Tyler Robinson Prelim Hearing BOMBSHELL: ATF Report EXPOSED – ZERO Bullet Match to Charlie Rifle?
Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing reveals a critical ATF report showing zero bullet matches to the Charlie rifle, casting doubt on the prosecution's core evidence. The analysis highlights judicial reluctance to dismiss weak capital cases and critiques the absence of a grand jury, while questioning the performative nature of Erica's forgiveness statement. Ultimately, the defense aims to portray Robinson as an unwitting patsy in a potential setup rather than a calculated killer, suggesting the trial will hinge on exposing reasonable doubt regarding his identity as the shooter amidst broader conspiracy theories involving Fort Huachuca. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Grand Jury Preliminary Hearings00:04:40
Good day, my friends.
Good day.
Let's get down to the tax of brass, shall we?
A couple of things.
First and foremost, very, very critical, very, very important, very, very necessary for us to review.
First and foremost, I want to kind of review what's going on.
These preliminary hearings, these initial types of evidentiary hearings and the like, it's almost pro forma.
No judge.
No judge who is elected is going to let this case go bye bye.
The case could say, the judge could think to himself, this is the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen, but I'm not going to be the one who is responsible for dismissing this.
I'm not going to be the one who becomes the pariah, the hated, loathed member of society by bringing up some kind of no, no, no, no, I'm not, no, no.
And what they do is, the way judges think is they say, let it go to the jury.
Let it go to the jury.
Let the jury decide.
Let them.
I'm not going to be some gatekeeper.
So the evidence isn't perfect.
Remember, the judge's standard is he has to have a fair trial.
There was a Supreme Court case, I believe it's Michigan against Tucker, and the holding was, which is rather trite, but it said that the defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.
So, you don't want reversible error.
There's always going to be error.
An appellate court where you will go automatically, whoever the losing side is, with the exception of the prosecution.
If there's an acquittal, you can forget it.
Double jeopardy attaches, there's no appeal, that's it.
But in the case of a defendant, if they're convicted, if some original, let's say, pretrial motions weren't granted, you object.
Preserve the issue for appeal.
You say, Fine, Your Honor, thank you.
Please note our objection.
And then later on, you ask, What about this?
What about that?
What about the gun?
What about the confession?
What about the stuff you let in?
What about the motion and limiting?
What about all this stuff we had asked for?
That's later on.
The courts will always say, Was there a reversible error?
Was there an error so bad, so extraordinary?
So prejudicial that you were deprived of a fair trial.
Not whether there was a mistake, not whether somebody made an error, but was it reversible?
This is critical.
That's all they care about.
And it's all they should, because there's always going to be some de minimis error that somebody makes.
Somebody's going to say something that wasn't the end of the world.
Now, that notwithstanding, what's critical to note also is the following.
The defense gets to hear and gets to see ahead of time what the prosecution is going to submit, what it's going to present, what evidence it has.
Are you going to introduce the confession?
If there is a confession, what confession?
Are you going to introduce statements that were made?
Are you going to introduce statements that were made in a text message, in the Discord channel?
The answer is no, but are you going to be introducing the Note written by Tyler.
And isn't it funny too?
A note written?
Written?
Young people don't write anything.
He's writing a note, a love letter, a note to this boyfriend, girlfriend.
So is that going to be authenticated?
Is it what it says it is?
You say this is a note.
You say this is something that is from, that is.
Of Tyler, by Tyler, through Tyler.
Is that what you're saying?
Is this what you say it is?
How do we know this?
How do we know somebody who authenticates the information, who authenticates the actual writing?
Authenticating Tyler's Note00:15:34
Do you have a graphologist or somebody who looks at it?
So there's all this stuff.
There's a lot of discovery that's being done.
Learned a lot of stuff that the defense are taking into account.
When I talked to Baron Coleman the other day, the question that we wondered, which we didn't understand, was how in the world, how in the world did we not, and this is important, how did we not have, or why did they not have a grand jury impaneled for a capital offense?
A capital offense?
