In criminal proceedings, prosecutors are prohibited from making extrajudicial statements outside the courtroom that could materially prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial, and violations of court orders governing such conduct may result in civil contempt proceedings, which can include remedies such as censuring the attorney, removing them from the case, or providing jury instructions to mitigate prejudice.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Post-Hearing Discussion and Legal Analysis (w/ Adam Thomas): Is the DA in contempt of court?Añadido:
Good evening everybody. Sec attorney Greg Lake here uh with my good longtime buddy, partner in crime as always. Uh Buddy Bear, welcome to the Theogenic Essquire podcast and YouTube channel. Uh God bless each and every one of you. Uh thank you Miss Susan in the chat. Please like, subscribe if y'all have the bandwidth today. It'd be very much appreciated. Um as advertised, I will also be with Adam Thomas of the Adam Thomas podcast tonight. um he is finishing dinner with his family. He will be here shortly. Uh I will hold court until then. So again, very grateful for everyone here. I see my ride or dies are in the chat. God bless each and every one of you. Uh I will give y'all a shout out here in just a little bit. But we'll jump kind of right into it. Well, let me just say this before we start. I am If it's true that Thomas Massie lost his election, my heart's a little broke, but we'll talk about that at the end. Uh but anyways, yeah, we'll just go ahead and kind of jump into it. Obviously, tonight, as advertised, we're here to speak about the Tyler Robinson hearing that was today. Uh this was a hearing uh started uh early morning there time 9 10:00 about a threeh hour two to three hour. No, I take it back like right a two-hour hearing. Uh today they really covered two main issues. Uh one of them I'll talk about a little bit more in depth than the other. Uh but the first issue was the defense filed a motion and is seeking to hold in contempt of court civily uh the DA uh the DA's office in particularly uh one district attorney by the name of my head his name is Mr. Ballard Christopher Ballard. So, Christopher Ballard is a member of the DA's office, part of their team. And apparently, after the defense filed a motion, oh, to extend the preliminary hearing, right? Or a motion for continuence to continue the preliminary hearing. Uh, within that motion, they disclose discussed evidence related to the ATF report, right? Because their inability to test that report on top of other issues, right? but their inability to appropriately get, you know, uh, expert testimony, expert review, and ability to effectively cross-examine the experts, right? They're asking for an extension of the preliminary hearing, which has now been set sometime in July.
But anyways, in response to that, okay, now obviously the state, the DA, they did file an actual response to that motion in in the record. Uh but they also drafted e apparently they had some internal conferences and we'll talk about that in a little bit. Um but they drafted some emails to go out to the media. Uh and then Mr. Ballard actually went and spoke to the media. Uh I think from my impression on several counts uh but in particular as we'll talk about in a minute there were a couple live interviews. I believe one on Fox maybe on one it was uh and I just quoted it earlier on Expost the other was in US today I think the uh the publication is that was that right US today uh yeah USA Today I'm sorry not US today USA Today um anyway so and I'll talk about the substance of of these you know press interviews here in a minute but anyways that was within those statements and and I'll talk about the rules also in a minute. The defense alleges that those statements violate the court's original remember at the very first this case because the whole media pardon my language [ __ ] storm right um the court put the you know official standing into quorum order seeking to regulate and I think part of it was also a gag order as well seeking to regulate the first amendment rights particularly again I don't want to phrase it like that he like sought to regulate first amendment rights but you know set in order regulating you know who can disclose what in terms of witnesses, parties, but more specifically for our purposes, attorneys, and as we'll see in a second, judge actually adopted some language from the model rules of professional conduct uh to insert into this order regulating the certain types of speech or remarks uh that attorneys in this case, Tyler Robinson's case, you know, extrajudicially, right, outside the courtroom could and could not make.
Okay. Um and obviously, I'll just say this at the I'll say, "Hey, Daisy, thank you very much. God bless you. I appreciate I'm blushing. Um anyway, I guess I'll say at the outset, obviously, this is a very int I mean, it's an intense case, right, all the way around.
But let's just highlight for a minute the intensity and the breadth and and just insanity of the media coverage, right? Um and particular there's good media coverage. Hey, like this live stream right here. And you know, we got Baron Coleman and and Canis and and Danks and all these people. Um but you know obviously there's some bad media out there right Fox News uh uh and again this is just my opinion just expressing you know Newsmax these people anyways it's it's a storm right it's a storm of all sorts out here and um you know so in that environment uh and the reason why I wanted to start out with this because I felt the prosecution a little bit today like I do understand in a sense that like you know we have this media storm and you know the media's been misconstring a lot of stuff and making outrageous claims and just taking stuff and running with it, right? And we saw this against Tyler Robinson in a whole myriad of ways, but I mean, you know, prime example was like the lip readers, body language experts, you know. Um, and so I get it that, you know, whenever there seems to be some misinformation or a a wrong analysis or, you know, incorrect analysis on a piece of evidence or something that gets out, you know, I get the impetus as a lawyer to want to jump out and and correct that in the media. I know I spoke and definitely Baron spoke about, you know, back and and I'll say this too, we did get some light shed on the defense's previous private motions. I'll talk about that in a minute. But, you know, uh Baron definitely spoke I spoke a bit about, you know, when we saw the ATF stuff and we kind of saw that the defense had filed this motion where it was private, it didn't make sense to us because we were like, man, you'd want to get out there and and build a counternarrative with with that report being inconclusive, right? Um and you know, admittedly, you know, I didn't think about it at the time, but maybe th maybe that would have been in in contradiction of of judge's order. I don't know that for sure, but uh just I did get a little bit on top of filling the prosecutor a little bit of like wanting to get out there and correct stuff in the media. I get that part of what we're about to talk about, but also felt a little defense too today as far as you know, in all honest order. I need to definitely need to go back and look at all that. But, you know, defense brought up some parts of that order that make me think that, okay, maybe some of the stuff that, uh, you know, the defense didn't disclose or, you know, sought to keep private.
Maybe that was really in furtherance of a rule or some other understanding. So, and again, we'll get into that. Um, God bless everybody. Hope everybody's doing good. Hopefully, Adam should be here um, uh, pretty soon. Yeah, I I pressed go.
I'm sorry I haven't gotten too far into it. I'm really just kind of introducing the issue here. Anyway, so there were two issues, right? So I talked a little bit about the first one that I'm I'm going to go into more uh depth about here. Uh but the second one which we'll touch on as well was you know to what extent is judge going to exclude uh if any right uh media coverage at the preliminary hearing. Okay. Uh and what I'll say about that at kind of the higher level and I think it probably makes sense to y'all is that the defense is worried about right the defense is worried about uh the public having access and seeing for instance like Lance Twig's recorded statement these other hearsay reports really are what the issue is right because these hearsay reports as they are are not admissible at trial and so the defense's worry there is obviously that they're going to you know that we're going to see those those pieces of evidence, not understanding, you know, which is common, right? Not understanding that these are not missable at trial and thinking that that's like really good type evidence that they can go run and get a conviction with. Okay. Uh so that was really at the crux of it. Obviously, at the far end, the defense wanted to completely exclude the media from the hearing. Um there was some concurrence with the prosecutor who did agree that like you know there are some of the items of evidence that it would probably be better and I think they got a feeling a little taste of their medicine as I was talking about on the first issue with when the ATF report came out. They took issue with kind of how the media was reporting it. They claimed that the defense mischaracterized it right. But again, just to say that like it today was a little little sweet in that we got to see the prosecutor reacting to them getting uh some bad takes in the press, okay, in regards to the ATF report and what it meant. I mean, I know just within our realm here on YouTube of creators, I heard several creators, you know, going a little far with stating like, oh, this, you know, is it proves he's completely innocent. You know, this proves that it wasn't the gun, right?
when we know it was inconclusive. So, it's not a 100% yes or no. Um, but as uh Robinson's defense attorney explained today about exculpatory, they talked about the meaning of exculpatory and I know that we've spoken about this a lot.
I know other creators have spoken about it a lot and and had asked questions about it. Um but exculpatory in in in it in the definition of that term if I am correct in perceiving what the defense attorney said today. You know it really shifts depending on what who the party is but definitely in terms of a criminal defendant because the state the government has the burden of proof evidence which otherwise might tend to show as guilt like a positive identification on the ballistics test.
Well, when that comes back inconclusive, it's the absence of inculpatory evidence. It's it counts as the absence of inculpatory evidence, thereby making it, according to their definition, also exculpatory.
Um, and so I didn't want to go too far there, but just, you know, that's what the prosecutor was having issues with is that people were taking that ATF, inconclusive report, and really running pretty far with it. I mean, I'll say that admittedly. There were some people I think that gave an impression that it it and and I don't think they intentionally did it. I don't think they intentionally did it, but you know, just gave the impression that had a little bit more force in the overall scheme of this case evidentiary wise than it did.
But yeah, so the the the prosecutor's office, DA, they felt that and and as we'll learn in a minute went and made some pretty pretty crazy statements in my opinion, um you know, in response to that in the media. Okay. Uh but back to that second issue, right? We have the defense wants to exclude all the cameras and stuff and then the prosecutor having felt that hey sometimes this stuff can go not our way and and be interpreted in a way that we really don't like um seem to be okay with like limiting like the the public right from like maybe viewing those statements or watching the statements. So maybe they and again judge hasn't ruled on this yet but obviously something much much lesser um than what what the defense was frozen just you know no access at all right uh so anyways there is I guess I say this is that more likely than not we're not going to be able to have access to see all the items of evidence uh that are introduced at the preliminary hearing.
Uh I 100% don't believe that judge is going to completely shut it down. I mean, just the way he was talking with defense council, um, you know, he was saying like, hey, you know, in in regards to the media, the court has to like narrowly tailor its order or its response to the increased me exposure, which just means that like we have to have the least amount of infringement on the public's right to access as possible. And the way his tone and measure when he was speaking with defense attorney made it seem to me like he thought completely closing it down was not not something narrowly tailored, right? Not not fully respecting everyone's rights because it would technically leave all of us out in the dark and be infringing upon our rights.
So I suspect that judge will come up. We will be able to have I believe we'll have access live stream to the preliminary hearing. Uh, I think there might be a few times where it might shut down for a bit, maybe while they read a statement or play the video of Lance Twigs or whatever that is. Okay.
