Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin's Lawyers Want Cameras OUT of Preliminary Hearing, with Mark Eiglarsh

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]Next case I wanted to get to is what happened in the Tyler Robinson prosecution this week. He is the man accused of murdering our friend Charlie Kirk. And they are having a lot of contention in advance of this trial. It has not gone smoothly. It's a it's a really fierce battle between the prosecution and the defense on virtually every issue. And this week was no difference different. The prosecution has decided that it wants to conduct a it's chosen a preliminary hearing to prove to the court that it has enough evidence to go forward with the charges against Robinson. And that's scheduled, but in advance of it, the defense uh made a motion. And this is where I want to start. They want the press kept out.

[00:00:46]They didn't want the press to be able to have access to the court house through uh cameras when the actual trial goes down. They didn't want cameras in the courtroom and they lost that motion. The judge said, "We're going to have cameras. We'll limit how they're used, but we are going to have a camera." Then they said, "All right, at the preliminary hearing where the prosecution has to show its cards and say, "This is the case that we have against him and the judge makes a decision about whether there's probable cause to hold this guy over for trial."

[00:01:13]he's going to um they said we want the media out for most of that and the prosecution said why they they don't get kicked out like the press is there to represent the people why would we kick them out and the argument was that it's necessary to protect Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial and to avoid contaminating the jury pool in this already high-profile case according to the court filings and the arguments last week they argued the media has already created prejuditial and misleading coverage that some of the evidence expected at the hearing may ultimately turn out to be inadmissible at the trial and so they don't want the media hearing about it and reporting on it. Um, and then I guess specifically they want us not to have access to alleged discord and text messages. That's a forum that Tyler Robinson and his trans furry lover Lance Twigs communicated on a lot.

[00:02:13]Discord. It's like a gaming type social media app where you can talk. Alleged discord and text messages. Purported confession evidence. Tyler Robinson alleged to have confessed. Surveillance and shooting videos. Witness statements and other forensic evidence. Um, so what do you think is going to happen? I'll just start with that because it's not unusual to have the media at a preliminary hearing in a high-profile case. So, do they have a leg to stand on?

[00:02:44]>> No. And let me just say this, this is coming from someone who has been on the receiving end of all the things they complain about. Um, I can think of one high-profile case in particular. My client was getting killed in the media and I'm referring to Scott Peterson, not the one who killed his wife, but is the other one that was accused of not running in to kill the the killer at the Parkland Marjorie Stoman Douglas shooting. And everything everything that they were printing seemed to be against us. A lot of it was false and there's no way to stop it. I mean, if media wants to run with a story, they can run with a story. This judge could take some type of action. I don't think the judge is going to just because the defense is asking for it. And by the way, every time the defense files a motion, as much as we want justice, don't roll your eyes, people. That's what you want. You don't want this case being tried twice.

[00:03:37]So the defense needs to do all those things on the checklist to make sure to the appellet court they've rendered effective assistance of counsel so that not if but when this creep is convicted this won't come back on appeal.

[00:03:53]>> The thing is it's always the case that the evidentiary standard used at a preliminary hearing is very different from the one used at the trial. Like of course more evidence is going to be presented because the standards are different and easier at the preliminary hearing and the media always hears that and the way it's always handled is the media is trusted to write in their pieces. This is just a preliminary hearing. This is just a preliminary showing of what they might try to introduce. It's not the final final. And the media I mean and the and the public probably disregards that. I we don't know. But this this is handleable.

[00:04:31]>> Yeah. I mean, it's handled in every case.

[00:04:33]>> I'm not saying that the defense's argument is meritless. In fact, like most legal theories, the court's balance. So, on one side, the information that is getting out there could potentially make it more difficult to find fair and impartial jurors. On the other side is our right to have access to the truth, our right to see what's going on in our court system. And when you balance that, knowing the history of high-profile cases, how look at OJ, you know, look at look at, we can go on and on there, there's still there are still people who can say in spite of what we've seen on TV, we can give the defendant a fair trial, and that's the only standard. So, yes, I think that it favors showing people what really is going on.

[00:05:21]>> Casey Anthony.

[00:05:22]>> Oh, sure. case. Was there ever a case talked more about than Casey Anthony? Or there might have been some equal, but I wouldn't I don't think more. Maybe OJ, which was just the biggest of all time, but his is another good case. It was discussed non-stop in the media. Both those two people were acquitted.

[00:05:39]>> That's correct.

[00:05:40]>> So, it is very possible to get acquitted, notwithstanding ubiquitous media coverage. I don't think the defense is on to something here. I don't think the judge is going to allow this, but you know, it's a very high-profile, very sensitive case, so I don't know.

[00:05:54]Here's the second thing. They argued that the prosecutors worsened the problem of misinformation in the media by giving an interview to Fox News in response to a defense submission that the prosecution felt was misleading. And so this is reference to the bullet casing and the autopsy which went everywhere. Long story short, the defense filed a motion seeking like the underlying or additional ATF reporting um on the bullet fragments and the autopsy that was done on our friend. And in the defense motion, they had language that led a fair, you know, person to conclude the bullet fragment that was found in the body did not match the gun that Tyler Robinson had that day, that it was a non-match, the way they worded it. And this went everywhere. I remember where I was when I read it. Like, holy what? It was the headline on the Daily Mail and before it could get like revised at all, it it had already gone everywhere and it really very much seemed like it was confirmation that that guy's gun, that 306 gun from his grandpa was definitively not the murder weapon.

