Tyler Robinson's defense team commits legal malpractice if they ignore Baron Coleman, whose collated facts expose prosecution inconsistencies through conflicting timelines and charts. The speaker argues jurors, as triers of fact, weigh evidence based on witness competency rather than legal rules like hearsay, creating reasonable doubt to overcome the presumption of guilt. By presenting these facts without Coleman testifying as an expert, counsel avoids constitutional violations while challenging the narrative that trials are decided solely by law, ultimately urging engagement to reach a 400,000 subscriber milestone. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Rules of Witnesses and Legal Negligence00:13:56
If Tyler Robinson's defense team or Tyler Robinson's family or Tyler Robinson's GoFundMe group or whoever is in charge of this, if they don't retain Baron Coleman as co counsel, pro hoc vice, this would be per se legal negligence, legal malpractice.
Provided they had the opportunity and deliberately refused to do so out of hubris or what have you.
It would be the greatest injustice ever.
It would be almost like saying you don't even have a defense team.
And I will explain to you why.
And I will explain to you the absolute, seemingly endless stupidity.
Ignorance that I'm seeing on the part of so many people who are, they mean well, but they don't know shit about law.
Let me explain this to you in no particular order.
Number one, trials are based on fact, not law.
That's appellate stuff.
The law is going to be there.
You're not going to, the judge is going to make sure you don't, you know, have, you know, the.
Three jurors versus 12.
The law is going to apply.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But that's not what gets you an acquittal.
It's the facts of the case.
And the lawyer that knows the facts wins or doesn't take the case or pleads.
It's all about fact.
Jurors are the triers of fact.
The judge is a trier of the law.
And in a bench trial where there is no jury, the judge obviously does both.
But remember, the jury, whenever you hear this phrase, the trier of fact, the jury decides what evidence is good, how much it weighs, how much attention you should give it.
The rules have to be.
Remember, did you ever watch Perry Mason and they would say, objection, no, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial?
Say, oh my God.
Incompetent irrelevant, incompetent.
Competency is mostly witnesses to be competent as a witness and competency is defined very, very simple under the rules of evidence very, very simple number one, did the witness that we are seeing?
Did the witness see feel touch taste smell, experience That which he or she is intending to testify about?
Were you there?
Did you smell it?
Did you see it?
Yeah, I saw it.
I saw the speed.
Yeah, I saw it.
Yeah, I smelled it.
You know, I, yeah, I heard it.
I heard him say that.
I didn't hear him say that.
I heard the gunshot.
I didn't hear it.
I smelled, smelled like gunpowder.
Smelled like bacon.
Yeah, I smelled, you know, it was weird.
It was a weird taste.
It was a taste of metal.
It was, it was whatever it is.
What, what, whatever.
Mostly it's seeing, but, you know, hearing, discussion.
But that's it.
One, one, did they.
Experience it.
Number two, do they recall it?
I know it sounds crazy.
Did you see it?
I sure did.
You remember it?
Nope.
And competent.
You do not possess competency to testify.
It is that simple.
Next.
Can you explain, detail, explicate, limb, describe that which you smell, taste, or whatever it is?
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
If you can't, I mean, I don't want to be cool, but if somebody, let's say, is paralyzed and cannot communicate at all through anyone, through sign language or writing or Stephen Hawking or nothing, but they were there, they remember, but they can't communicate, it's incompetent.
Incompetent.
You're incompetent.
And number four, this is the most important thing are you under oath?
Did you swear to tell the truth?
Did you recognize the fact that you know the difference between telling a truth and not telling the truth, between lies and not?
And by the way, there is no minimum age where a person has to be some juror, a child has to be eight years old to testify.
This is a witness, by the way.
You've got to be eight years old to testify.
No, no, no.
There's nothing.
As long as you did what I just told you, as long as you maintain it, that is the most important thing in the world.
Because what we're talking about is very simply this.
We are talking about very simply the rules of evidence regarding competency.
What does competency deal with?
It deals with witnesses.
And what do you have to have in order to be a competent witness?
That's what we're talking about.
That's it.
That's the first thing.
They're the people who try the facts, they're the ones absolutely, they are it.
You understand this?
This is the most important thing in the world.