And uh, and so just be prepared for that. Okay. And I guess in regards to that issue, I will speak a little bit further on it. And obviously Adam will be here. I'm sure he'll bring up some questions too if y'all have any. But I'd really like to jump over y'all to the first issue again. As a matter of fact, I brought here and I'm I'm not going to bury y'all in this one, okay? Um, but I did I have a copy of the pleading. Uh, and so I just want to go through a few sections with y'all. Give me just a second.
Let's see. Pull this up. Okay. Be there.
Let's see here.
I don't for some reason y'all can't see my PDFs in here. Let's see.
I'll do this. I'll give it a minute.
I'll wait. I'll wait for Adam to show up, but let's just I'll just talk about uh the different issues. And I have the pleading right here in front of me, so I can quote from some of it. But um yeah, so again this this the first part of this hearing today was on uh basically what the defense is asking for is an evidentiary hearing about again the claim uh that the prosecutor after they filed for an extension of preliminary hearing. the prosecutor because of the way that the defense disclosed and discussed that ATF report favorably as they should have without stretching the truth which I think that they absolutely did. Uh but according to h according to the prosecutor how they characterize it, how the media later ran with it, they went to the media and started making statements obviously in opposition. And so the defense now claims that those were extrajudicial statements, right?
Not statements made in a pleading, right? That's a judicial statement theoretically technically, right? But extrajudicial to the news, Fox and Friends, these people extrajudicial statement uh that and we'll talk about in a minute what that statement was that offends both the judge's order and the model rule of professional responsibility. Therefore, they are in civil contempt to court. I know uh I'm not sure where the civil came. I know they explain it here, but yeah, it's civil, not criminal because it's the DA, I guess. I don't know. And and again, not trying to rouse everybody up saying that. Um anyways, yeah. So, because of that, they're asking the judge to hold the prosecutor in contempt to court, which could, you know, bring a whole host of different potential remedies, right? Everything from like censoring the lawyer who did it, maybe taking them off the case, possible jury instructions. You know, there's there's a whole list of different potential remedies that judge can employ here. And again, he did not make an order today.
He's taking this under advisement. And moreover, if he indulges in the direction of I think they're in contempt of court, like I said, there's going to be an evidentiary hearing. I do believe that's what the defense was asking for today. Um, on top of that, just so y'all know, after the defense witnessed these very prejuditial, extrajudicial, and potentially violative of the court's order and model rules statements, okay?
Uh they sent a discovery request directly to the prosecutor asking a supplemental discovery request asking um All right, we'll see you in just a second. Adam Adam's about to be here.
But anyways, yeah, so they were they sent out uh where was I? Sorry, y'all.
They sent a discovery request, a supplemental discovery request to the DA's office requesting uh that they provide them with any documents, communications, or other information that would show or be evidence of any internal conversations and and discussions that they might have had about this media tour, blitz, whatever you want to call it. Um, and the the purpose there, as we'll learn in a minute, under the rule is really to gauge what level of culpability did they have? Meaning like were they aware consciously aware this violates the rule yet did it anyways or were they kind of unsure about it violated the rule did anyways or did they not even look at the rule? So obviously as far as being in contempt, you know, their internal mind state isn't relevant. Okay. But when it comes to judge deciding what do we do to remedy, okay, to provide remedy to Tyler Robinson, which in this case, you know, a remedy would be trying to put him on back on equal footing for a fair trial where he was before, right? Because they prejudiced him. So the remedy would need to be with the spirit or the intent uh of trying to bring him back to where his rights put him for a fair and impartial trial. Okay. Uh but anyways, they sent a discovery request to the DA's office seeking those materials. The DA has either not responded or I think actually they've overtly told them they're not going to respond. Um so that was an issue too. So seeking a motion or seeking an order to compel them. So basically is that if judge decides to go to a evidentiary hearing on this, more likely than not, he will issue an order to compel the DA's office to release all that information and discovery probably both to the court and to the defense attorneys um in order to fully assess and you know ad you know he's under advisement now but you know then to fully assess uh whether they're in contempt court and if so what would the appropriate remedy be? Okay. Um, and so I hope that provides kind of the higher level view there, but I know y'all are probably most interested in saying, "Well, hey, Greg, what uh what statements did they make? What statements did the prosecution make?"
Um, let me read a little for just one second again. Adam should be here any minute, but anyways, let me read real quick from the relevant facts.
says on September 22nd, 2025, the court issued an order governing the conduct of the lawyers participating in this criminal case. We all know about that.
Uh the directs that the lawyers who have participated who who will yet participate in the investigation or litigation in this case of this case in any way must strictly comply with the provisions of Utah Royal Professional Conduct 3.6. like I told y'all earlier, uh it's judge's order but adopted obviously a lot of the professional other rules, case law, stuff like that. Um and uh so yeah, so they point out that yeah, so judge here in your order you're citing that these uh you know pre-trial publicity part of it applies to the lawyers in this case uh in Tyler Robinson's case, right?
Okay. So they go on, they go um and here's the here's the language from the rule uh an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows. Okay. So, a lawyer is prohibited from making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and that means extrajudicial, right? And will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing prejudicing and adjudicate proceeding in the matter. Right? So, it's I'm trying to think the best way this to to get it to y'all surface level.
Yeah. So anyways, any extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows again, so outside the courtroom, outside of a pleading, outside of a deposition, all these things, right? Extrajudicial statement uh that they know or reasonably should know are going to be carried to the public by means of, you know, public communication, the media, right? Uh and either uh and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding. Okay. So, that's the general rule. Now, I want to read the the So, just so y'all know, legal rules a lot of times, maybe you're a lawyer, maybe you're not, have what are called comments. Okay. And so, in the comments are usually a lot of good material and and it's a variation of things. A lot of times they'll have examples. They'll clarify things, you know, uh give you other references to other materials that were involved in these types of things, right? So this rule has a comment that describes certain specific types okay of extrajudicial statements particularly in a criminal matter uh that can normally have that normally are prejuditial to some degree. Okay so let me let me pull those out for you. because they're important. One, because obviously they fit squarely within what the uh one of or at least one of them fits squarely within what the prosecutor did here, but also two because there's been a lot of discussion and commentary about these certain types of statements just so that way you can queue yourself in in the future. But here we go. One, so discussing uh the performance or results of any examination or test. Okay, so talking about expert stuff, right? test or examination primarily, right? It could be part of an investigation theoretically, but anyways, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented, right? Um, which raises a lot of questions for me.
Maybe we'll get there uh down the road.
I hope Adam shows up in a minute. But two, any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration. Man, have we heard any of those by any officers of the court? um you know or any of the lawyers in the case. And so one thing I would like to ask maybe the state bar or the rules committee is that because I I'm I'm almost sure and we could look back but I I would I think that the attorney general or even maybe the governor have made statements that are violative of this rule and even though they're not an attorney in the case uh at least the AG for sure is an attorney and otherwise does represent the state of Utah. I mean, I'm just wondering if if this applies to them, too. I'll look into that and get back with y'all. Um, and then the last one is the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. Man, we uh Yeah. So, I hope y'all understand.
Now, those are just three. Again, the comment just adds these categories saying like, "Hey, you know, by way of example, and by the way, these specific categories tend to prejudice people in a defendants particularly in a criminal matter."
Okay? Uh, so I just wanted to bring that out for y'all. Uh, now here, and so back to what I was saying earlier about, you remember when I was saying that the defense was seeking discovery of internal communications, right?
um that the Utah County DA's office internally like knew about this standard, talked about this standard yet decided any ways to move forward. Okay.
Now, today in the hearing and Adam's here, by the way, you ready, Adam?
I'll wait for a second. I have I don't see his camera yet. Um, but anyways, today the DA's office in open court basically admitted that they were very well aware of what the standard was and they I think in a sense admit also that yes, there were internal discussions about this before we went and did it. And let me say this, you know, the existence of internal discussions isn't a negative necessarily on the contempt part of it, right? like maybe it shows that they were very concerned about potentially violating the rule, but maybe at the end of it they just made a bad decision, but they did bring up and and you know, legitimately consider the relevant, you know, stuff. You know, it could go both ways. So, but they did admit today they're aware of Standard that they had some discussions, this was their plan, etc., etc. Uh so and and and I'll talk in a minute about what their counterargument to all this was, but I will say this, the the gist of it was that well, you know, we have a duty to our client, the state, to be zealous and and you know, in zealous advocacy, if there's media out there misconstring something, you know, in opposition to our client's interest, well, we have a duty. They argued uh they argued essentially real bluntly. I don't want to say bluntly that they had a duty to make the statements that we're going to discuss in just a second. Uh okay. And again, I'm not going to sit here and say, "Oh, they're crazy for saying that." Uh to be just 100 with y'all, I haven't read their like memo in opposition to this motion. Um but I I that was the the main gist of you know why they went out and did this legally why they felt that they were correct in going out and making the statements that we will now uh go ahead and get into um let's see oh and one one footnote here one footnote just so you know um the defense had a feeling that in fact you know the DA's office was for you know, acutely aware. I mean, obviously that's an order governing their case. They're at least generally aware of this rule, what it requires, but acutely aware because I guess they found out or maybe in discovery there, they found a letter sent and and I just I want to tell y'all this because now when you think back about all the statements by all these, you know, federal and state agents and people have been made. But anyways, the Utah County DA's office sent a letter to uh their law enforcement, both federal and state, and other investigators and attorneys working in around this matter. Uh, and it says in these letters to law enforcement and other agencies, and this was early on, by the way, uh, I think this was shortly after Tyler Robinson was actually like arrested or charged.
So, this was a long time ago, but they sent out this letter emphasizing in caps, do not make comments on his, talking about Tyler Robinson's character or your belief of his guilt. Um, and it said these letters also list the categories of prohibited statements under 3.6 six, comment five, and include as a consideration Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial. So, they actually sent out a letter. I didn't read that earlier, but those three item or know three categories of statements I just described to you, uh, their letter actually included that language and telling uh other officers and other investigators and attorneys and people working around the case not to make these kinds of statements. Okay. Um, so anyways, let's go ahead and get into exactly what the statements were. And again, I will I don't think Adam bailed on us. He's still here in the waiting room, but I just don't see his Let me check my phone, y'all. I'm sorry. I'm sitting here yapping away. He might have text me. Let's see.