A grand jury does a couple of things.
First, when you go before a grand jury, the grand jury determines whether there's probable cause, whether there's enough evidence to indict, to return a true bill.
That's the language.
A no true bill is when there's no indictment.
When that happens, probable cause has already been determined by the grand jury, and there's no need for a preliminary hearing.
Why did they charge this through information, meaning through their own charging document, where they're going to have to have a preliminary hearing, where they're going to have to establish probable cause?
A lot of these things are kind of formulaic.
They make sense.
You know, the arraignment, or as one client of mine called it, an arrangement.
You know, the arraignment where you go and you enter a plea, whereas there's a formal reading of the plea, the charge rather.
What am I being charged with?
What is this?
Well, let us read, hear ye, hear ye in the court before.
Nobody knew.
Now you know exactly what you're being charged.
You get a copy of the charging instrument.
You know what it is.
A lot of times, depending upon the jurisdiction, if it's not a capital, you can waive the arraignment, enter a plea of not guilty.
Let's move it along.
Let's go along.
It doesn't really.
And then afterwards, after a period of time, there's a court that says, have we ever determined whether there's enough evidence to hold this person?
It's just like after you're arrested, you go before a court, normally, ideally, within 24 hours.
We used to call it PP court, a preliminary presentation, or first appearance.
This is where you go before a judge, a neutral, detached magistrate, who looks at the facts of the case and says, Is this even vaguely able to go forward?
Should we assign a bond?
You know, that sort of thing.
And all of these things are kind of makes sense, but for the most part, we really don't need them.
There's going to be, believe me, nobody, no court ever finds no probable cause.
Remember, he probably did it.
And nobody really understands.
What it is.
I have a hard enough time explaining what reasonable doubt is to people.
And there are these various standards: prima facie, proof, evident, presumption, great, reasonable doubt, probable cause, clear and convincing.
What does all this mean?
It means the same.
It means the same.
There's no such thing as, well, I'm going to find this probable cause, but this is sure as heck not going to go to a jury.
Let me explain that one to you.
This is also very good.
The trial works like this the judge says, all right, is the state ready to proceed?
After they're done with the first witness, the prosecutor sits down.
They have conducted direct examination.
Direct examination is non leading questions who, what, when, where, why.
State your name.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
Do you see the person in court today?
Very, very general.
Very, very general.
General questions.
Why?
Because it's your witness.
You're bringing them.
We don't want you to ask leading questions.
That we wait for cross examination.
And cross examination is when you get to interview the other side, the other person, the other people, the other witness from the opposing side.
The defense gets to question the police officer, the mother, the relative.
And the reason why leading questions are allowed is because the court, I think, correctly says they're not going to be your friends.
They're not going to help you along here.
So we'll give you a little bit of a help here.
We don't normally like this, but.
Will allow you to ask leading questions.
Questions, questions that presuppose, questions that insinuate, questions that suggest the answer.
Isn't it a fact you never found any tangible evidence, any traceable evidence showing bullet fragments that you could link to this weapon?
Isn't it true that you really don't have any positive ID of Tyler Robinson on top of any roof?
It's true, is it not?
Isn't it a fact?
Tyler Robinson was never here, was he?
Yes or no?
It's the questions that can be answered yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
Courts don't like that, except for cross examination, when you're going to be talking to the opposite side, the opposite.
They're not going to help you.
They're going to be reluctant.
They're not going to be very, very, very supportive of your claim because you're the enemy.
So we'll give you a little bit of a benefit, a little bit of a nudge, a little bit of help.
We'll allow you to ask leading questions.
When everything is done, when the state says, you know what, we are done with this.
We have called all our witnesses.
We are through.
We are finished.
Then they say, the state rests.
And when you rest, you're saying, that's it.
We are done.
And then the defense says to the judge, are you sure?
That's it.
Okay.
How much, what evidence, what evidence must have been shown to go to the next step?
The next step is forcing, making the defense put on their case if they want to.
They don't have to put on any case at all.