Everybody is presumed competent to testify unless there's some specific rule.
We're not going to go into this, but I'm going to give you basic, rudimentary.
This is nothing but plain old evidence code 101.
Okay, you got that?
That's all.
That's to be a witness.
That's it.
You have to have seen it, you have to have been there.
The only time you don't get to see it, the only time you don't have to be there, the only time you're Usually, not is when you're an expert witness.
And an expert witness is the only person who can give an opinion.
See, we hate opinions from jurors.
Hate them.
You know, I think he was going 58 miles an hour.
Objection.
What is his opinion?
What are you, an expert?
How do you look at something and tell?
How do you, what are you talking about?
Check this light here.
I know this light's kind of weird.
A little better, sort of.
Anyway.
So that's it, okay?
There are some exceptions.
They're kind of like the collective facts every day.
I forget the name of collective facts.
For example, when you said, smell like bacon.
Okay, we know what bacon is.
That's an opinion.
That's an opinion.
You can kind of guess maybe the time of day.
I mean, just stuff that doesn't require any kind of special things.
So that's the rules of witnesses.
That's it.
And by the way, remember, I mentioned about the minimum age.
There was a famous case where this child was taking the stand.
I forget what the particular case was, and the judge had to determine whether the child knew the difference between lies and facts.
I've never seen a Bible.
You don't have to raise your hand on the Bible.
I've never seen a Bible ever.
And they asked this one particular child, Do you know what a promise is?
And she said, Yes.
A promise is like glass.
You can't break it.
Oh my God.
They said, That's it.
That's it.
She's in.
We win.
Okay.
And that, my friends, that is the rules of evidence regarding witnesses.
That's it.
And they are the most important people in the world.
They are the most important people in the world.
They are it.
They are it.
The jurors, I should say, who look at the witnesses, who weigh your testimony therein.
They're it.
They don't know anything about competence.
They don't know anything about this, about hearsay rule or whatever.
They know nothing.
They just say, I believe it.
I don't believe it.
And what is their goal?
What is their message?
What do they do when they go through all the witnesses?
What is it they're trying to figure out?
What will get Tyler Robinson acquitted?
Innocence?
No.
Say it.
Say it.
What is it?
Reasonable doubt.
I don't care what you say.
Reasonable doubt.
Now, enter Baron Coleman, the genius, an individual who has.
I've never seen anything remotely like he does, ever.
Even in actual trials going on, federal, state level, doesn't matter.
The.
Disambiguation, the specifics, the dissection of time and who was where and when and how this negates this claim.
What does all of this do?
Do you think jurors or most of the people who listen to him know every little fact, every little discrepancy, Eddie, Eddie, or every little idiosyncratic nuance twixt this and this and tweet?
No!
You get the idea that it's not likely for him to be on Discord after he's been arrested and all that kind of stuff.
But the point is, what does he do?
What does it mean?
Reasonable doubt.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you've heard the testimony as adduced, as explained by the inimitable, the ineffable, the one, the only Baron Coleman, counselor.
Co counsel, pro hoc vice, meaning you petition the Utah court to let you in for this special appearance.
You have some local counsel kind of act, you know, get your mail and stuff, but basically vouch for you.
But, So, what this means, what all this means is very simply this.
He comes in and he starts throwing charts and graphs and times, and that jury will say, let me out of here.
I don't believe anything because the doubt that he imparts, the doubt that he creates here, affects everything.
And by the way, this is just one thing.
If you get the impression, without saying it, that people are lying or negligent or not paying attention, look, you don't have to say that the police are lying or the prosecution is lying.
No, you just say they're wrong or they made a mistake.
Or the facts are not as they seem.
Is that the same as lying?
No, no, a little bit, but not really.
Not really.
See, this.
I can see the following.
Ladies and gentlemen, reasonable doubt derails the train.
Give me one reasonable doubt as to the guilt, as to the facts as adduced, as presented, as averred by the prosecution.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Tyler Robinson, that's not guilty.
How much has to be a reasonable doubt?
What if they show you 99% and you say, okay, but there's 1% reasonable doubt?
Well, if that 1% is critical, that's not guilty.
And then again, juries create, there's a flavor of the case, like it's a dog, it stinks, it sucks, and you never know what happens.