Okay. All right. Well, I just uh sent him a text, so we'll see. But anyways, let's talk about statements. So, like I told you, um the statements were made essentially and it wasn't just and I don't say there's like one precise moment, precipitating moment where the DA is like, "Yeah, I've heard that." But like between the way the way I took it anyways, right, my my perception of the hearing today, they were explaining like the way that the defense presented and characterized the ATF report and the language therein in this March 27th motion to continue the preliminary hearing. um that and then the way that the media picked up on that and ran with it. And again, like I told you, in in all fairness to the DA's office, there was some mischaracterization a little bit. I don't think it was intentional on anybody's part to be honest. I don't think anybody was like intentionally misconring. Just it's one of those things that really it takes a lawyer to really understand. I mean, I'm not saying it only takes longer, but it most normal people don't generally understand the effect that that, you know, inconclusive report necessarily had on what do I want to say? Well, in in the prosecutors, like I said earlier, had an had an issue. He he couldn't see how the ATF report being inconclusive was exculpatory in any way. Obviously, as and I'll explain again in a bit, but the uh defense lawyer got up there and, you know, corrected that and gave us a a much more refined definition of exculpatory. I loved it. Um, and so, you know, because of that, obviously, the DA felt that, you know, this was being incorrectly labeled as exculpatory.
People were taking that and saying, "Oh, now there's absolutely no evidence or case against Tyler Robinson. The gun just absolutely does not match." Okay.
Yeah, there was some taking a little bit far and mischaracterizing it. I don't think it was intentional, but anyways, hey, y'all got into the feelings in the head of of the DA's office apparently, right? And uh they that's what, you know, got their response going. Um they did say, so I want to say this, um I'll just read this. Mr. Mr. Robinson filed a motion to vacate or continue the preliminary hearing in detailing why good cause exists to continue or vacate the hearing. U Mr. Robinson referenced forensic testing by the ATF that he may seek to introduce at the preliminary hearing. The motion was filed as a public document. Okay. Um Mr. Robinson did not request that the motion continue be filed privately in light of this court's rulings right on the last motion to classify as private. Because of that, they chose not to, you know, go ahead and put it out there. So that's where the ATF they talked about the ATF there in the court denied Mr. Robinson's earlier motion to classify as a private.
Yeah. So they had previously ruled, hey, you know, no reason to do the private motion in those regards. But the defense does say the ATF reported issue in Mr. Robinson's January 9th motion is the same report cited in his recent motion to continue. Right? So they and I'll talk in a bit why they filed that as private. Right? There are reasons I wasn't aware of at the time that they kind of enlightened us on today. I'll speak in a minute. Uh but basically they're saying because you said not to have that as private, we didn't file the ATF report or talk about it, you know, privately here. Um and so it says the defense earlier and continued but opposed and rejected concern with filing this inconclusive report publicly was that doing so would be in effect an improper inrun around rule 3.6. So again, when we went back to three points, and so that really goes to what I was saying just a second ago, their reasoning, okay, for classifying the January 9th motion as private is because they felt that it was contrary to the rule 3.6, Six, which I read to y'all earlier, generally says that evidence related to the performance or result of any examination or test or the identity or nature of any physical evidence expect to be presented. Generally, extrajudicial statements made disclosing um or andor commenting on those types of evidence generally tend to go the prejuditial route in some way. Okay. So that's why one of at least one of the main reasons that I took from today's hearing that the defense had filed that motion as private originally. Okay. But anyways, they didn't this time. The media picked up on it. They took the word uh exculpatory apparently and started to run with it. Um and the DA was like, "Hey, okay, so what did the DA say um in response?" Okay, so I'll read through a few of these and let me just see real quick if I can pull pull this up. Let's see. Hold on.
Let's Okay.
There we go. Okay, now I can got it.
Okay, there we go. Uh, I just wanted to show y'all these statements while we um while we go through them. Obviously, I'm gonna put my uh screen over here. Let's see. We are on page.
All right. So, here we go. Uh on March 31st, online news entity TMZ published an article entitled Charlie Kirk murder suspect prosecutor slams his claims.
Bullet doesn't match. All right. So, now you can kind of see how, you know, admittedly the media, you know, can take it a little far. Anyways, the article states, "Attorney Christopher Ballard tells us, again, that's the DA or works for the DA." Generally, when a bullet fragment analysis comes back as inconclusive, that means the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to say one way or the other.
There's just not ample there's not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. Meaning, the fragment is too small to really do any kind of examination. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder. And we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing and then we will present all of that evidence at the trial.
Okay. Um so again there's a number of things that the defense is is stating that you know this is violative of the rule. Now I will say you know here where they say generally when a bullet fragment analysis comes back that means fragment not contained. I agree with that statement for sure. Um there's not there's not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. That's right. And also in defense I guess in quasi in defense of the DA here. Right. They did narrow it down to a 30 caliber something. Right. Which we've learned is a lot of different potential firearms.
Right. They definitely haven't narrowed it down to a particular firearm. So, you know, that is correct. Okay, that's technically correct what he's saying here. Um, we have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing. So, this is the one that obviously starts to potentially run a foul of that rule 3.6.
Um, and if y'all want to, we can kind of go back here and look, you know, so any opinion as to the guilty innocent of defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration. So obviously the uh obviously that is an opinion of sorts couched in a declaration essentially. Uh but again, you know, rubbing up on on this here, obviously making an extrajudicial statement to the media uh about these uh about the examination or test. Also, again, this doesn't mean cart blanch that this violates the rule, but again, these types of statements with this kind of subject matter uh according to the rule are more likely than not have going to have a material and prejuditial effect on a proceeding.
Okay. Um and I don't think that one's applicable to that. So again, just kind of showing y'all here where the defense is going, why some of these statements are potentially um against the rules of of professional conduct um andor the court's order here.
Okay. Uh I hope this is informative to y'all. And and to be quite honest, again, I haven't done ever I have never been personally involved in a murder uh or a capital obviously trial. So I'm learning a lot here, too. Um so this was good for me to learn today. So, I hope y'all are uh picking up on it a little bit, too. Um, it goes, "The article further quotes Mr. Ballad. He told us, quote unquote, he can't speak about specific evidence, but the evidence that we detailed in the charging document is a general summary of the evidence that shows Tyler Robinson committed this crime." Again, even though it's I'm assuming the defense is considering this to be somewhat of an opinion on the guilt or innocence. I'm assuming um but it goes on finally TMZ states uh Ballard added he is presumed innocent so hey he did include this statement uh he is presumed innocent the ultimate decision will be up to the jury we believe we will be able to overcome his presumption of innocence so hey you know maybe in regards to the fact that this expresses some type of opinion on the you know uh guilt of of Tyler Robinson let me go back up here and look does adding that statement.
Where's that rule 3.6 that they let's see 3.6 Six says that purpose are for making an extrajudicial statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the may have substantial likelihood. I'm looking for the part earlier where okay here we go. Yeah. The fact that a defendant has been charged with crime unless there is included there in a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusa. Okay, so never mind.
Expressing an opinion as a guilt or innocence the way I'm taking it isn't mitigated by including this statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation. Um the way I take it is only if the statements, you know, hey, he's commit he's, you know, we charged him with a crime, you know. So here what we do see I think what we do absolutely see is that Ballard and them and this was this again just speculation here this would probably come up in the discussions internal discussions if it's on paper you know that they say hey you know if we make these types of statements you know that that he's been charged with a crime yada yada yada you know that we will follow it up with this he is presumed innocent you know xyz so I think what we're seeing here are Ballard and them attempting to comply with the rules so you know and And as far as what they admitted today in court, it seems like even if judge does find that they were in contempt, I don't think it's going to be just an extremely severe um repercussions for them. You know, take that as you will, whether you like that or not, right? I'm not going to express on what I think should happen here because I I really need to research a little bit more about the potential remedies and what's what's normally done.
But just the way um hold on just a second quick think he's having some technical difficulties but you know the way I'm taking it here y'all um is that they did do some proactive trying to comply with the rules and so I think when it all comes out in the wash if judge takes this further on the contempt it probably won't be a severe penalty for them.
Okay, I just wanted and again that's just my opinion, my impression based upon what what I'm seeing here. It looks like they did try to actually, you know, do something to comply with the rule.
Um, just one second.
Okay. All right. Adam should be on soon.
He had to restart his computer. Anyways, let's just keep going a little bit.
Let's see, because there's another statement here, and I actually made an expost about uh this one here earlier because it raises some other questions.
Okay, so let's go ahead. This is a matter of fact, this is what I really wanted to bring to y'all tonight. Okay, y'all ready? Uh, also on March 31st, 2026, USA Today reported communications with Christopher Ballard. Okay. writing, "When asked about the defense's characterization of the ATF report, Chris Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah County's DA's office, told USA Today, "Ethical rules prohibit him from speaking publicly about forensic testing and test results." So again, even outside of potential communications, again, we see that they are aware and are at least doing something seemingly to try and comply with the rules, but let's see if he keeps this up. Okay. But I can say generally that when the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as inconclusive, that means only that the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to determine whether the characteristics on the fragment were consistent with having been fired by a particular firearm. So now he's speaking generally, okay, about So we'll look at that. But hold on just one second because our good buddy, y'all's best buddy, buddy's best buddy, Adam, is here. Uh, welcome Adam Thomas to the podcast. Uh, we're very grateful to have you.
Uh, maybe his volume is not working now.
Adam, you want to check your mic real quick?
A little technical difficulties.
>> Hey, what about that?
>> Uh, let's see. Maybe my volume's low.
No. Say, speak again. Can y'all hear him?
>> What's up?
>> Can you turn the vi I'm having a hard time with the volume. Are y'all having uh out there trouble with the volume a little bit?
I'll bring my speakers up here. That way I can make sure I get uh Anyways, while he's figuring that out, I'll keep going. Um back to the uh statement here real quick. I'll put it back up.
So, as we see it says, uh but I can generally Okay, so we read that. Now, here's the last little part here that got me, y'all. Here, I'll put that up here. Here's the little part that got me. I'll talk about this in just a second. Says Balor confirmed the FBI and ATF are adding information to the initial reports which prosecutors expect will include data supporting the initial conclusions. Uh as soon as the state receives those supplemental reports, we will provide them to the defense.
Um yeah. So I'm I've got some questions about that. And in all honesty, y'all, now that I'm looking at it, um I see that actually the Okay, never mind. This was actually written in the article. So, he did talk to the press. This is the press saying Ballard confirmed the FBI and ATF are adding information to the initial reports, which prosecutors expect will include data supporting the initial conclusions.
