This Is How Tyler Robinson Walks in the Charlie Kirk Case
Lionel Nation dissects the Tyler Robinson case, emphasizing the prosecution's absolute burden of proof for the September 10, 2025 murder indictment. He details critical evidentiary hurdles, including establishing venue in a specific Utah county and matching shrapnel to a weapon to confirm a gunshot wound. The analysis questions the voluntariness of any confession under parental pressure and warns President Trump and Erica that their public comments could serve as prior inconsistent statements against them as government witnesses, ultimately suggesting that premature commentary risks undermining the state's case before trial begins. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Making The Gunshot Case00:11:13
In order to avoid insulting anyone by saying what appears to be my repeating myself, let me apologize ahead of time and say, I don't mean to do this.
I'm not trying to treat you like you're a child if you were to ever think that.
So that's not it.
I want sometimes to remember that folks will forget really what a trial is.
And I don't know.
The best way to make an analogy.
But the prosecutor in this case, this prosecutor, has the absolute burden of proof to prove everything they decide to prove.
Defense doesn't have to say, do anything.
Tyler Robinson has to prove nothing.
In fact, it is so much so that the prosecutor can't even allude to the fact that maybe he's not.
Putting on a defense.
For example, let's assume during a trial that, and it's probably a safe bet, maybe not, but still a safe bet, that Tyler Robinson does not take the stand.
The prosecutor cannot say, and this was said one time, this was an immediate mistrial.
They say, well, you know, they say there's two sides to every story.
Well, you never know it with this guy.
That implies you didn't put on a defense.
That's a mistrial.
That's a mistrial.
It's real.
I mean, you have to do it again.
The prosecutor can't say, How would you feel, ladies and gentlemen?
How would you feel if your husband or brother would be?
How would you feel?
That's the golden rule mistrial.
Because a juror can only consider the facts of the case and weighing it, not the societal implications of what a guilty verdict would or would not mean.
Can't do that.
Can't do that.
They can't do things like we're going to send a message and we want you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to send a message.
Nope.
Mistrial.
Because what you're doing is you're taking the jury and you're saying your job really isn't to weigh the evidence, to be the trier of fact.
The trier of fact in the jury trial is the jury.
The trier of fact in the bench trial or non jury trial is the judge.
He determines credibility.
A jury can sit there and say, you know what?
I don't believe one.
Word out of whoever's mouth.
You know that expert that they picked.
I don't like that guy.
I don't believe him.
I don't believe Erica.
I don't believe the defense expert.
They can do whatever they want, they weigh the evidence.
It's like you're a comedian and your job is to make the audience laugh.
And the audience has no duty to help explain the joke.
Or to understand what's left out of the joke.
No, it doesn't work like that.
The jury sits there and says, okay, prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
And start off with the indictment or the charging instrument that on this date, September the 10th, 2025, Tyler Robinson, in the county of, in the city of, in the state of, did knowingly and unlawfully, depending, I've got to read the exact wording, but did knowingly and unlawfully, with malice aforethought, with premeditation, did take the life of or kill or whatever, they, to wit, Charlie Kirk.
By, they might say, by a gunshot wound.
By a, and this is where it gets interesting.
Okay, so you're seeing name, you've got to prove that in this county, in this city, in this state, that's venue.
Venue's critical because you have to prove jurisdiction.
This is critical.
One time I had a case where the prosecutor, it wasn't the biggest, it was like a leaving the scene of an accident or something, but still.
The prosecutor kept saying, And was this on Florida Avenue?
Was this on Florida Avenue?
Yes, it was.
Where did you see the defendant?
Well, he was driving, he was speeding, and I pulled him over at Florida Avenue.
On Florida Avenue.
Really?
On Florida Avenue.
And the state rested their case.
And I said, I made an immediate motion for a judgment of acquittal.
And that's when you're saying there's something very grave that's not been established.
It shouldn't even go to the jury, or in this particular case, the judge, to consider.
Any other evidence, meaning I don't even have the burden or should even be made to put on the case.
It was so bad.
And one of the things that they lacked, one of the things they didn't prove was the state.
The state.
They had to prove, the prosecutor had to prove, the state that it occurred in.
The state.
And all I heard was Florida Avenue.
Florida Avenue.
There's a Florida Avenue in virtually every city in the country.
There's one in Washington, D.C., there's one in Tampa, there's one.
And the judge agreed and they dismissed the case.
They directed an acquittal.
It was a motion for a judgment of acquittal.
That's how serious this stuff is.
May seem to you like, eh, it's his burden of proof.
Name, date, looking at the bill of particulars.
If a bill of particulars is filed, sometimes that even narrows it down.
Give me the time frame.
When did this happen?
Sometimes you don't really know.
Sometimes things may have happened over a two week period, a one week period.
But you also have to prove that Charlie Kirk is dead.
Now listen to what I'm saying.
This is interesting, I think.
You have to have somebody that says, my name is Dr. So and so.
I'm a medical examiner in this county or whatever.
I examined a person.
This person identified to me as Charlie Kirk.
And this person was dead.
This person is dead.
Critical in a murder case.
You've got to have somebody prove he's dead.