My friends, I. Graduated and later was licensed 43 years ago.
I've seen at the trial level stuff that is like, how did this happen?
From traffic court to family court to juvenile court to misdemeanor, felony, grand juries, administrative hearings, small claims.
That's another story.
You name it.
When you put human beings and you swear them in and they forget or they're scared, or you have a prosecutor, for example, who asks the wrong question, who lets somebody go too long, or who says something, you don't know.
These witnesses are not scripted.
Unscripted Testimony and Prosecutorial Errors00:14:39
They don't know exactly what they're going to say, they don't know exactly the testimony they're going to give.
They really don't know this.
They don't know any of this stuff.
But what they do know.
Which is interesting to know.
What they do know is that they will tell a story, but they don't know how that piece of testimony comports with the other witness because there's the rule of sequestration.
The rule of sequestration is almost always, should be invoked at the beginning of the trial, which says any witness, any witness who's going to testify must leave the courtroom.
You cannot sit and listen to somebody else's testimony.
And then you take the stand and say, yeah, just like he said.
So when you go up, You don't know what somebody else said.
You don't know anything.
You don't know what you're going to do.
I don't care if you're a cop.
I don't care.
You may think nothing about what you've said.
And let me also say something.
And this is very, critical.
When I spoke to Mr. Coleman, I asked or asked him something to the effect of would you consider co counsel or has anybody asked you or whatever it is?
He said, well, if they did, I would tell you and all this stuff.
I have not spoken to him about that.
I've not spoken to him since we spoke on my show, and that's it.
So I don't know.
I, if that defense team, maybe in the QT, said, Mr. Coleman, yes, my name is so and so.
I'm an investigator.
We spoke on the phone with the Tyler Robinson defense team.
Would you mind showing me some of just your timeline?
Not as a lawyer.
But it's somebody who just collects facts.
There's a lot of people who come up with some great stuff, some fascinating information.
They're not lawyers, they're just, you know.
Some of the best stuff that ever happened regarding the JFK assassination were not from lawyers, but from amateur historians, people who've never done this in their life.
Mr. Coleman, can you show me some what you think are important glitches in the timeline?
Yeah, I'll show you.
Can you show me where you get this from?
Not what you think, but where you.
Where you glean these particular facts?
And he'll say, Yeah, from here, here, here, here, and here.
Thank you for this.
That's excellent.
Thank you, sir.
Very good.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And then you say, whoever's on the stand, and you take out your little pen, your pointer, and you say, Detective, Officer, whatever.
What version of the facts do you like?
Do you like this fact regarding Tyler Robinson?
Do you think that Tyler Robinson, after he was Mirandized and refused, did not testify?
And by the way, whether he, if he said, I want to speak to a lawyer, and they bring that up, that's a mistrial.
So watch that one too.
Mistrials are like a minefield.
Sometimes cops say they don't even know.
I asked him what he said, and he said, I don't want to talk to you right now.
I want to talk to my lawyer.
Because you're commenting.
If you comment, if you refer to a defendant's election to invoke the Fifth Amendment, that is a mistrial.
That is a constitutional violation because you have the right to remain silent and they can't use it against you later on.
They can say, you know what?
They say there's two sides to every story.
Well, not with this son of a bitch.
I asked him if he wanted to talk to me.
He said, No, I want to talk to a lawyer.
Gee, I wonder what.
Maybe if you weren't guilty, you know, you can't, because you're intimating that.
So that's another glitch.
That's another one.
Oh my God, a mistrial after all this time.
Eh, tee it up again.
And defense say, Give me all the mistrials you want.
Just keep throwing that fly in that ointment.
Because don't be surprised if they make some kind of deal with old Tyler and he figures, you know what, but anyway, we'll talk about that later.
Don't get ahead of our skis, as the kids say today.
Do the kids say that?
I don't know.
And who are these kids?
So I've never talked to Baron, but all he would have to do was say, let me just show you.
And by the way, this goes for all the other, from Nisi to Freddo to Baron to you, to name it, to of course Candace, and say, this is what we found.
So if you're a juror and you say, I've got four different versions of this.