Okay.
So, let's talk about that for a second and uh we'll we'll let Adam continue getting his uh technical stuff work out.
Um so, yeah. So, you know, one we've all I mean I say we there has been to the best of my knowledge concern expressed within the community because remember initially whenever this report came out okay um and through that I forget it was one of the hearings I then learned that there was a a dispute behind the scenes between the prosecutor and the defendant right because apparently that bullet fragment is very small and the FB FBI was want or the ATF or both of them were wanting to do destructive testing. Do y'all remember that? Uh and I think that is still um a thing, right? I think they're still potentially going back and forth about that. But anyways, whenever they they announced that, we all had concerns. I mean, I'll admit, again, this is just my opinion, my perspective. I had concerns um based upon the way particularly the FBI had conducted themselves, you know, particularly one FBI agent, right, across this whole spectrum here.
I had concerns that, you know, if the defense experts didn't have a chance to take a look at this bullet fragment and do an analysis of their own of some type, it didn't feel good to me. Okay.
It didn't feel good to me. And then we've been hearing these rumblings and they've been talking about it in in these hearings as well as as you know also out here you know that the the FBI ATF uh are going to be generating another report. Okay. That they're they're working on and whether that includes further testing destructive testing. So here it seems now I haven't heard that they've done the destructive testing. So, what I'm about to say is really assuming that there is some type of bullet fragment still left and that um there is no been further testing on it. So, I'm I'm wondering, it just makes me wonder going back to what was said here. And maybe there's a good simple basic explanation for this. Maybe y'all can enlight me on it, but I'm I'm having just a little bit of trouble with And let me make sure this Okay.
Okay. Do y'all see the whole thing there? Yeah, y'all do. Okay. Sorry.
Anyways, I'm having trouble with are adding information to the initial reports. I mean, I'm just wondering and then further that it it's I think it's fair to assume here that that the uh uh Ballard had will include data supporting the initial conclusion. So it's like one the information what information like if the FBI and ATF are doing forensic scientific testing obviously that is on physical items of evidence. Okay. And so I'm not sure where some extraneous information is going to come in and change the results of a scientific test and report. Does that make sense to y'all? And moreover, even if we are talking about more testing, right, and just putting aside the the the bullet fragment that's there, you know, are is there other forensic evidence that they're testing? And and the reason why that's concerning to me if so is that, you know, they've had since this occurred to collect and get all that, you know, they paved over the crime scene or did they magically appear some new bullet fragments? Did they magically appear new items that they claim have DNA evidence from the crime scene? You see what I'm saying? Uh, and again, maybe there's some just real common sense, straightforward explanation to to how this doesn't sound a little bit fishy to me. Again, that's just my opinion, perspective. Um, but this is just how I'm reading into it. Y'all let me know if you agree or not. But I'm sitting there thinking, so these these presumably expert investigators, they're going to add information to a scientific expert test report, which will include some kind of new data supporting the initial conclusions.
Well, whose conclusions? What conclusions?
You know, I mean, and maybe I'm completely left field here, right? Maybe I'm I'm completely left field. Um, but I'm I'm sitting here wondering what what conclusions. There it goes. Adam. Adam, you ready? You got the Let's see if he's got the mic here figured out.
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. There you go, brother. Yeah.
>> Oh my god. I'm telling you about >> after all this, I am. Good God. I was about this close to throwing this laptop and going to bed.
Oh >> yeah. Well, we're glad to have you, man.
God bless. Um, >> it was working fine earlier. I I knew it was working fine earlier and then when I uh come into the uh studio and I had to run back downstairs, come back up here and there was some kind of freaking ad playing and I could not get it to close for nothing. I had to end up restarting my computer somehow or another. I had to go back into the computer settings. It got muted in there somehow. My microphone did. So, I have no clue.
Good.
>> Yeah, I I had some difficulties the other day myself. Um, you know, these computers, man, you know, they're reliable, but sometimes in the clutch they uh they let they can let you down a little bit.
>> I don't know what happened there.
Anyway, what's up everybody in the chat?
I see Crystal and Brett and Mermaid.
>> Yeah, we've got a good group here tonight. A lot of our regulars plus a lot more. I think about almost 50 watching. Hey, that's huge for us. Thank y'all everybody for the love and support.
>> I hope somebody's watching on my channel.
>> Yeah. Yeah. If you get the chance or bandwidth, please go subscribe to Adam Thomas podcast. You got a little bit left in the tank. The enthogenic esquire be very much appreciated. All the likes, loves, comments, support.
>> Definitely.
>> Um, you know, very blessed to be here today. I um I, you know, I had taken a little bit of break from this case and stuff. And so today was like my first say first day, it was like watching the hearing, taking notes, going and looking at pleading. So I'm I'm loving it, getting back in the groove. Uh, and very happy and blessed to be here with Adam Sharing. Did you get to hear some of the what I kind of covered already, Adam?
>> Uh, bits and pieces.
>> Okay.
Well, you know, I I was talking about the um you know, the the defense wants to hold the DA in contempt to court for violating the initial order, making extrajudicial statements. Yep.
>> I was just going through some of them.
Um, let me I tell you what, let's read the last extrajudicial statement that I just brought up because I want to get your opinion on it. Okay. I I was able to listen to some of it. I didn't get to listen to all of it uh today, the hearing. Um but I did I did catch some of it. So, hey, Kelly, what's up?
>> Yeah, it's this one right here where the defense attorney's talking or the the prosecutor's talking to USA Today. Okay.
And he's talking about the ATF report, right? And he he says here, you know, just because it came back inconclusive doesn't mean that it, you know, is is means, you know, for sure it wasn't Tyler, but it just can't, you know, he correctly states that or this is what USA Today reports, right? Maybe there was a loss or loss in translation or or garbled. Anyway, it says Ballard the DA confirmed the FBI and ATF are adding information to the initial reports which prosecutors expect will include data supporting the initial conclusions. Uh as soon as the state receives those reports, we will provide them defense.
You know, I'm having trouble with this adding additional information to an expert report that's like a scientific test like >> of like a physical piece of evidence.
Like >> that doesn't sound right to me. It seems like if you're going to change that expert report, >> it needs to be because of >> changes in the testing results, right?
Yeah, I mean you would think so information that information or data like >> now is that what um is so is that what they were talking about earlier that the ATF and FBI both said that they were making changes to Is that what you were talking about or the >> Yeah, exactly. That's what I was talking about. Yeah. You know, and and I'll say this normally, ladies and gentlemen, like an expert can surely change their expert report later if new or additional evidence, right? And I guess you could say information, you know, evidence or information. But again, in the context of these experts reports, >> well, you know, all I can say is this is >> that not the foundational thing though?
I mean, is that not like all their methods and and how everything was collected and processed? Is that not what they're changing? So now I'm saying, you know, look, maybe if there was some authority that came out that basically said that even though you know what you're looking at used to not be a match, now this new authority is saying that no, that does constitute a match.
Maybe I could see that, but again, more times than not, it's going to be did the testing change? Like did you test something additional or maybe you did another different test, right? Um, but but and maybe data could confirm that, but I'm just it's fishy to me because it just seems like there's this one item of ballistic evidence, right? The fragment that's been tested by them. I don't think the defense has gotten it yet. Uh I'm almost sure of that based upon today's uh hearing. And so I'm just wondering like did they test other are they testing other ev like how are they changing this reward? Like what >> I don't know. It kind of seems like there's >> it seems like there's somebody on the inside that's trying to just completely discredit >> well you know it's like or just making it up as they go making it up as they go and just admitting it in USA Today. I'm not saying that's what happening.
>> Yeah. I mean the feds are like hey we ain't turned it over to the state or the defense so you know we can do what we want to with it until we turn it over to the state. And so many, you know, in the I kind of chuckled when I read this because I know a lot of people in our viewership definitely have had questions like, man, what are they going to do with that bullet fragment? Like, I hope they don't destroy it. Like, if they destroy the bullet fragment and not let them test, like that'll be a grave injustice. So, it's like, you know, this right here, like basically, they're just going to do it on their own and make it fit is a lot of people.
>> That's what it kind of seems like it boils down to, right?
And it's like, not only that, they're like, you know, the prosecutor expects the data will support the initial conclusions. Well, >> of course it will.
>> Well, yeah, exactly. It's like and and it's like, dude, experts don't work for con from conclusion backwards. You know what I mean? Like they work uh unidirectional and so and it's like usually >> which conclusions? What conclusions?
Like um >> yeah, I was kind of taken aback at that.
I was like, man, it just seems like they're just openly stating like, yeah, we're just going to add some information and data into that report. Jumbo, it's going to be a for sure, you know, match, you know.
>> So, the original report said we can't confirm or deny, you know, basically.
So, they're like, okay, well, we need something more definitive. So, we're going to we're going to work on this until it's confirm only.
>> I you know that to be Yeah. And and I guess that's why I decided to make a big deal. I say a big deal. Make a deal. I made an ex post about it. It just Yeah.
It just when I read it, it just hit me like, dude, are they just telling us they're just gonna make this work? And I thought, wow, >> pretty much. That's exactly what it seems like to me.
>> Um, >> and >> I mean, it's been that way from the get-go.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and again, you know, you feel that way. I know a lot of people who are in our chat today have felt that way. Well, just the fact that they haven't gotten that underlying data yet to me just is just just blows my mind.
>> Um, no, no doubt. And here's one one other thing I wanted to point out. It says here, there's another Fox News Fox and Friends here. I'll just bring it up real quick. This Fox and Friends thing because it it said something too that I it's about the bullet the shell casings.
And so here it says the description of this video where Christopher Ballard was Christopher Ballard, Utah crime prosecutor and Bernard Zapor, retired ATF agent, debunked these claims, stating bullet fragments were too damaged for conclusive analysis, but shell casings uh matched. I I don't remember hearing that or seeing any report that saidly the shell casings matched.
>> Who cares? They're not picking a shell casing out of his body. the piece that they find his body is what has to be definitively matched.
>> That's a very firearm.
>> That's That's a very good point. That's very that that showcasing could have been shot >> uh anywhere for all we know, you know, on on an elephant hunt. Yeah. No, you're right about that. That's a very good point. Um yeah, so I also saw that too.
