what is going to give the best information without being too invasive, I guess, to a juror's privacy, which in a death penalty case, you know, I don't

see how you can be somewhat invasive. Yeah, and Joel, and I think you answered the question that the judge does have at his disposal different mechanisms to sort of kind of make sure that the jurors, potential jurors don't even know what case it is that they're answering the questionnaire for or the timing of it. Because that does seem like a concern. If I'm the defense, I'm probably going to want, you know, certain people to be following certain people on social media. If I'm the prosecution, I would want the opposite. So continue on, Joellen. I didn't mean to cut you off there. No, that's okay. Yeah, but it's good to hear. There's both the defense and the state can file motions to the judge to determine the process for jury selection. That's a huge, huge insight. So thank you. Well, you know, the other part of this, Andrew and Blake, is that I suspect, I don't know for sure,

but the defense may file what's known as a change of venue motion. And in a change of venue motion, you're saying to the court and to the prosecution, we cannot get a fair trial here. We've conducted a survey. We found that 80% of the people in the county in which the case will be held think that our client is guilty. What happens in that situation, obviously there was a hearing and whomever does the survey is brought in to testify.

Should a judge decide that, in fact, there is enough evidence for a chance? of venue, the judge then has the discretion about where to move it to. It's very rare, very, very rare to have it moved out of state. What more traditionally happens is the trial would be moved to probably a contiguous county. The county that it's in right now, the judge may say, well, we're going to move it to such and such a county, which is contiguous because you don't. want to create a lot of problems for witnesses that would be coming in to testify.

The judge would stay put, though, on the trial, right? That wouldn't mean like a new judge gets appointed or something? No, that's a good question. No, the judge generally goes with, and that's one of the reasons that they choose contiguous counties, because, you know, if you were to go from, I don't know, county in northern Utah to, you know, something like down in St. George, that might be problematic for the judge as well. So everybody's, you know, everybody who's participating in all the witnesses, the lawyers, you know, all of that would be a factor, I think, in the judge's ultimate determination. Alliance defending freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it.

Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years, and now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere from classrooms, to counselors' offices, and even online. Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide. Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June 30th will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Keneppa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith. Rosalie Markizich, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take male order abortion drugs

killing her unborn baby and dan and jennifer mead parents whose 13 year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school every dollar you give today will be doubled by a one million dollar matching grant only while funds last so go to join adf dot com slash charlie that's join adf for alliance defending freedom join adf dot com slash charlie or text charlie to 83848 that's charlie to 83848 please give your best gift now to defend the next 250 years of freedom. That's join ADF.com slash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848. So there's a big elephant in the room with this case that we're all thinking about, which is besides the more direct questions of guilt or evidence with Tyler Robinson,

we know there's been a lot of really weird conspiracy theories surrounding this case. People have been pushing them for the past year. People have been still pushing them. as hard as ever over the past few days. And we've noted the defense lawyers don't seem to have made many gestures in the direction of that. They did ask one of the witnesses if he was involved in the decision to pave over the site of the shooting, which there's been some discussion about. But there's not too much about exploding lapel pins, anything of that nature.

And so I was wondering if you have thoughts, first of all, even if the defense aren't talking about that, is it possible that they'll be making maneuvers when we get to jury selection to make it possible for one of those people to get on a jury someone who's not going to care about evidence someone who's going to believe really delusional things something who someone who might have that agenda you mentioned well let me just get me on the jury and I'll do what I feel like and let me just boil it down I mean the people that are kind of part of this I mean it is it's almost cult like in the way that they sort of believe the opposite of the facts right it doesn't matter what the fact says you cannot convince them that there's anything to them. It's all fed slop. It's all

narrative, right? Even though there's like DNA and fingerprints. And so three things that I guess I get which is one is the defense thinking about this is their strategies they would do. Two, are their strategies the prosecution can do to get ahead of this? And I guess three, biggest picture of all, how can the judge handle this case to how do you handle it? If there's if there's a cult out there that could potentially taint your jury pool? Great. All great questions. And suffice it to say, number one, yes, the defense is looking at all of these aspects.

They have to. They have to look at, you know, the crazy components that are out there. And the not so crazy components that are out there. I mean, goodness, like in OJ, we remember hearing about the Colombian necklace, you know, during some of our meetings. So, it suffice it to say, they are definitely looking at that. And I think that the prosecution is, too. There's so many different issue areas that, you know, were I working with either side,

I'd be looking at that. I'd be looking at people's personal use and understanding of guns. I'd be looking at their views of law enforcement. I'd be looking at their views of First Amendment, free speech. Oh, my goodness, political views. And I think, and I don't know this to be the case, but I think that the defense has utilized a consultant in the past. I don't know the individual's name or the company name.