[00:07:21]So, the prosecution says that is why we went out and spoke with very limited media. And here is the one example that is being objected to by the defendants.

[00:07:32]They gave a taped interview uh to a reporter who put it in her package for Fox News. And here it is.

[00:07:39]>> The examiners were not able to find enough detail on the fragments to be able to make a determination as to whether or not um they can tie the bullet to the rifle.

[00:07:54]>> So, that's just a small snippet. out of context doesn't make sense, but it was the prosecution trying to say the fact that they couldn't have an affirmative match with what was left of the bullet does not mean this bullet didn't come from Tyler Robinson.

[00:08:08]>> Like saying that there's no fingerprint evidence available. It doesn't mean he didn't touch a weapon, let's just say.

[00:08:13]So, they're just saying we can't we don't have anything of value to present to the jury to establish the bullet coming from that gun, but we're not saying it's inconsistent with that gun.

[00:08:23]Well, the defense is purporting to be hopping and mad that the prosecution went out and spoke to the press saying, "If you didn't like what we wrote in our motion, you should have filed your own motion. You should have objected to the court. You could have called an emergency a request for emergency hearing. You could have handled it inside this courtroom, but instead you ran to the media."

[00:08:42]>> And not only was that inappropriate, but it violated rules of professional conduct and the gag order in this case.

[00:08:50]So we pulled the rules of professional conduct mark >> and this is what they say. Uh the gag order itself says as follows reads as follows. Lawyers in this case uh shall strictly abide by rule 3.6 of the Utah professional rules of conduct.

[00:09:10]What does rule 3.6 say? It reads as follows. Rule 3.6 Six prohibits a lawyer from making quote an extrajudicial statement meaning out meaning out of court that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication will be you know public >> so far that's what this is >> and will have check check so far >> and will have yeah I agree so far they've got them >> and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter >> so did this have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing this trial in any way?

[00:09:52]>> I don't believe materially I don't believe so, but I would certainly make the argument if I'm the defense lawyer.

[00:09:58]Point is, stay off the media. Why are you trying your case in the media at all? If the defense didn't raise this in the media, if and I don't know all the facts, but let's just say what you said is true. They the defense filed pleadings, documents with the court.

[00:10:12]They didn't go on Fox News. They didn't go out there and do a media tour on their points. They filed something in writing. The prosecution then should just file something in writing and we keep it in court. Them running to Fox News, I think it's a fair argument that they're, you know, going outside the the rules of 3.6.

[00:10:33]It's not a bad argument actually now that I think about it because yeah, that would be typically when there's a gag order saying don't don't talk about this case outside of this courthouse.

[00:10:42]>> Yeah.

[00:10:42]>> Um and then you see an outrageous motion and you as a prosecutor are pissed, you're like everyone now believes that the gun definitively does not match the bullet that was recovered and I've got to stop this. I've got to correct the record on this. Yeah. I mean, typically what you would do is you would file your own motion expressing your outrage, >> right? Like you can be as pissed off as you want in your pleading >> and then the Daily Mail would have gotten that too.

[00:11:09]>> They would have had a Day Two headline, >> right?

[00:11:12]>> But instead, he spoke to the So, you're right. He he actually could have his hand slapped. I don't think it's going to do much, do you? Like, what would be the consequence?

[00:11:18]>> No. And they have their own PR people.

[00:11:20]You know, the question is, well, are they going to pick it up the same way they picked up the defenses thing? And and you never know. So, just make sure you got good PR people and you have great relations with the media. Say, can you make sure that this runs? You know, you do that behind the scenes and then it runs and they're picking up from the pleadings, not because you're going out there and spewing your truth.

[00:11:42]The prosecution's arguing they had a right to speak to reporters to correct misinformation about an inconclusive preliminary finding by ballistic experts, saying, "Here, we were representing the true nature of that report. We did not make a statement of opinion about guilt. We'll see. Thanks for watching this clip. If you're new here, subscribe. We got a whole lot more goodness where that came from. Would love to hear your feedback. You can email me, too. Megan megnanc kelly.com or just leave a comment below.

[00:12:13]But join the community by becoming a subscriber. We really, really value your input and your support. We may not always agree, but we are always going to talk about it and respect. No BS, no agenda, no fear. When the dollar's convertability into gold ended in 1971, gold was fixed at 35 bucks an ounce.

[00:12:34]Fast forward to today, and the US dollar has lost more than 85% of its purchasing power. Gold, on the other hand, has increased in value by over 12,000%.

[00:12:43]That's why major firms like Vanguard and Black Rockck hold significant positions in gold. And it's also why you may want to consider diversifying your savings with physical gold from Birch Gold Group, but it starts with education.

[00:12:55]Birch Gold just announced that their learn and earn precious metals event um that they they've just announced it, right? So, they're going to help you learn all about this if this is an area in which you just feel overwhelmed or like you've heard about it but you don't really know what to do. It's a free online event and it rewards you for learning the basics of investing in precious metals. Sign up to get free silver on your next purchase and get even larger incentives as you go. The more you learn, the more you can earn.

[00:13:23]But you do have to act now as this special event only runs through April 30th. Text my initials MK to the number 989898 to join Birch Gold's learn and earn precious metals event by April 30th. That's MK to 989898 today.