But no, >> that sounds good on the news. You know, that sounds good on the news, but at the end of the day, I would think if they had a decent jury, I mean, you know, it doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah. And they did, you know, today during the hearing, the the prosecutor, I told y'all, had a had a big issue with um the defense using the word exculpatory. Um and again and again the defense did a really good in my opinion did a really good explanation of what exculpatory means in terms of a criminal defendant but it's like anytime you have the abs because the the because there's a presumption of innocent the burden is on the state. Anytime you have a lack or missing piece of evidence where otherwise there would be a pretty damning piece of evidence there like a a a bullet fragment that matched.
>> Yeah. that is considered exculpatory because it's tending to show his innocence because the state >> doesn't have that evidence that they might otherwise have.
>> But you can't use that word though.
>> They got upset. They got upset. And again, that's why, you know, that was their reasoning. Well, a lot of it, you know, the way that it was characterized, you know, they said in court, there's just no way, judge, that I could, you know, calculate this up to in any way be exculpatory. There's no way you can work it out to be exculpatory.
>> Well, leave that up to the defense. If they think they can, then you know, >> I mean, look, when they talk about when they talk about u any of the other, you know, evidence, like when the when the prosecution side discusses it, I mean, everybody knows that when they're talking about evidence, I mean, we all know what kind of evidence they're speaking of. So, I mean, you know, I don't understand what the big deal is about somebody claiming that something might be exculpatory.
If they think that it they can if they think that they can make it, you know, or or argue it to be exculpatory, then >> Well, and and the thing is too, it's like, you know, >> like they're not worried about bias against him. The only >> No, not at all. No, not at all. And a matter of fact, they've done pretty good at perpetrating it in my opinion. Right.
>> Yeah.
And moreover, you know, yes, this and and here's another thing is, okay, I I guess I understand a little bit why they kind of got up in arms about it, especially when the media ran with it, but hey, it's a taste of their own medicine. And two, it's like it's one piece of evidence out of this whole six, seven page, you know, uh, affidavit that y'all filed. There seems to be reference quite a bit of evidence in there. Why is this one uh bit of evidence being labeled by the defense I feel appropriately exculpatory?
I mean that damn meaningful to like go out and like you know have meetings about whether you're going to violate the rule or not potentially put your I mean I say lure not let >> because they're whole case is going to come down to this.
>> I you know and I've always said too I think the um >> and they know that it's a lose-lose.
>> Yeah. I think the messages, the Discord and the text messages I also think are really like crux like like they they're they're very dependent on those things.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But I feel like and I could be wrong. I'm not on the inside. From the outside looking in though, I really feel like those Discord messages are going to end up being a bust also.
>> I think Oh, absolutely too. Absolutely too. And you know, I guess you know, in regards to the physical evidence found, you know, that that's linking him to the actual crime scene physically, which I mean, in your opinion, obviously that's a pretty pretty important part of of their, you know, being able to prove his his his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
>> Yep. I mean, look, they they already they were already, you know, prepping everybody, kind of um warming people up, you know, when they were talking in that last hearing when they were talking about all this uh video footage that they've got, you know, they made sure and say they didn't say that, you know, you can plainly see him and positively ID him, you know, as being Tyler Robinson and all these. It it always talked about how much he avoided the cameras and tried to keep his face, you know, and disguises and like they used a lot of that type of language, which to me indicates that this footage is not going to be that good.
>> Um talking what what in regards to >> they they were talking about the footage that they had showing him before he made it onto campus and then once he made it onto campus.
>> Oh, okay. Oh, so like doorbell cameras and stuff like that.
>> Not just that, but even the on campus stuff talking about how it shows him going up the stairs getting to the sniper nest and but it kept talking about how he was trying to evade and disguise and it used so much of that language that I've got a feeling that this ain't going to be crystal clear footage showing. You know, >> you just raised kind of a a interesting point, too, is is the tension there between the prosecutor claiming that he did all this to disguise himself, yet claiming at the same time that these this video is like, "Oh, that's Tyler Robinson clearly." You know?
>> Yep. Yep.
>> Yeah. There's a there's a a >> want to bet it'll look more like Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson.
>> Yeah. There's an intellectual tension there, right?
>> I think there is. Like I mean to me it just seemed like they were prepping everybody to look at that video and be like, >> "Yeah, I guess."
>> Yeah. No, you know, and I'll say this, I think the more people look at those videos, um, the more they're convinced that it's not Tyler Robinson.
>> I know that's the way it has been for me.
>> Yeah, it has for me, too. You know, it's funny how the media works because it's like, you know, when I first saw it, I I I was like, "Oh, that might, you know, that's definitely not wholly inconsistent, but it's like, yeah, the more they've like beat it down my throat, >> my head with it, like the more I'm like, "Yeah, that doesn't really look like Tyler."
>> They're trying to convince me way too hard. Um, yeah. And I mean like look the parents you know it said that it said that that that that uh I don't remember I don't remember exactly how it said like basically when they saw the news footage or the footage that the FBI you know they had put out that um that they had said that it resembled Tyler I believe was the was the terminology or something to that effect.
>> Not that they positively IDed Tyler you know without a doubt. Yeah.
>> Same thing as this quote unquote confession that the parents got. No, they said that when when when confronted, Tyler indicated to them that, you know, he had done it.
Indicated, hm, that doesn't sound like a confession. Hey, I killed Charlie Kirk.
I took Grandpappy's 306 down to the, you know, college and shot Charlie. That's that there that's a far cry from indicated that it was him.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. And again and and also as we've point out many you know the tension of I don't think the kind of rifle they're claiming is his grandpa's is looks much like the one that they put on TV claiming that's the one that you know dad or grandpa saw that like so yeah there's there's those inconsistencies too. It's just the everything that we've seen and as far as I'm concerned, you know, for what it's worth, um I just don't see anything solid enough to get a conviction right now.
>> I don't Yeah. Um and I don't I don't know if you remember me telling you this or not, but you know, of course, at the beginning after that article came out with the pictures of the 306, um once that came out, it wasn't long people started digging into into it a lot, you know, and then all of a sudden it was like it just got scrubbed >> and you can't find it anywhere. Like the only >> Yeah, that's right. That has been >> The only picture you can find of that thing is the >> close.
>> Excuse me. Uh the uh the only picture you can find of that gun online. it.
There's nothing prior to the news that, you know, the article that came out with the pictures >> and so um >> but and and I was doing some digging because there were lots of people that claimed that they had looked into it early on and that they had found other photos from other places, you know, of the same gun. I don't know. I was digging into it. The best I could get though is that um either Grock or Chat GPT1 though said that it was most likely not a police like crime scene photo and that was based on the the light and the angles and the quality and that at you know real close examination that it appeared to be >> a screenshot of a video based on you know really really close like on little slight blurs and things that you can't just pick up with your eye. So, >> yeah.
>> Yeah, man. Uh Rick asks, you know, I'm interested if the prosecution broke the gag order. So, that's that's a very good question, Rick. And like I said, judge didn't rule on that issue today. Uh obviously, the defense's position is that they did. And again, those those several statements that I read that the prosecutor had put out in the media, those are kind of the crux of the offending statements according to the defense. So, obviously, we don't know yet. I mean, I'll just say my feeling based upon the rules I read, hearing the arguments today, and like I do think they did. And let me say this, too.
Judge seemed pretty receptive to the defense's argument along these lines to be quite honest with you. The the judge did. Now again, I'm not going to say that as any indication how he's going to rule, but it did seem that he was buying into it uh pretty good while the defense was arguing and he did give the prosecutor a little bit of a hard time on several points. Um so it'll be interesting, but I guess to the main answer to your question is that we just don't know for sure at this time.
>> That poor judge has got a fine line he's got to walk with this.
>> He does. He does. He really does. And you know, here it's like the reason why I do think that he's really maybe going down that road is because, you know, on appeal in a capital case, >> that might be a good grounds for appeal.
If the prosecutor did something like that and it was not, again, there was no remedy. Like I told y'all, >> if judge is going to give a remedy, the target is to try to put Tyler back on equal footing with his right to a fair trial, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um there's different ways they can go about that like enlarging the veneer meaning the jury pool you know allowing for extra time at there's a lot of different things censuring the attorney right so >> I think to the extent he is biting it is obviously for appellet considerations right because he's going to do something he wants to make sure on appeal >> it looks the best possible to to hold up >> because I mean everybody knows it's going to be appealed if it ends up being >> Oh absolutely I mean pretty much. I mean, everybody >> I mean, it's a given on a case like this, you know what I mean? Like, it's a given on a on a capital case like this.
It's going to go as far as it can go in the court system. So, >> yeah, they just want to have all their, you know, tees crossed and eyes dotted for when that time comes cuz it it's coming.
>> Yeah.
>> Unless he gets acquitted. I mean, if he gets acquitted, I mean, we we won't have to worry about an appeal. But >> So, let me let me say this real quick.
So I I want to So the defense in this motion talks about this this case uh called Levit. Now the defense points something out um and and I think this might give an eye towards what they want as a potential remedy, but it it says um the there could be potentially an order barring the state from seeking the death penalty. um is not without the gambit of potential remedies that judge could uh uh you know make an order here. Okay. Uh I just wanted to say that because it's in the brief here. Although the defense doesn't come out and say that hey we want an order preventing the state from you know pursuing the death penalty.
They talk about this case and they bring that up that hey even though the judge didn't prevent the state from pursuing the death penalty in this case it was discussed and judge did not shoot it down like that was outside of the purview of possibility. So I just wanted to throw that out there too for everybody. So that might be something that we see. I I don't know.
>> That would be interesting.
>> Yeah. Um, and you know, if that happens, which I've I've been hoping and praying every single day that it that it doesn't get appealed, but if something like that happened, then that would at least I think and and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that would probably increase our chances of it going to trial, right?
>> I mean, if the death penalty was taken off the table. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, obviously, that would be something to try to make it work to get to trial. You know what I mean? Yes. So all all these orders are again the judge call balls of strikes and like trying to preserve all the parties rights to the greatest extent possible both going into and and at trial.
>> But I mean if the if the death penalty was was taken off the table then what um I mean then how much how much leverage would they have to get the defense to take a plea? You know what I mean?
>> Oh pro none. I mean, I don't, you know, I I think right now just with the fact that if we're correct, right, if if our hypotheses are correct, and Tyler either had nothing to do or very little to do substantially materially to do with this, >> then I don't think anything's going to uh, you know, I would assume Tyler wouldn't sign a plea deal on a crime that he didn't commit. Um, I don't think we will ever know or understand all the pressures that might be applied to him.