But my guess would be that they're probably already taking a look at some of those issues, whether it's in surveys or focus groups, certainly I think both sides could certainly gain a lot of knowledge from that type of research. Yeah, you kind of wonder, to Blake's point, when they brought up the paving over of the crime scene, which again, something we learned about on the news, just like the witness that was testifying today, you sort of wonder, I don't know, just how,

how much that has crept in to the psyche of the jury pool. And how do you find anybody in a case this high profile that is kind of dispassionately removed from it and is able to look at something objectively. I will tell you to something that you said, we're so close to this. This is sort of all consuming all day. It's what we do today.

It's what we did yesterday. So we're going to do this week. but when I go out in the real world and I talk with you know me and my wife are hanging out with friends or whatever they have no idea that you know I'm in a Twitter feud or

you know something like that they have they have no idea about so much and it's actually really relieving so I do sort of understand what you're saying that there's a lot of people out there that are not tuning into this 24 7 you know getting the full TikTok of it every day

so let's hope that there's still enough untainted potential jurors out there? Well, you know, for both sides' perspective, really the only thing that you can hope for is, you know, people will know about this. You hope and you pray during the process of jury selection and the trial that those 12 people, ultimately, that you do select, are able to listen and only focus and only make their determination on the evidence that they've heard in the courtroom. And, you know, sadly, you know, we learn about bizarre things that happen all the time, like Alex Murdo on what happened with the court clerk in that case, influencing verdict.

But I think, hopefully, that's the rarity. And I do believe that people take jury service seriously and they want to do the right thing. But now there's so many other factors that are at. out there. The one thing I can tell you for sure, though, is that this judge will very much protect the identity of those jurors and that jury panel when they come in. And how is that done? Well, first of all, you know, the media is never allowed to take photos or video of jurors. Secondly, if a questionnaire is used, only the number of the juror will be used. And sometimes a judge, if they release the completed questionnaires, they will black out elements that might in some way

identify them, like where they work, how many kids they have, something like that. So I can assure you, just based on what I've read about this judge, he will be very, very protective of these jurors. And you just hope that there isn't somebody that has a hidden judge. gender for, you know, for either side that ends up coming in on this jury panel. You're an expert on jury profiling. I think it was that you created the, the perfect juror that the OJ team wanted to look for. What would we, you say, what's the ideal type of juror that you maybe might anticipate for the prosecution in this case? And I suppose for the defense, if you're willing to speculate on that. I don't want to put you on the spot.

That's okay. I guess. put on the spot all the time. So traditionally, in this kind of case, you would want to be, from the prosecution's perspective, you know, clearly you want somebody who's law and order, somebody who doesn't believe in the credibility of the police, doesn't necessarily discount what their testimony may be. I suspect you would probably want somebody who has familiarity with weapons, rifles in particular. You know, you're generally, I think, looking for older individuals. What's interesting here in Utah is the religiosity component of this case.

And by that, I refer to the large number of LDS individuals who live in Utah. You know, there, I actually kind of was looking at this the other day. From what I understand, the LDS Church does not have any public statement about the death penalty. They kind of leave it up to their individual congregation as to what would, you know, make up their mind. But clearly the prosecution is going to want somebody, if in fact they do charge Tyler with the death penalty, they want somebody who's going to be supportive of that. On the other side, on the defense side, you're going to be looking for those individuals who, you know, opposite don't necessarily have the trust for the police.

You're looking for individuals who don't have experience utilizing weapons that can be, you know, perhaps led by an expert in any way that they can. Also, I think politically, you're looking for people who are more liberal traditionally in capital cases. That's what you're looking for. People who would have a difficult time themselves. applying the death penalty. I mean, for me in this case and what I know about this case, you know, I think from a defense perspective, they would be looking towards that second phase

in terms of who are the people they're going to want to eliminate, who are the dangerous people to them, and who are the people that might be favorable to them. So just as a very general proposition, I think those are areas that both sides would be. be looking at. I think that's really smart. This has been amazing. Joel, and we want to respect your time and the time of our audience. We try and keep the nightly recaps on the tighter side. So I think we're going to close out here. But thank you so, so much. It really incredible insight, especially on how the judge can kind of protect the jury pool from knowing which case they're going to be a juror on and the social media scrubbing. That was really fascinating. So thank you.

And we're going to have you on again soon if you're willing, if you'll come back on with us. We need to have her here in studio. I'd love to. This has been a treat. Thank you. Awesome. Great. We'll have a great night and God bless you and thank you so much.

And that concludes our night two of day two of the preliminary hearing in the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. Please let us know if you have any other questions sends us emails at freedom at charliecirk.com. Freedom at charleycirk.com. If you have questions, that means we should probably be trying to provide answers. So please send us those questions and we'll get right on it. Until tomorrow, God bless you. We'll talk to you then.

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.