All Episodes
Previous
Jan. 8, 2026 - Lionel Nation
21:01
How to Convict Tyler Robinson of Murdering Charlie Kirk

How to Convict Tyler Robinson of Murdering Charlie Kirk

|

Time Text
My friend, the theories that have been adduced regarding the murder, the murder, the assassination of Charlie Kirk are incredible, brilliant, absolutely fascinating.
The attention to detail, the angles, the incentives, the intent, the conspiracies, the motive, the opportunity, all of these fascinating, fascinating facts may have absolutely nothing to do with the courtroom.
They may never be heard by anyone.
They may only be discussed here.
Non-blood, super bones and 30-odd six behaviors.
It's almost like the magic bullet.
All of that may never, ever, ever be seen in trial in a courtroom.
And if it doesn't, what comes of it?
Now, before anyone gets lost into theories and the actual conspiracies or internet certainty, there is one very critical, cold question that quietly decides everything in a criminal case.
And it is a question most people skip because it is not dramatic.
For example, little things.
Was any bullet ever forensically, ballistically linked to a rifle that can actually be tied to Tyler Robinson?
Did he fire anything that day?
Not whether you think it is, not whether you believe it.
Can they prove it?
They've talked about chin and forearm, DNA, and all types of evidence.
Was there a rifle that was recovered?
Was it fired?
And was any, any, any bullet or slug or anything that was recovered, could it be linked to it?
Through ballistics or what have you?
If that's not true, if, if that fact is missing, reasonable doubt number one, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have to prove beyond into the reasonable doubt that this individual, Tyler Robinson, shot and killed Charlie Kirk.
We can't even prove whether a gun was fired or if a bullet had anything to do with this gun.
If you found a 38, a 38, could that have been the weapon?
Maybe unrealistically, but sure.
If no bullets recovered, a 38 might have been the murder weapon through the most incredible trick shot of all time.
Now that may sound ridiculous to you, but for purposes of reasonable doubt, because the prosecution has to prove it.
And these facts can't be suspected or implied or assumed or linked.
They have to be proved.
And you and I can talk about this, but it doesn't matter.
Why was there no blood?
Why was he seen so calmly after at a dairy queen?
That's interesting.
What does that prove?
That may add a little bit of, hmm, but that's not at all what a jury is going to be considering.
Because if the answer is no to any of these, the entire case changes shape.
If you cannot even prove that Tyler Robinson was involved in any shooting of any weapon at any time, I want to see what it is.
And the preliminary hearing that's coming up is going to show their hands, at least initially, to prove that they have enough evidence to go forward.
And it's going to be all ears.
It's like the greatest deposition sequencing you'll ever have.
And if the answer is yes, if yes, you can prove that he was involved in it, then the case narrows completely.
Remember, I'm talking about the courtroom.
I'm not talking about this other stuff, which is fascinating.
But it's just like with JFK, we can prove a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald being the Patsy, but that doesn't come up in a court of law.
The point is, can they prove he killed JFK?
And that is why, again, the preliminary hearing scheduled for the 16th matters more than any podcast or live stream or viral clip.
This is the first moment the prosecution has to show its hand in a real courtroom, not to prove guilt, not persuade a jury, but simply demonstrate that it has enough admissible evidence to move forward.
But buried inside that very low bar is something far more important.
This hearing will reveal how the state plans to tell its story and where that story may already be vulnerable.
Forget what anybody has said on any podcast.
And again, I'm not trying to diminish that.
You're going to start paying attention.
Start paying attention.
And most people misunderstand preliminary hearings.
They think nothing important happens there.
No, it does.
Like I said, in reality, it is the first stress test of the prosecution's theory.
And this is where the court leans towards evincing that which it had.
And we learn whether physical evidence exists or whether witnesses can withstand basic questioning who the witnesses are, what they saw, what they're going to say, what's going to be introduced.
It lays the groundwork.
It lays the screenplay and whether the narrative that they provide survives initial scrutiny.