Um, but if if we think in normal terms, you know, I think it would be hard to pressure someone into signing a plea for something they didn't do. Although that does happen, >> right? Unless, like I said, then you have that death penalty on the table.
And I guess maybe >> death penalty on the table, yeah, can scare people potentially into signing a plea for something they didn't do.
>> Yeah. Um, I just, you know, my my opinion here is like not only >> you the reason why we don't think Tyler had much of anything to do with it because the evidence, right? And so that's I guess that was mostly informing my position on it. It's just like, dude, it's just the evidence.
>> Yeah. And I mean, we haven't really seen or heard anything. I mean, we've seen very little and not heard anything from Tyler since this whole thing started, but just judging by the very small amount that we've seen of him, if you take that, this is just me anyway. If you take that and also consider how his family appears to look at this whole thing, granddaddy obviously thinks he was framed. And I'm guessing if granddaddy thinks that the rest of them probably do, too.
>> Um, that being the case, you know, Tyler doesn't hasn't seemed too overly concerned. I mean, obviously people can, you know, can hide that kind of thing and whatever, but I feel >> it's cuz he's a callous killer and he's a sociopath, you know, >> right? Or he knows he didn't do it. Um, >> yeah, something like that. Maybe. Maybe.
and has either been promised to get off or just assumes the system will work >> even though it's >> not worked too well to this point. But either way, >> yeah. Well, you know, it's been slow and cumbersome for sure.
Yeah. There's, you know, >> to me, I would want to feel like the def I mean, I would want to feel like the um the prosecution is losing their case at this point if I was him. So, you know.
>> Yeah. And you know depending on again I think this is another question of what access to information he might have but assuming again if you know he didn't do it you know I I think regard I mean obviously he should have access to the discovery and stuff like that. So I'm thinking that if if and hopefully he's talking to his lawyers about because you know could you imagine you know let's just assume that the Discord and texts are fake and like you're seeing this evidence and you're like oh my god no I didn't do that.
are y'all going to be able to, you know, call them out and get this excluded, you know, and so, >> you know, and and and I think too that, you know, him going to preliminary hearing and seeing if they do, right, and judges and just so we're aware, I covered it the other night, the motion to, you know, attack the constitutionality of the preliminary hearing procedures and evidence >> based on the federal constitution.
>> Yeah. you know, if if judge rules against the defense and they proceed under the current structure, um, you know, I could just imagine being Tyler and seeing these potentially fake messages coming in through some recorded video >> that Lance Twigs did with with the with the police, you know? I mean, >> wait till he sees that recorded interview of Lance.
>> I mean, could you imagine? Um, >> yeah, >> I could just see him now like, "What the hell?" Those Discord messages say that they were posted at what, 8:30?
>> Yeah, >> I know. I was at the jail by 6:30.
>> Exactly. They got me on video. They should, right?
>> They should. Yeah. Oh, well, they Somebody lost that video. You got to be kidding me. I can hear I can just imagine, >> Crystal. Uh, well, for a secondep. Come on.
Uh >> oh. Uh >> oh.
>> What' you do? Knock your camera wire or loose?
>> Can you hear me?
>> Yeah, I can hear you. Just can't see.
>> Oh, wow. I don't know why. I don't know what what happened.
Um, it's shows that it's still still on.
>> I mean, you're on. There's just a black square there.
>> I'll I'll see if it corrects. But anyways, we have Crystal here. She goes, "Why isn't Twigs in jail for destroying evidence or being an accomplice?" Well, >> that's a damn good question.
>> Um I my opinion, my perspective, again, for what it's worth, is because they need him to try to authenticate those messages.
>> Yeah, they probably gave him a deal, I'm guessing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Let me see.
>> Yep.
>> I'm I'm going to keep trying to work on um getting my >> That's weird. It just went out >> camera to work. Uh let's see. Hold on.
Oh, technical difficulties, man.
>> I'm telling you. I guess uh I guess it's contagious.
>> Do you have any access to comments over there on your end?
>> Uh yeah. So, I can read them. I'm not able to bring them up, but I can read them. So, all right. Let's see where we're at here.
Um another quick I guess he went out completely. Going to come back in. I was seeing if that would help.
>> Black square.
>> That's weird.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, it's not something as dumb as the cable come loose or something, is it?
>> No, cuz the camera's on. I mean, I'm looking at the camera. It's It's uh >> Guess Let me see if I can >> Oh, no. Anyway. All right. Another question, Greg, about uh prosecution wanting to do um another psychological test of Tyler Robinson.
>> There we go.
>> There he is.
>> Hey, we're back. I had to plug plug Had to replplug it.
>> Sometimes unplugging plugging back in is the best thing in the world.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No doubt. Did you say you had one a good comment here? I'll take it off. Oh yeah. Um, so, uh, there's one from Rick. Says, "Another question, Greg, about the prosecution wanting, uh, to do another psychological, uh, test or evaluation of Tyler Robinson."
>> Who does >> I missed that one. It says the prosecution um, >> is wanting to do another test uh, mental test of Tyler Robinson.
>> Yeah, that's what he's asking about. It >> Oh, I don't know. I haven't heard that.
U, >> Yeah, me neither. I I I would assume they done at least an initial one. I'll look into that, Rick. That's that's uh that's very interesting. I I don't know.
You know, I you know, to be honest, in a case like >> Why would they want to do that, though?
>> Well, that would mostly be geared towards mitigation.
>> I mean, if he if he came back the first time not being crazy, how could it get better for the prosecution? Well, the reason why I mean in this case specifically like if he's convicted of and gets the death penalty like the mitig or if he's convicted and they go to sentencing the mitigation part of it yeah it'll become relevant then right uh whether he has some mental disability or something of that nature would be a mitigating factor in him committing the crime but otherwise at this juncture >> other than the allegations I guess he was suicidal when he went in or was having some suicidal stuff before he went in other than that, you know, we saw him in the turtle suit. Presumably, you would hope that if they're putting someone in the turtle suit, that's that should be because a professional has told them they need to be in there for suicide prevention. Um, or some incident has occurred that that necessitates it. But, so with that being said, I'm assuming hopefully if he went into it initially, we saw and that was because there was some kind of mental evaluation. But I don't know if that's the case. I think they might have just thrown our dude in >> there, man. That that would not surprise me at this point.
>> Yeah. And here goes Crystal again. She goes talking about Lance Fix and he's not even going to give his testimony in person, which is really odd, too. So, there's no cross-examination. That's all. Well, unfortunately, at the preliminary hearing, as the rules are written now in the Utah Constitution, article 1, section 12 allows that. At least at the preliminary hearing. Now, let's just all be clear. When they go to trial, Lance Wig is going to have to show up. these other witnesses under uh 11:02, they don't have to show up. Okay.
Right.
>> This is only at least as we know now allowed in Utah at the preliminary hearing. Although, as we're also aware, the defense has filed a challenge. I did a live stream about a few days ago, maybe five days ago about it. You know, it is being challenged. So, we might and and let me say this real quick. Judge again, he did not comment to any real degree on the merits of that, right?
that motion I just mentioned about this setup. Um, however, judge is already budgeting potential time for the hearing in their motion schedule, right? So, he's already planning, you know, he didn't say we're having a hearing going this direction, but he did >> today include that in the aotted time moving forward. So, you know, again, I don't want to say that's because he's going to declare it unconstitutional, you know, and and they're going to have to show up, but just to put that on your radar, >> right?
>> Put that on your radar there. Uh there is some hope for due process and justice in this >> so many things on the radar of this one.
>> Yeah.
Um, >> Miss Susan says, "I'm still praying for Tyler's safety and a fair trial and a good defense. He's so young." Amen, Susan. God bless. And yes, may Jesus be with Tyler in his defense, uh, you know, throughout this process. I mean, I could just only imagine what that young man feels like. And again, to the extent that he was involved, I hope they pay for that. But >> you read my mind. I was gonna say, I mean, I don't I want to be very clear.
>> If he had any involvement, he needs to he needs to pay for that involvement.
That's right.
>> And I think that it's very likely that he did. Don't know that for sure.
>> I just don't feel like this one lone 22y old kid, >> you know, planned this thing, facilitated it, you know.
>> Let me let me let me ask you this real quick, Adam. this might be a little bit more challenging and I'm you know what if you find out that yes Tyler was some way tangentially involved but that that involvement was solely procured through government agents >> yeah I just you know it's like man again >> I think they just I think they need to do like they do everything else they need to write a sternly worded letter and then fire them give them with full retirement benefits you Yeah, man. Um, yeah, you know, it's sad, you know, because it's like, yeah, what if, you know, what if he did have some bad internet history or something and then all of a sudden they took that to like set him up to like be tangent?
>> I think they should be culpable. There's >> I do too. I mean, I do too. I agree.
>> There's no way they could do something like that um without going rogue. You know what I mean? Like that couldn't be a sanctioned type of operation. Yeah.
>> I mean, they they do that type of thing and and those are official, you know, they they can do those types of things officially.
>> Yeah.
>> But I don't think I don't think we're talking about, you know, murdering somebody. We're talking about possibly, you know, >> doing something, you know, snitching on somebody, going undercover or whatever.
You know, they they'll use that kind of leverage for that. But there's no way it could be official like on the books sanctioned type of thing. So yeah, I think they need to pay. I think they need to pay just like anybody else would.
>> Penny Copelan says she called out Andrea Birkhart for being biased. She said no.
I said you she only goes on shows that think Tyler is guilty. Then >> um let's see the Charlie K. Well, yeah.
The the Kulit and Neft Show and um you know um um our our favorite our favorite lumberjack Gary Melton.
>> Oh yeah.
>> H I don't know that I've seen.
>> Well, he does beat those flannels up, doesn't he?
>> I'm telling you, >> bro. He been camping in the 50s since the 50s and >> you got you got to watch that one I did this morning. If he sees that one, he's going to be mad.
>> I, you know, >> he'll be mad if he sees that one.
>> He'll be mad if he sees that one.
>> Uh, and then Penny goes to Yeah. So, apparently Andrea, you know, there's a big debate amongst uh Baron and a lot of them out there about that timeline of him turning himself in. Obviously, we covered that having access to the phone.
Yeah. And, you know, I'll say this again. I wasn't, you know, Gary made some pretty pretty def, in my opinion, defamatory statements about Baron. I just to damn long.