They can rest themselves and it's over with, depending upon the case.
And the question is the judge asks, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, which is a phrase you hear all the time, is there enough evidence, enough evidence presented to even present a prima facie case, just a case, to even let it go to the jury, to even make them decide?
And the answer always is yes.
Let me give you an example.
You normally see this in cases where it's not that important, where a judge can feel like, oh, I can be crazy.
I'm going to grant you a motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The defendant makes a motion for a JOA or a judgment of acquittal, meaning, Your Honor, this case sucks so bad that you, as a matter of law, can say, That's it.
I'm going to direct an acquittal.
It's over with.
It's done.
Mr. Robinson, not only do you not have to put on a case, You're free.
You're acquitted.
This is so bad.
When does that ever happen?
Rarely.
Here's a great one.
This has happened to me before in defending cases.
Again, the more menial the case, and I say not menial, the less front page worthy, the more likely it is to be granted.
For example, in a bench trial, They never identified my client, the defendant.
They said, So, this is it.
So, when you stop the defendant, yeah, I stop the defendant.
So, how was the defendant?
Well, he grabbed, he took out his wallet and he took out his license.
How was he?
He was okay.
The defendant, yeah.
So, did he do, yeah, and this was it.
This is all they did.
This.
Now, I'm standing there.
The bailiff is standing there.
The defendant's standing there.
People behind us are standing there.
Who's the defendant?
Who's this?
The prosecution has an affirmative duty to prove the identity of the defendant.
That's why you normally hear.
And you see the person in the courtroom today.
Yes.
There he is.
Would you describe his clothing?
He's wearing the blue suit.
He goes, Your Honor, let the record reflect that the defendant has been identified.
The record will so reflect.
Boom!
That part's out of the way.
You did this.
You did it.
You little check mark.
You have established identity.
You have established the prime official case, at least, that this is the defendant.
I've had one case where they.
They never did it.
They never mentioned it.
And the judge granted a judgment of acquittal.
Sometimes it's called a directed verdict.
Sometimes, if it's a civil case, I think the federal rule is called a JOA.
Anyway, the point is another one too is venue.
This prosecutor has jurisdiction within, let's say, Utah County or Orham County or Salem County, whatever the county is.
That's where their jurisdiction is.
Not nowhere else.
Not New York, not New Jersey, not the next county over, but whatever their.
Jurisdictional areas are, that's all of the area, all of the real estate that that prosecutor has jurisdiction over.
And you always ask, and did all of this occur in Utah County?
Yes.
Why?
Jurisdiction.
If you don't establish identity, jurisdiction, a little bit about maybe did you talk to the defendant?
Did he do anything?
Let's assume they never got to the point.
Let's assume they never talk about anybody being killed.
They talk about the event, about gunshots.
One time there was a case where a judge almost directed a verdict.
Do you know that there was a prosecutor?
It was just really bad.
Who never even identified the victim in the indictment, in the charging instrument?
It says that this defendant, Tyler Ramazan, did on this date, on the 10th of September, did take the life of illegally and feloniously, whatever, of Charlie Kirk.
And that Charlie Kirk is dead.
And Charlie Kirk has to be dead.
It's very critical of the murder case.
You might laugh.
You might say, well, of course, you'd be surprised you've got to be dead.
So you bring in the medical examiner, you bring in whoever.
And you say, did you examine a cadaver, a corpse, a person of an individual later identified to you as Charlie Kirk?
Yes.
And what was this person?
He was dead.
Thank you.
Then somebody else comes in and says, yep, that's Charlie Kirk.
Because this guy's going to say, I don't know who it was, but maybe there were dental records, depending upon the condition of the remains.
Normally it's somebody, a family member identifies them, but you have to prove that there was a person who is dead, and that person who was dead was Charlie Kirk.
And that that type, that form of death was a homicide.
There are four basic, remember this acronym, NASH, N-A-S-H, four basic types, if you will, modalities of death.
Natural, accidental, suicide, homicide.
Okay?
If it's not homicide, we're wasting our time.