Remember, not internet stuff, courtroom stuff.
And this is where we find out if there's a rifle, if there were bullets, if there's ballistics, if there's a chain of custody, who saw what?
Who are the witnesses?
What is the state going to prove?
What are they going to put forward?
It's their show.
And you may have all kinds of evidence that you have seen on other podcasts or other independent witnesses, but if the prosecution doesn't put up that fact, it doesn't matter.
If there is a clean forensic bridge between a weapon and a wound, then we'll see what happens.
But I don't see how that's going to be.
At least we don't know.
Remember, they're under no duty to tell you or anybody anything that they have.
They don't have to, in a moment of clarity.
And if there is not any connection, the case becomes something else completely.
And one of the most dangerous assumptions in the public discussion and conversation is the belief that murder cases rise or fall on who fired the fatal shot.
That sounds logical.
It feels intuitive.
It also is legally incomplete.
Here we go.
This gets interesting.
Criminal liability does not always depend on who pulled the trigger.
If prosecutors can prove intent to kill and substantial steps towards that goal by virtue of evidence they have, statements he made, admissions and the like, liability, criminal liability, conviction can attach, even if Tyler did not cause the fatal injury.
What am I saying?
Let's say he went there and he sets up, he's got this granddaddy shooting iron and he's going to do this stuff.
Turns out his bullet either never hit or went someplace else.
What if there was another assassin?
Excuse me.
What if somebody had a gun?
What if it was somebody else?
And Tyler didn't know about it.
What if Tyler was a Patsy?
What if they got some assassin somewhere to do it and Tyler's thinking, I thought it was me.
No, it's not you.
You're the schlub who takes the heat.
Can the jury say, can the defense put on a defense that, hey, it's not his fault.
Tyler's not guilty because he didn't shoot anybody.
Participation matters, context matters, and this is where felony murder comes into play.
And this is even more interesting.
If they say, guess what?
He didn't shoot.
His bullet never hit anybody.
He didn't hit.
He never did anything.
He never even fired a shot.
Nothing.
Nothing.
If the felony murder rule enters the conversation, and if it's a part of the prosecution which has to be proved separately, this is where people get lost.
Felony murder does not require intent to kill.
It doesn't really require firing a weapon.
It does not even require knowing someone would die.
That's the point.
It requires that a death occur during the commission or attempted commission of a qualifying felony.
So if Tyler was there to off Charlie Kirk and nothing happened, but that was his intention, or if he was there to scare Charlie or to do something else, not even intending to kill Charlie, and Charlie was killed during the course of that, he's held liable under felony murder.
But normally felony murder is part of somebody who's in the original sphere, you know, a co-defendant, an accomplice.
If you and I go into a liquor store and we say, stick them up, and I got a gun and my partner has a gun.
We never intended to shoot, but he shoots the, he shoots a clerk and killed him.
I'm looking at felony murder.
Me, even though I didn't do anything.
And this matters during the commission.
If Tyler Robinson believed he was shooting Charlie Kirk, if he acted with a violent intent and the death occurred during the course of the conduct, even though he had nothing to do with it because he's a Patsy or a rube, the law may still hold him responsible even if someone else fired the fatal shot.
And the jury doesn't need to believe he was the killer at all.
They need to believe he was committing a dangerous felony when the death occurred.
But again, that has to be filed separately.
He's charged with aggravated murder, which is my favorite, if you think about that.
Murder is pretty aggravated to begin with, but it's really aggravated.
So let's not get stuck with that.
But think about this.
Imagine there's a conspiracy and you're not aware of it.
Imagine you think you're doing something, but no, it's other people who are actually doing the killing, but they're made, they're made or it's made to make you look like the culprit.
You're the Patsy.
But here's a critical detail that most people miss.
Felony murder, of course, is not automatic.
Again, I'm telling you, it must be charged.
It must be argued.
And it must survive constitutional review and pretrial motions to dismiss and that sort of thing.