>> I just think it was way out of line, man. I mean, I I don't see Baron taking it to that level with people. Yeah. I mean, he he jokes around a bit and laughs, you know? As we would say in a more familiar like playing grab ass back and forth just figuratively, you know what I mean? Like I think, >> man, I hate that that it it goes that that way sometimes, you know? I do.
>> Yeah. I mean, like um Yeah. talking about a a case that he lost when like Baron said it's still very much >> still ongoing. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And in the appellet, you know, >> I feel that frustration, too. I've had people go online and try to comment about my cases when, you know, it's all public records. You can go on Pacer, which is a Pacer search be >> and and see all that, but people just go and just say whatever. I mean, he probably did do a pacer search, >> you know, like >> if you want to be totally honest, he probably did a pacer search and thought I don't know if I'm going to frame it that way.
>> Yeah, if I tell it truthfully, it doesn't it doesn't sting as bad.
>> I mean, kind of. Technically, he lost the first case cuz he did get a >> lost the first motion hearing, you know, so therefore we're going to say he lost the whole case. I've had that one done to me, too.
>> Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep.
>> Yeah. Butterbean. Gary did get him a big fat 200k contract from the DoD.
>> Yeah. Oh, Gary.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You had probably hadn't heard about that, had you?
>> No. He got a he got a contract with DoD.
>> Yeah. He got he got like $200,000 worth contracts. I don't even think it was a full month after Charlie died. I think it was with like within a couple weeks about the time when he started flipping his >> his opinion on everything.
>> Surely not.
Hey, allegedly I'm just joking.
>> Couldn't have gone down like that.
>> I'm just joking. Um, yeah. I mean, and it's not lifechanging money either, but >> Well, if you get it every year, I mean, you know, is it going to be renewed every year? That's I mean, dude, if I could sign a contract tomorrow getting 200k worth of business uh every year moving forward. I mean, >> granted, now if it took up, you know, every single hour of my day, you know, maybe not. But like, dude, if if if it's for sure money, 200k, I mean, I got some hours I can spend working on that Joker.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No [ __ ] Nosy Thomas Massie did lose.
>> Yeah. You didn't know that?
>> No, I hadn't. I was scared to look.
How?
>> Dude, it's the most expensive uh congressional race like in history.
>> It It scares me a little bit, man. That one kind of scares me, dude, because I just >> I have a hard time believing >> that Thomas Massie lost. I just like I can't like >> he didn't legitimately.
>> There's just so much at stake.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, there's just literally so much at stake. I mean, some people have said that was the most important. I I agree.
It's It's the most important election I've ever been involved in or been, you know, >> Yep.
>> monitoring. They're replacing They're replacing a good one with another um Oh [ __ ] What's that one fat ass's name that >> uh in Florida? Um oh god, what's his name? Everybody hates him in my mind. I know his name. Well, >> the one that Dan Berian Dan Bazerian is >> Bizerian is running against. Randy uh Randy Fine.
>> Oh, Randy Fine. Oh, that specimen. Oh, just a pig.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I just Oh, by the way, just so everybody knows that guy who was What's the guy with the gun company?
>> Vinnie, that was priceless.
Do what now? Sorry.
>> The um the guy that we were texting about the other day who's from that has a gun.
>> Did you watch that today? Uh, I didn't watch her show today, but I did I watched the episode the other day with um >> Yeah. Um, Corby Hall.
>> Yeah, he's from my neck of the woods, y'all. He's he's he's located probably >> You need to go back and watch today's >> You need to go back and watch today's because today she interviewed Victor Markx.
>> Oh, no [ __ ] >> The one that, you know, he's been having all the problems with.
>> That was very interesting. I thought that they were gonna I don't know. It looked like they were gonna throw down at first.
>> Yeah. Oh, did they?
>> Oh, he tried to push her around big time, but >> Wow.
>> You know, Candace Owens, she don't push around so easily. So, >> Brett, why wouldn't the FBI let the defense experts in on the testing?
>> Well, you know, I mean, that's a good question, Brett. That's a good question. Especially with a legitimate test, you know, that's all on the up and up.
>> Yeah. I mean I mean I guess they they want evidence to connect him to the scene and they obviously need to identify a murder weapon, a weapon, and obviously they've chosen the one that they've sold to everyone for $10 million uh is the weapon. And you know when the fragments's too small and it's inconclusive, you know, I don't know.
And it's not like they've personally not cut them in. It's just like the the underlying evidence. You know, I don't think it's necessarily the experts per se who are holding on to it. Uh but you know, someone is holding on to uh those bullet fragments and other evidence uh to hand over the defense experts. Yeah.
So they can do their analysis. I mean, again, we're going to enter into the land of speculation here, okay?
Speculation territory. I mean, >> you know, I think that they're so eager, this is just my opinion, my perspective, right? I think they're so eager to get a conviction on Ty Robinson that like anything they can do at this juncture, right, at this point, I think their goal is plea. Okay, I would imagine their goal is plea out of him. And >> so making sure that they can barrel on through the preliminary hearing without judge either substantively telling them no your claim or or having these witnesses have to come up and testify >> or the DNA bullet fragment evocates actually be contested.
>> You know, I think they're trying to make it through that preliminary hearing anyway that they can and they're pulling out all the stops, which is my perspective, my opinion. Other words, they don't want any any road bl road because I guarantee Yeah. I guarantee you their thought is that if they can get past that preliminary hearing, it'll be real for Tyler and he'll see that we're going to take him to court. You know, could you imagine if if if we're right about all this again, I don't know what if that's true. Who knows what? But you gota imagine there's somebody back there who knows everything that's pushing for this innocent man potentially, right? It's specul >> to to be tried and and be put in prison.
>> And again, maybe not completely innocent of anything and everything.
>> Innocent of the charges as >> Yeah. Yeah. capital murder. Yeah.
Innocent capital murder. Yeah.
>> Man, it just makes you wonder. There there are people out there like that, bro. You know, you gota understand there are people out there like that that that can sleep and be good and eat, look at you in the face, shake your hand, >> doing all >> go home and kiss their kids, >> doing all that, dude. Damn.
Anyways, let's see. I'm going through the uh comments.
>> Yeah, I don't know how they do it.
Some of them.
>> Yeah, I'm excited about the Hunter interview.
He's so alive. Me, too.
>> He's gonna give up Hunter who?
>> Oh, yeah. Um Candace uh interviewed Hunter Biden.
>> No doubt. Huh?
>> Yeah. It hasn't hit yet, but it's uh Okay. it's going to this week.
>> I'll be interested. I wonder I wonder I want I I'm really interested to hear are they going to talk about the Kirk thing and like what his perspective is then on it.
>> So according to her, you know, according to her when she was talking about it uh last night, I think it was um they at least do touch on it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. Well, yeah, I'll definitely watch it. Uh Kism Fed GPT is still generating the data. You must have seen my ex post earlier. Yeah, I I was talking about that USA Today comment from the DA >> about the data that's going to confirm the conclusion or whatever.
>> Yeah, I said I guess GPT or AI is generating the data for them and and yeah, fed GPT. That's a good one.
>> I like that one.
>> God.
>> Uh let's see. Hey Dariela. Hey everybody. Hey, I'm sorry. I usually call y'all out one by one, but God bless each and every one of you. I see you.
Um, spy. Go ahead.
>> See that comment where Okay, I got you.
Go ahead. I see where >> it sounds like the prosecutors are dictating what the report should say.
Sounds >> definitely >> somebody's providing some conclusion that now they're getting the data and information needed to to uh make that okay.
>> That's when you say, "Whoops, wrong answer."
>> I don't know. I don't know how you interpret that. I mean, I think y'all know how I'm interpreting.
>> I know how I interpret it. I mean, um, I I felt, you know, again, just my opinion, I felt they were going to do it. I just didn't know how bold they were going to be about it. But, man, they're getting the point where they just in desperate government not care no longer, man.
>> There's no telling what's at stake here, though.
>> A lot.
>> I mean, and really all we can do is speculate. But it's not it's not a it's not just a prosecutor's record or, you know, image. I mean, there's there's bound to be there's bound to be something on the line that's really big.
>> Yeah. I mean, you know, well, I think what's on the line in just my opinion, speculation, I think what's on the line is the truth.
And that if the truth gets to us, it's not going to be good for some people who got who who they have a lot at stake. Yeah. in my opinion, my perspective. Bri, baby, uh, we like you too. Thank you for joining us. God bless.
>> Yeah, thank you, Bri. Thank you for being here.
Always good to see you in there.
>> Oh, here goes. Uh, Lumis says, uh, talking about Massie, I'm assuming Lumis here. Uh, he did lose. Um, I'm so sad.
Goes to show the corruption. Um, Ed is a bad person. Yeah, I didn't have a good feeling about the pro either. I think that's >> ED is a bad condition. I mean, oh, wait a minute. We're talking about a person.
I'm sorry.
>> Massie, the Massie election.
>> I cracked a joke.
>> Oh.
Oh, I get another joke you crack.
>> Oh, you dog.
>> I figured that would probably You probably wouldn't catch that one.
>> I did. I did. Let's see.
>> Let's see.
Oh, Penny's asking Adam Thomas podcast, "How many bullets can gun hold?" I guess maybe she's referring to the uh >> Yeah, that rifle that 30 six. Yeah. Um I >> holds a clip, but it only it's a bolt.
It It was a bolt action though. Huh.
>> Yeah. It didn't I don't think it had a removable like magazine. I I think that it was just um I think it just held I want to say probably three or four total. Like >> Yeah. like you load them up under the receiver. Uh like load them into the gun or you say >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. That's what I'm thinking.
>> I don't think it I don't think it actually had a removable magazine. You >> I like those 3030 side loaders, the lever actions, the cowboy rifles, man.
Those are one of my favorite rifles to shoot. I used to deer hunt one.
>> Yeah. No, they're good. They're good.
>> Yeah.
>> But again, 30 caliber gun, not a 30 six.
You know, like I say, there's a lot of different rifle configurations with the 30.
>> Oh, there's so many 30 calibers. It's just It is probably the most popular caliber.
>> Yeah.
>> So many different variations of it.
>> Kism prosecutor is totally rolling dice.
Rolling the dice. Hoping the feds come up with something.
>> It sounds like they're just not. It sounds like they done talked to them like they >> prosecutors are like, "Look, we're going for broke."