They didn't tell me this, but apparently, thanks to some industrious fact finder, deep diver, as it were, this is very interesting because this, interesting, much to my, not chagrin, but much to my dismay, my fascination, this is most interesting because he is.
Doing things that don't make any sense.
You're writing all these times now.
When people normally don't want to talk to you, they don't want to talk to anybody.
Going online, unless he's just demented, just doesn't make any sense.
Just like the two versions of his story.
Version A, which is what they were going to go with, they thought that Tyler was going to say something to the effect of, I can't live in prison.
I can't live without freedom.
So, you know, and that would have been maybe the precursor to the big shootout or whatever it is.
That didn't happen.
He went to the first one where he said, interestingly enough, he said, No, I think I'm going to turn myself in and talk.
So that all of the facts were already in line and set in motion for that first version of the confession.
And then when it changed, A lot of the facts didn't make any sense.
Well, what happened?
He didn't go through.
He survived.
He wasn't supposed to survive.
Anyway, we'll see.
But if they have not sent, if they have not said, Mr. Coleman, what do you feel comfortable with?
We will not have you as a.
And by the way, he's got to be careful because if Barron does say this, well, let me turn over what it is, my information, my collation of the facts, then he's a witness.
He's like an expert.
He's not a witness in terms of seeing something, but he's a witness in terms of having reviewed and collated the facts of the case.
I don't even think he needs to even.
His name doesn't even have to be known.
If I'm presenting to you something, if I say, here is the evidence that you have.
Here is the evidence that I have.
It's identical, but my interpretation is different.
My interpretation allows you, allows a different version of it.
I don't even think Barron has to testify to anything because he didn't see anything.
He's just going through the records.
He's just going through that which is already there.
He's almost like a paralegal.
Paralegal doesn't testify.
The person who goes through the medical records doesn't testify.
They just put them together, collate them, and say, here's what you do.
But if they haven't reached out to him or Candace or any of the aforementioned, that is legal malpractice.
And that makes me think there's something, this case is rotten.
No, I'm not suggesting this, I'm not intimating this, I'm not even hinting that they're trying to throw the case that these are fed jacketed or whatever the phrase is fed slop jacketed.
No, I'm not suggesting that.
But what I'm suggesting, what I'm suggesting is that there is so much here that if the jury heard 10% of all of the inconsistencies, They would say, This is a dog.
And what happens is, it would then have to be the job of the prosecutor to say, No, you don't understand.
You don't understand.
This is not important.
Yeah, there's a mistake.
Whenever you are impeaching a witness, and impeaching, not, we always think about in terms of the president's sense, but impeachment or the removal from office.
Impeachment means to affect the credibility.
Of a witness.
Whenever you're impeaching the testimony or the witness of somebody, what you're doing is you are, in effect, diminishing the credibility and you're showing that they should not be believed, that they should not be believed or that their testimony should be given less weight, which is what the trier of fact does.
It weighs.
It may say, I'm going to give that witness a lot of weight.
This one, I'm not even going to listen to.
I don't like this person.
I think they're there for the money or they're.
There was an old lady who couldn't hear.
I don't think she heard the gunshots.
I'm not going to.
They can reject everything.
They can say, I don't believe anybody.
It's up to them.
There's nothing you can do.
And if they acquit the defendant, that's it.
That's it.
Double jeopardy.
You can't try him.
He's acquitted.
He walks forever.
That's it.
In state court, federal court, if it's a different case like they did with OJ.
Anyway, not to get ahead of our skis, not to get ahead of the game.
But he and others.
If they just saw charts and lines and this, and they, they, what I want them to have this feeling was go ahead.
Do you feel confident to find this young man guilty?
Do you feel confident that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
Do you feel confident?
Do you feel from the bottom of your heart that that really is the guy?
But most importantly, that they proved it.
Because here's the thing, too.
You may say, look, I know it's him.
I mean, I know what to do, but they didn't prove it.
Just because, remember, jurors are not detectives.
They may know a lot of things.
They may know a lot of things, but if nobody proves it, sorry.
Now, one more thing.
I have been getting a spate of emails and comments from a lot of people, and I think you know who they are.
And I don't want to call them out, but it goes something like this Who are you to think you're some expert when you're telling?