Now, if the state doesn't charge felony murder, then proving someone else fired the fatal shot suddenly matters a great deal.
That single charging decision shapes everything.
Does it matter?
Does it matter?
Could very well matter.
If you said, guess what?
You charged Charlie or you alleged in the indictment or the charging instrument that Charlie Kirk was killed by Tyler.
Tyler didn't do anything.
Now we're talking acquittal.
See how this thing works?
It depends.
That's the number one, that's the number one answer, legal answer to any question.
It depends.
So one of the most important unanswered questions right now is not who shot whom, but how the prosecution intends to charge the case.
And what evidence is it?
We don't know.
Discovery tells us that.
If this is a straight murder charge, if it's an attempted murder charge paired with another theory, is felony murder a part of it?
I don't know.
Or is the state still deciding?
You could have an amended complaint or an amended indictment, a superseding indictment.
And that decision, by the way, will determine which arguments matter and which ones die quietly.
There's a lot of ifs right here.
Now, at another level, layer removal, this is kind of interesting.
There's a growing speculation about whether federal authorities could step in and say, you know what?
We're going to remove this case from state court.
This is a federal matter.
We kind of want to take care of it like we did with Diddy and Epstein.
Maybe there's another reason.
Sometimes federal courts decide a case involves national interests or some civil rights violation or something significant enough to warrant federal involvement, even when there is no federal murder statute per se that's directly applicable.
That's a possibility.
And removal is not about guilt or innocence.
It's about jurisdiction and control.
And if the feds enter the case, strategy changes immediately.
We'll see what happens.
Now, federal prosecutors think differently.
They move slower.
They're completely in a different place.
They document obsessively.
They don't charge unless they believe they can win cleanly, unless you're Diddy.
And their presence alone can also reshape how evidence is framed and which theories survive.
And by the way, did anybody cross state lines at any point?
Did they buy the ammunition?
Did they mail the ammunition?
Were they on a phone?
You can invoke federal jurisdiction for anything.
Did you think about another state?
But again, all of this remains hypothetical until we get past the preliminary hearing and that sort of thing.
And right now, by the way, everything is supposition.
Everything is we'll see, we'll see, we'll see.
Now, people online, bless their hearts, I love it, are racing ahead of the process.
They're dissecting forensic anomalies and speculating about second shooters and questioning timelines and interpreting behavior.
And that's human nature.
And that's great.
And it's fascinating.
Great for true crime.
True crime thrives rather on unresolved tension.
But the law is boring by design.
It moves in steps gradually.
It moves incrementally.
It demands structure.
It doesn't reward imagination.
Now, the next pivot point after the preliminary hearing is maybe a grand jury involvement.
Will that come into play?
Will that make the preliminary hearing unnecessary?
Sometimes that does.
In order to prevent a preliminary hearing from going forward and for tipping your hand, they'll invoke or impanel a grand jury so that they'll return an indictment.
Thus, there's no probable cause requirement.
I don't want to get too much into that because if a grand jury takes control, public hearings vanish, transparency drops, decisions move behind closed doors, witnesses testify in secret, and evidence is filtered, as you can imagine, tremendously.
And suddenly, many of the arguments dominating online discussion become legally and practically irrelevant.
And by the way, grand juries don't solve mysteries.
They decide whether charges should be drawn, filed rather.
They decide whether a true bill should be issued, whether there's probable cause, or whether no true bill, no indictment is issued.
And once an indictment is returned, the battlefield shifts.
Again, motions begin.
Evidence is challenged.
Theories narrow.
And what survived is not what is interesting, but what is admissible and how the state plans to proceed with this.
There's also motions for recusal right now, which we'll get to later on.
I don't want to go into these little things that are sort of interesting, but not really.
But I want you to bring up something which is very important.
And that is simply this.
I can say, yeah, this, but, Tyler is starting to look a little crazy.
At least that's what they're saying.
Are they going to go for the insanity defense?
Now, insanity doesn't mean he's insane.