You cannot charge somebody with murder if it was an accident.
You cannot charge somebody with murder if it was a self harm.
You can't charge somebody with murder if it was natural.
And by the way, there's one more.
It's actually unexplained or undetermined, so it's Nash U, N A S H U, but Nash.
It's got to be homicide, defined as death caused by the hand of another human being.
Did you know that whenever there's an execution on the death certificate of the individual?
Of the person who was executed, it says cause of death, order, type of death, homicide.
Because it is from man, state, causing this.
And that's it.
So all of these things have to be determined.
And you also, later on, depending upon, have to say that the cause of death was gunshot.
And the medical examiner will say, here's what happened gunshot caused this.
Why?
Trauma, exsanguination, hemorrhaging, whatever the modality was, a particular form, and that's it.
That's what the medical examiner does.
So, there was a case years ago where they never locked in who the victim was.
They kept talking about this person.
They might have mentioned him by name.
But you just can't go out, find somebody on the side of the road.
It's a terrible mistake.
And then say, yep, that's Charlie Kirk.
Wait a minute.
No, that's not Charlie Kirk.
First of all, that's an old lady.
Number two, he's not.
So, all of this makes sense.
It's logical.
And what most prosecutors do is they have a checklist.
You just check, because you forget.
Did I do this?
Did I mention that?
Did I mention that?
Also, the date and time.
Sometimes you have the time that is provided in the indictment.
A bill of particulars will narrow it.
A particular time frame where you focus in on when it occurred.
Little pro forma stuff.
Very simple, but very easy to be forgotten in the event you're not keeping track of it.
If any of that has been not proved in a prima facie way, meaning just bare bones, a judge can direct.
A verdict of not guilty, direct and acquittal.
Do you know how serious that is?
Do you have any idea of what that means?
Dear God.
So that's not going to happen here.
By the way, what do you do?
What do you do if you're a prosecutor and you say, oh my God, I left it?
You could ask the court to reopen the case at the discretion of the court.
And believe me, that judge is going to say, absolutely.
Why?
Because I'm running for reelection.
I don't want to be the next judge, Idaho.
I don't want to be the idiot who.
Let this thing happen.
Speedy Trial and Cameras00:08:15
I don't have my case reversed on appeal.
I don't want this.
I want, I'm, you're not supposed to, but I'm kind of working with the prosecution.
And that's one of the drawbacks of appointed versus elected judges.
We can talk about that later on.
So that's kind of where we are right now.
So what Candace brought up, Candace almost brought up, which is very interesting, is like, why is this woman, why is, why is Erica, first of all, why is she hiring all these co counselors?
Barron and I talked about this.
Why is she having co counsel?
Why is this occurring?
Why is there co counsel?
Why is there this?
I don't know.
It doesn't make any sense.
Why?
You normally don't have a victim, the victim's wife or spouse have a lawyer.
Now, sometimes it's a matter of courtesy.
Sometimes you can say, in fact, prosecutors would love, would love sometimes, sometimes to have a counsel come in and say, Look, I represent the victim's wife.
I can run interference.
I can explain things to her.
She won't be a pain in the ass calling you up and say, What happened?
What does this mean?
And you say, Yes.
So long as this lawyer doesn't become part of the prosecution, try to insinuate himself, trying to grab the glory, trying to get press hits and things like that, it can backfire.
But why is she doing this?
And why is she making a motion for a speedy trial?
Speedy trial is pursuant to the Sixth Amendment.
A defendant is entitled to a speedy and a public trial.
And the reason why we want it speedy is it's going to make sense.
You don't want to be languishing in jail for a year and say, hey, any day now?
You also want a public trial because you don't want this case to be like some kind of Ceausescu lunchroom justice.
You don't want to do that, obviously, but you want.
In a way to figure out a way to maybe figure some way to explain what's happening, but moving the case along.
As a practical matter, defendants never want speed, they want to take all the time in the world.
Now, if you're in jail, if you're going to be found guilty of something, you might want to figure look, every day you're in jail right now, it acts as a credit.