That's simple.
Now, you don't know who he is.
You are the, this is important, you are the, Doctor, you are the medical examiner.
Later on, somebody can say, you can identify him.
Yep, that's Charlie Kirk.
Family members, yep, that's Charlie Kirk.
In some cases, dental records, yep, that's Charlie Kirk.
So, this person I saw was dead.
This person that I saw who was dead was Charlie Kirk.
And this person who was dead, known as Charlie Kirk, was killed by what?
What?
The indictment says gunshot.
Can you prove that?
Can you prove that?
See, I've seen these cases absolutely fall apart.
What if somebody says, during, I know this sounds probably unlikely, but theoretically, Dr. Jones, you are the medical examiner who inspected and reviewed the body, the remains of Charlie Kirkness.
Can you tell me?
Within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, why did he die?
What was it?
Well, it was exsanguination, you know, he bled out or hemorrhaging.
He lost blood from what?
From a wound.
Dr. Jones, can you say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, what was the cause of this wound?
Was it shrapnel?
If a bullet were fired and it hits, let's say, a corner of a building, and that piece of concrete or masonry flies off, hits the person, let's say, in the neck, and then he bleeds, what was the cause of death?
Gunshot wound or shrapnel, shards from the masonry or from glass?
You've got to prove, according to this indictment, Mr. Prosecutor, Dr. Jones, that Charlie.
Was killed by gunshot wounds.
A gunshot, meaning a bullet around something from the gunshot.
What was that?
Do you have any of those fragments left?
Any of those pieces?
What's in there?
What did you find in here?
Well, we understand they're not bullets.
We can't, you can't match this round with what is in the, what is normally seen as a sample to, to, Allow or to base, you know, riflings and that sort of thing.
But, the question is very, very critical.
What was it?
What is the connection?
Make the case that this was a gunshot wound.
Make the case.
Well, I don't know.
What do you mean you don't know?
The indictment says, or the charging instrument says, gunshot.
You've got pieces of something in there.
Let's assume it might very well be, yes, this is indeed, this is metal.
And I'm just assuming.
But if there was a counter that says, Doctor, isn't it true that you can't tell?
This thing starts collapsing.
And it may not seem like that much to you.
It may not seem intuitively like, Well, what difference does it make?
Plastic?
Because people have said, not I necessarily, but people have said that there might have been a microphone or something that exploded.
And maybe those particular pieces, those shards of whatever, maybe they were the pieces that, I don't know.
See, you know, this is, we haven't gotten to anything yet.
And remember, Charlie and his defense team, they don't have to say anything.
They don't have to prove anything.
You just, you wanted this?
Remember this.
There's a wonderful line from Jack Reacher, the first Jack Reacher where Tom Cruise is playing Jack Reacher.
Not that other hyperglanular twit that TDS fool roided up, but just the original, just goes to show you what a movie star is, because Tom Cruise is the last movie star, in any event.
There was a scene where Tom Cruise is about to beat the hell out of somebody in a fight.
Waiving Rights For Bond00:08:21
He's going to really hurt him.
And Tom Cruise reluctantly says, okay, let's go outside and do it.
And right before Tom Cruise crushes his gonads, right before this crippling fight is about to commence and ensue, Tom Cruise turns to this idiot and says, remember, you wanted this.
And the point of the defense is remember, you wanted this, Utah.
You wanted to charge him.
You're going to charge him with anything shoplifting, arson, anything.
You want to charge him with aggravated murder.
Okay, fine.
Aggravated murder, whatever this.
And they will make sure every line of that indictment, every line of that charging instrument, you've got to prove.
And it becomes really tough because then we get into intent and you knew.
And I'm going to remind you, how do you know he did what?
Why is he the person?
Why?
Well, because he confessed.
Are you sure?
When he called his father, what if he takes this Nan?
What if he, for example, and I would love this, because let's face it, at this particular point, you know, Tyler's got nothing to lose.
What if he said, I never said that, I never admitted anything?
No, I went to my father.
I'm saying, they're coming after me.
Well, son, we got to turn ourselves in.
If I represent you and I know the police are coming, I'm going to turn you in.
I'm not going to admit anything.
I'm not going to say you did it, but I want to take you off the street to at least take care of this arrest issue that's floating around.
Maybe have a bond set.
Maybe have a judge issue an ROR released on your own recognizance.
No bond, signature bond, whatever it is.
I want to eliminate you being snatched in the middle of the night.
That's all I want to do.
I'm not pleading guilty to anything.
And if Charlie were to say, excuse me, Tyler were to say, look, I didn't.
They told me I should go and talk to the cops.
I said I was there.
I was there.
Maybe he was there.
I don't know.
Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any videotape of this confession?
You don't?
Maybe he does.
See, I don't.
A lot of these things we're guessing.
And I have to give you, well, if this, then this.
If this.
What if you realize this is the.
Let me tell you something.
This is the worst confession.
When you confess, I mean to tell you, you sign documents, you are on video.
Are you pleading guilty?
Are you admitting this because they are guilty?
Normally in trial, in the court, whenever you plead guilty, it's called the colloquy.
And the colloquy is when you say, Mr. Robinson, are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?