It means whether usually the McNaughton rule applies.
And very simply put, it means, can the defense prove, if that's their defense, did he not appreciate the difference between right and wrong?
He obviously could because he was writing to everybody else telling them, look what happened.
I know what I did was wrong.
You know, help me.
Can you get that?
I'm in trouble now.
Yeah, it was me.
And he left a lot of notes and there was admissions to his parents.
By the way, can a parent testify against her child?
Yes.
There's no privilege.
Is that hearsay?
Yes, but it's also an admission, which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
There's all kinds of evidentiary questions.
So we'll see that.
So he can try it all he wants.
He can sit there and go, but at the time, this, remember, there's competency.
It's not insanity.
It's competency at the time he committed the crime during the trial and for sentencing.
So he may be goofy now, but at the time this occurred, did he know the difference between right and wrong?
And the answer is yes.
So how does all of this thing work?
Who's going to say what?
Who's going to testify?
Is Lance Twiggs going to come forward?
Is it a parent going to?
What's going to happen?
How does this thing work?
If you took, by the way, all of Candace Owens' great testimony, this wonderful evidence regarding everything from Wachuca to bloodless shootings to evidence that maybe the entrance wound was an exit wound showing that the actual shooter, the assassin may have been behind, all of that.
If thrown into the mix, remember, all the defense wants is reasonable doubt.
Not to prove innocence, but just create a reasonable doubt.
A doubt you can attach a reason to.
If they can do this, it ends.
It's over.
And if you throw all this stuff to make the jury walk out and say, I don't know what the hell's going on here.
I don't know what's relevant and what's not.
Oh, for God's sake, not guilty.
Get me out of here.
Then they won.
Then what happens to him?
Now, what's Tyler going to also start saying?
Do you think he's going to take the stand and say, I never shot anybody.
I never did anything.
Well, who did?
Because the government, TPUSA, Erica, everybody wants Tyler to be the guy.
Case closed.
Like Nick Reiner, like whoever, just that's the guy.
Case closed.
So if this, and if he can't take the stand, or can he?
I mean, he may just take the stand and bury himself.
But if he plans to use any of the evidence, any of the type of evidence that has been deduced and suggested by Candace Owens and others, that means there's somebody else behind.
That means there's a conspiracy.
And the government does not want you to hear about that.
So I hate to say this.
How do you prevent that from being brought up?
Just saying, I hope he is watched 24 hours a day.
They've got to remove him from his current status, put him in an abandoned hospital or an Air Force base, have devices put on him where he wears paper clothing where he cannot possibly do harm or made it to look like he has done harm or harm has been done against him, using different type of censored and various body parts to detect drops in temperature.
I mean, there's a way to make sure, because remember, if anything happens to Charlie, that's it.
Now, this is part one.
I'm going to be hitting you with more and more issues and more perspectives from the criminal law point of view, from the prosecutor's point, from a lawyer's point of view, which is different.
The other stuff is interesting, but what I'm seeing counts because this ain't a podcast.
This is a courtroom, completely different.
So I thank you for being with us.
Thank you for kind words.
Thank you for watching and following.
Please, I'm asking you to continue to watch.
To please, more importantly, well, not more importantly, but subscribe to our channel.
We need your metrics.
I have a series of questions that I have attached.
here for you to ask of you.
Your insights are terrific.
Again, remember, this is a series.
I'm going to hit you with stuff.
You're going to get an education.
This is going to be the best law school you ever had.
Because I'm going to tell you stuff that they never really explained to you on TV or in courtrooms, but you're going to find it fascinating.
Also, thank you for following us.
Thank you also for following my wife, Lynn Shaw, and Lynn's Warriors.
Your support has been so appreciated in her fight, fight to protect children and to fight off and war it against child predation and online treachery and the like.
Remember, community creates change.
So follow her at Lynn's Warriors, and I thank you.
All right, we've got more coming up.
Thank you for this.
And now I'm going to read your comments.
▲
Export Selection