For time served later on, so anyway.
But as a matter of fact, rushing through this does not help the defendant, does it?
So they don't like, they don't want a speedy trial.
There's constitutional speedy trial, there's statutory, you have to, for example, the case of a felony, you have to be brought to trial within 180 days or from the type you've taken into custody.
Misdemeanors is different, unless you waive it.
You can waive it.
By asking for a continuance.
If you ask for a continuance, you automatically waive speedy trial because you're saying, I'm not ready for trial.
Speedy trial says, I'm ready to go, I wanna go now.
Okay.
Anything that you do to indicate that you're not ready for trial, asking for a continuance, asking, you waive it.
And so the speedy trial is not really the problem.
Public trial is good.
Then we get into the notion of cameras.
Cameras, I don't know.
It's different now.
It is completely and totally different.
And the reason why it's different is I think sometimes, yes, it does affect things.
Yes, it.
Sometimes lawyers camp it up.
They will maybe, you know, lay on the schmaltz, you know, and the performance.
And yeah, that's true.
But the same goes where.
Sometimes, if you're in a courtroom, if you're in a courthouse, let's say on a Friday afternoon, and you can walk up and down the hallway, if there's a trial going on, you can just walk in and watch it.
And sometimes you can walk into a courtroom, there's a trial going on, bench trial, non jury trial, or a jury trial.
There's nobody there.
And when you walk in, they look and say, Ooh, I have an audience.
And you'll see the defense lawyer or the prosecutor act differently because you're watching them.
So, just observing it can be a problem.
Not a problem, but can be a consideration.
All of that notwithstanding, the issue is should we have cameras in the courtrooms?
There are no cameras in federal court, none.
Certainly not the Supreme Court.
They do allow recording of the oral arguments, which is okay, sort of, interesting.
What do I think?
I'm not sure.
Intellectually, I believe that cameras in the courtroom hurt, but sometimes it can be a strategy.
If I represent Tyler, I want this case to be watched every single step of the way.
I want the Candices and the Barons and all of these incredible examiners of what's going on to watch, to comment.
It was pretty wild during the OJ case, and there was no social media there.
I want this because they are now acting in addition to the regular folks.
They're acting as observers, and the observations they make are absolutely incredible.
So I say yes.
I want to make it as hard as possible for the prosecution, as hard as I possibly can.
Sorry.
I want to win this thing within the bounds of the law.
I think it's the whatever the canons of the lawyers by the code of professional responsibility.
A lawyer must act zealously.
You shouldn't take a case unless you're zealous and you really feel for this.
You're going to give this case everything, you're going to give it its all.
And that means that you should have something which basically, something you really believe in, something that you really believe in.
And if I believe in this case, I want to screw things up so bad legally.
I'm not going to do anything deliberately, but I want this prosecution to say, oh my God, I want to make it as hard as possible.
They're going to earn this conviction, which is the way it should be.
Absolutely.
So, what's going on right now?
When Candace broke through yesterday, I believe, and she is saying, I'm watching this right now, and I am.
More people watched her commentary than anything else.
She is affecting the tenor, the style.
By the way, we've had this in the Scopes Monkey trial in the 20s, I believe, in what, Tennessee?
Probably the trial of the 20th century was a Lindbergh case, not OJ.
There have been cases where people came from miles around to see the case.
You don't think the Nuremberg case had the effect with cameras?
Remember where they had to wear their sunglasses because of the lights?
It's a debate we're going to have forever.
All in all, do cameras help?
No, not the administration of the trial.
The bigger picture, our collective understanding of it, yeah, as a society, because remember, this is going on in our name, so we should have an idea of what's going on.
But why is Erica involved in this, and why does she say, I forgive him, and then hurry up and speed this up?
JD Vance Testimony Impact00:04:47
I'm always afraid that I sound just mean towards her, and that's not my intention.
But she's absolutely out of her tree.
I don't know why she does any of this.
I don't know why she does anything, why she says anything, why she does anything.