Yes.
Has anybody promised you anything or threatened you in any way in order to get you to induce pleading guilty?
No.
Are you guilty?
Yes, I'm guilty.
Yes, Are you sure?
Do you know you're waiving the right to a trial?
You're waiving the right to an appeal?
You're waiving the right to call witnesses?
Do you really?
Are you double absolutely sure?
And that's exactly what happens.
Now, I hope, I'm assuming, that if he admitted it is, it's not daddy told me and said.
First of all, a lot of people don't like the fact that a parent comes in there and a parent is ratting out their kid.
I know you're supposed to do it.
Remember Ted Kaczynski?
Remember how the brother basically picked up the phone because that wife said, You better call the police.
You better tell them that that sounds like your brother Ted.
Okay.
People don't like that.
There's something about, but this is not what you may think it is.
So remember, What I've told you so far, Tyler hasn't said a word yet.
Nothing.
He just sits there and just attacks, attacks, attacks, attacks.
Because that's the Fifth Amendment.
You have the presumption of innocence, meaning you don't have to prove anything.
The prosecution does.
And on a separate note, this is the thing which I don't understand.
To Erica, to everybody else, and believe me, I know people, I think Erica is comical.
I don't have anything against her.
She's not even important in this thing.
It's very sad, at least I thought initially, but she just doesn't stop.
She doesn't know when to stop.
And now President Trump is saying, Why don't you sue him?
Sue him for what?
Parody?
Mr. President, don't tell her that.
You don't know what's going on because you have no right against being offended.
You are a public figure.
You are telling everybody in the world, Here I am, ladies and gentlemen, love me, love me, everything about me, love me, notice me, care for me.
Well, if they do, and if they love you and they follow that, then they can also, with that, Come some other concomitant problems, and those concomitant problems are specifically a couple of things.
First and foremost, and this is important, you could very well be embarrassed.
And why they are continuing to talk about these things, I have no idea.
COVID and the whole TPUSA, I don't understand it.
Go back to what you were doing, start reading to the blind, for the blind, wrap bandages, give out scholarships, and just forget this, put this behind you.
But they can't do it.
And every time they, and please do not talk about this case.
Please, because you are now a government state's witness.
And you're not the complaining witness.
Remember, in a criminal case, remember who is the victim?
The victim isn't even Charlie, it's not her.
It's the people of Utah.
It's the people of Utah, the prophecy of Utah, the township of Utah, whatever it is, versus the state of Florida, the state of Utah, the United States of America, versus the government is the victim.
You are merely a witness to the victimization of them.
Yes, your death and your murder is the victim.
Is the witness?
I know it sounds strange.
That's why sometimes when a woman who, let's say, is involved in some type of spousal battery, domestic violence, goes to the courthouse the next day and tells the prosecutor, please drop these charges.
And the prosecutor says, no, I'm sorry.
Why?
You don't have any right to do that.
You don't have any ability.
What do you mean?
You're not the victim.
What do you mean I'm not the victim?
I've got the black eye.
No, it's the state of New York or Georgia or whatever.
So remember this it's the state of the United States of America versus Tyler Robinson.
Understand the style of the case.
And I'm telling you, they're going to have some, at some particular point, they're going to watch every single thing that is the most important thing for you to understand.
It is critical for you to understand that every single aspect of what's happening right now, Erica and others as well, will be remembered, will be scrutinized, and will not necessarily be admissible to trial.
But it will be used later on, maybe in the context to give flavor.
And it also could be used as a prior inconsistent statement.
Because anything you say now may be different from what you said before.
So be careful.
I'm sure the prosecutors told you this.
Don't ever talk about the case.
And the best posture is I am not the prosecutor.
The fine people of the state of Utah will take care of this.
I want justice.
I'm moving on.
It is not my province.
I have all the faith in the good Lord and our wonderful criminal justice system.
That's it.
I'm not talking about that.
Not to his guilt, not to how upset I am that maybe Candace is willing to perhaps add her expertise as a co counsel, whatever it is.
Don't talk about it at all.
Nothing.
This is not your fort.
Your forte.
Continuing Legal Education00:01:26
Now, this is the latest installment.
I'm going to be giving you layer.
Think of this as a CLA, as a continuing legal education.
I'm going to give you so much.
And by the way, I think in addition to this, you'll learn a lot about kind of our system, how it works, because nobody really explains to you with all this true crime business.
Nobody really explains to you how it's done.
I thank you, my friend.
Please like this video.
I have to tell you this.
I'm sorry.
You've probably heard this a million times, but just in case you haven't.
It's critical that you like the video.
Like the video puts us in the HOV lane.
It helps us get the word out.
They will sample us.
They will say, hey, you know, you might want to like this guy or this.
And that has to do with your interaction, your commenting, which I'm sure you will.
And also hit that little bell so you're notified of live streams and new videos.
It's really very important.
It's very, critical.
Remember something.
Not to be corny, I'm not at all, but this reminds me of that great Carpenter's tune, the great Karen Carpenter who intoned, We've Only Just Begun.
And let me tell you something buckle up, my friends, because you're in for a bumpy ride, because this just started.