I don't understand why people listen to her.
Her performance, she cannot even make a speech without being cutesy, bubbly, giddy, or about to cry.
There's no in between.
She doesn't just make a statement.
If you ask her for direction, she's either acting like some airhead, you know, Survivor Series candidate in the sizzle reel, or somebody's about to break down crying.
There's no in between with her.
She's out of control.
She doesn't understand her feelings.
She's performative.
It's almost hebophrenia where some schizophrenic don't know how to react.
I mean, I'm not saying she's schizophrenic, but it's just, she's horrible.
Look at the number of people.
Look at these high schools, folks, families, and jurisdictions and school districts who are telling TPUSA, get out of here.
Just leave.
And President Trump's out of his gourd for being associated with her, as is JD Vance.
JD Vance has his own problem.
JD Vance, who, let me put it this way if you're trying to run for office and you've got Bibi Netanyahu saying to you, you report to me every day?
You report to me?
Oh, oh.
No, I don't care who it is.
Nobody, no vice president reports to anybody but the president.
So, anyway, so that's his problem.
So, it's a very complicated case here.
So, where are we going with right now?
We will see the next particular stage, but keep, but understand now we're into the reality part of this.
And 90% of what we discuss, what's discussed regarding.
Theories, flights, Fort Huachuca, or Laurie Franz, or any of those other folks, that's not going to come in.
That has nothing to do with the trial.
That's different from another point of view.
That goes to show you perhaps the conspiracies that are attendant thereto.
But that has nothing to do, nothing, with this particular case.
It has to do with whether the state of Utah.
Can prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt those charges aggravated murder, witness tampering, discharging a firearm.
Don't you love that?
Discharging a firearm?
Yeah.
You had to throw that one in there?
Yeah.
It's kind of a lesser included.
Hard to shoot somebody if you don't.
Anyway, that's it.
Can they prove that?
And the defense's job is to create and to expose and to illuminate.
And isolate reasonable doubt.
A doubt you can attach a reason to.
You doubt something of the case based upon a reason, not a hunch, not guesswork.
So, as we go through this, I'm telling you right now, they are not, from what we have seen, I don't think there's going to be any evidence that Tyler Robinson did anything other than maybe was there, maybe was part of a conspiracy, maybe was part, maybe an unwitting dupe.
I don't know.
Maybe he was there and then he didn't know.
Maybe they just said, you just get him there.
Get him there and we'll do the rest.
Get him at this site.
We'll have his rifle there.
We'll have somebody shoot a 30 odd six or whatever the remnant of this fragment is.
We will make sure that our ammunition matches that of the rifle, which, by the way, will not be detected, which will not have been shot or fired or anything like that.
And then he's walking around like, What is this?
And that's why, also, I still believe this is going to be critical for him to testify because you're not going to know half of this unless he tells you in his own words.
And I want the jury, if I'm the defense lawyer, I want the jury to see how this kid's kind of like a kind of a stupid kid who doesn't really know what the hell's going on.
I'm sorry, I want him to look like a dumbass, not Lee Harvey Oswald esque, who was also a Patsy.
And Mr. Paddock in Las Vegas, who was also a Patsy.
And Sir Hanser Han, who was definitely, maybe none of that, he was there.
Keeping the Story Honest00:00:52
But if that's not MKUltra, along with Mark David Chapman, I don't know what is.
By virtue of what this is.
Anyway, I don't want to get into that.
It's a different story.
So anyway, that is that.
Candace Owens, thank you so much.
Keep it up.
Keep it up.
You go, girl.
You, Google, and to the legions of reporters and individuals plumbing the depths of what's going on, God bless you.
This is a new realm.
We've never seen anything like this.
So, do me a favor, my dear friends.
Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, hit the little button to be notified of live streams and new videos.
And also, very, very critical, very, very important, make sure you comment.
I've got some very interesting and pertinent questions for you to review, and I would be honored if you took the time out to review such.
In any event, have a great and a marvelous day, and now comment as you see fit.