>> What it sounds like >> we're going for broke. Y'all just please have our backs in some way.
>> Yeah. I mean, you know, I don't know what you could have said worse in terms of like if if the if the if the feds come with a new report that magically says this bullet magic I mean, who isn't going to be suspicious of that now?
>> Oh, I know. I mean, to me, it's too late for that.
Come on now. And granted, I'll say the part that we're reading in this motion came from USA Today. So, it very well could have been that the reporter because that part was kind of in their own own words a bit. So, maybe the reporter misconstrued it, but >> yeah, >> there seems to be too. I don't know. It seems to have been hard to really misconstrue that too far, but could definitely be wrong, you know. And and it's it's um normally when they um misconstrue something, when they, you know, have a snafu, it's it's uh it's um it benefits the prosecution.
So, you know, I don't know.
>> Yeah. I don't know either, man.
>> You know, it's funny that there's no accidental whoops, we help the defense.
>> Yeah. No, that's right. It's uh we don't even know if it's a bullet. It could be exactly right. Could be metal, could be plastic, could be anything. They didn't even say what the material was.
>> Um well, they did say that the And now we I think any of this is probably subject to change, but now they were saying that it was a um um Oh, good lord. They had four I think it was four lead um wasn't it four lead >> um >> fragments.
>> Yeah. So yeah. Yeah. Cuz I think you're right. So I forget what I saw but there was >> the other one the >> documentary report that referenced three other besides the one and maybe it had been the report. Yeah. It referenced three other small.
>> Yeah it was three pieces of they were lead. I know for sure they were lead fragments.
>> And then on the other I'm I'm going to guess if they're saying >> whether it's legitimately a jacket fragment or not. If it is a similar material, I'm going to guess it's probably made out of uh um I'm I'm guessing probably brass. I mean, I don't know. Who knows?
Well, also too, um, just putting it out there, >> that could be a piece out of a microphone.
>> Yeah. Well, also understand too that shape charges have a brass.
>> They've got that cone that brass cap or cone to them as well. So, I mean, like you say, it could have been a piece of literally shrapnel. Um, you know, that has the same it is the same material or composition as a bullet fragment, but isn't >> Why are we not saying lands and groove marks on this thing? God.
Oh man, let's see. Crystal says, "If he gets convicted, this is the dumbest jury and it will be a testament to our education." Well, you know, unfortunately, I mean, I do agree with you to a large extent, but at the same time, >> system wouldn't have been the first.
>> It's also because of our media system, right? Because I think they've done polling showing that like 64% of people in Utah County already think Ty Robinson is guilty because of things they've seen in the media. I don't see how it it doesn't at some point get moved out of >> I mean I certainly think it's warranted you know if and how that can occur. I don't know the intricacies there, but you know, at the very least, yeah, I mean, if Utah County is pulling at those numbers, I don't know if they've pulled other adjacent counties or other counties, but yeah, I definitely think a change of venue might might be a a good idea in this case, but that's just my opinion.
>> And nosy Google, I'm sorry, my brain my I had a brain fart earlier. Yes, copper.
My god, it was right on the I accidentally said brass. I don't know why I was thinking brass. Anyway, yes, a copper jacket fragment. So anyway, I just saw the comment and thought I'd say that.
Spy glass says, "Massage the report to benefit the prosecution." Oh yeah. Hey, you know, hey, >> um, you know, and maybe I said this last stream, maybe not, but I thought about this the other day. You know, a lot of times you'll hear police officers and, you know, federal agent stuff like justify violating someone's constitutional rights because they're criminal. You know, it's a criminal. It is a criminal. We caught them. I mean, >> what if we got to cut some corners?
>> Yeah. You know, I just encourage people like I said, you know, the way I see that is like in terms of our country and laws, like the the Constitution's like the Ten Commandments, you know what I mean? It's like one of those things that like you really shouldn't have any sacrifice on, you know?
>> Well, look, the way I the way I interpret it and I feel like it's pretty clear the United States Constitution, I feel like if you actually take it at the the, you know, obviously the letter of the law and I mean, but you look at the spirit that it's, you know, was was written in, you know, and what their true intentions were. I feel like as as as bad as it would be for one guilty man to get free, at the end of the day, it's better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man.
>> It really is. It I know it's hard for a lot of people, but you know, it's like >> at least the guilty man is going to pay in one way or another sooner or later, even if it's at his life.
>> That's right. Yeah. cuz you know it's like if if you're guilty and get off like the cops know what's up. You know what I mean? Like they they going to be on so it's either you're going to have to straighten your ass up >> that and you got to meet your maker one day too. So you know >> pay the price you know.
>> Yep. You got to meet your maker one day too. But you know if you especially talking capital cases like if you were to take some and they've done it. Trust me there's been plenty of of of innocent people that have been killed you know.
>> Oh what? Yeah dude. put to death, you know, years. And to me, that is just so much so much worse than >> think about, man. Like, >> you know, that's that's the that's the thing. It's like >> that would be the hard I couldn't be a I would be a good prosecutor. I'd be a good investigator. You know what I mean?
I just I've been and out of streets for a long time. I would be really really good. But like either being forced to go after someone who's not really doing anything uh deterious to society in any real sense to me would be hard. And then just the thought that I would be involved in something where someone innocent or you know or punished way more than they should. I don't want any part of it. I just don't want any part of it. Not even the possibility. I don't.
>> Right.
>> Yeah man. Let's see. Kism. So they all they have is a the summary report talking about the expert reports. Yeah.
My impression is that they're just summary.
>> No underlying you know information that shows how the data was.
>> Yeah. Basically the actual items, right?
So like with the ballistics report you have the report but and and they also talk about the DNA like even those reports are missing evidence as far as like >> you have to know how it was collected.
Exactly how it was collected and exactly what testing. How did you come to this, you know, conclusion?
Because something like that, trust me, very very easily, you know, messed up.
>> Yeah.
>> Or or, you know, even um, you know, purposely put in one direction or other when you're talking about something as as as minute and something as technical and something as, you know, as DNA. I mean, like, come on. that it takes almost nothing to to completely >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Nosy Google, uh, they're talking about the text messages and Discord messages here talking about the metadata. Nosy Google saying they better have metadata for all messages for it to be evidence. So, this under the rules of evidence, what you bring up is what we call authentication, right? proving that these items of evidence are authentic, meaning claiming what it what it, you know, is portrayed to be for, you know, like like these are discord messages from Tyler Robinson. These are text messages from Ty Robinson. You make a good point. Now, >> as it stands at this preliminary hearing, I think Judge will consider the text and the discord messages just based upon unfortunately uh Lance Twig's statement that hey, these are messages from Ty Robson. Now when it goes to trial, I would be very very surprised. I would be kind of upset if judge lets those messages in without uh the metadata >> for sure. uh meaning that you know because you have to prove a you know ultimately the jury makes the call on on whether it's authentic or not but judge makes a preliminary determination whether it's admissible and part of that is is there enough basis here for the jury to believe these are authentic >> and we're not talking about meta data from like the local device that where you just go in there and you click you know the info and details like actual authentic metadata be it from the sale carrier or wherever ever, you know what I mean? Like, >> yeah.
>> Um, >> because I think there's layers to the metadata, you know what I mean?
>> Like I know that >> I can go into a picture right now and change the location and day and time, but um, if I understand correctly, there is another version of that that is out of reach. You know what I mean? Like >> Yeah.
>> that can't be edited that way.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So I'm hoping judge at le at at the very least when it comes to trial will require you know that these things be proven up in the meta data and then obviously we know too that you know at least with the discord messages the it you know I I'm I subscribe to Baron's timeline and interpretation of the documents and events that they also have that defense too attacking whether this was even possible. I mean I'm assuming I'm assuming that they do have Tyler on camera at those times. um if he was, you know, since he >> for some reason that just wasn't publicly available. The guy that said that it was deleted just didn't know what he was talking about.
>> So we we could run a do >> somebody does have it. If that's true, if Tyler was in the police station, his contention is I didn't have my phone, was not on my phone at that time or I have access to my Discord and they don't have the video, then that would be another good place. If they claim they destroyed it or lost it, >> then that would be another great due process challenge.
>> Oh, yeah. process due process challenge because the failure to preserve that evidence obviously if it's true that he's on video not on Discord well that's obviously directly exculpatory evidence as it relates those Discord messages and so the the prosecution in my opinion would be really under fire in that situation and possibly could face some pretty severe sanctions at that >> yeah so if by chance Gary Melton is correct and I think that he's sadly mistaken but you know if by chance He is correct and Tyler did have his phone the whole time he was there waiting. Then like you said, yes, all of that should have been recorded and should be easy enough to to to pull that footage to see if he got on Discord and posted messages while he was sitting there.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Either that. The other option is he didn't have his phone, which means he, >> you know, he couldn't have done it. And and obviously the analysis would be the exact same in Utah as it was as because I've done a stream about the paving over the crime scene, but it's basically like this. Tyler's attorneys would need to come to the court, file a motion, and say, "Look, you know, we believe this evidence um that has been admittedly lost or destroyed by the state. Uh that there is a substantial probability that it would have been exculpatory, meaning again tending to show Tyler's innocence.
And so they would need to make an initial showing in that regard. Uh and then if they do it then it'll kind of switch and the judge will look at well is there other evidence of his guilt that's substantial that you know even if this was lost or destroyed it wouldn't really matter because of that evidence and then >> you got something to offset that.
>> Yeah. And then what if if if and if there's not then they're going to look at well what level of culpability meaning what level of fault can we assign to the prosecutor and the investigators here and the police in not preserving this evidence and then they would determine from there like do we need a jury instruction where they're to assume that this video that's not there would have been tending to show that Tyler >> didn't do these messages. So that's the analysis that would run, but it would essentially be the the same as again on any of these evidence, including where they paved over. It's a little it's it's easier than the crime scene paving over because they can identify what specific evidence was destroyed whereas with the crime scene you know we we're really assuming in a lot of ways that there I mean I think very fair assumptions that there was you know material evidence you know whether again whether been exculpatory it's just a harder analysis than the messages in this video really right >> I mean that's pretty straightforward I mean like um either he had access or he didn't have access. And even if he did have access, there should be there should be video footage of him >> if he did. Yeah. I mean, you know.
>> Yeah. Uh Kism makes a good point here.
Uh they're not as strict talking about the court. They're courts. They're not as strict about what they allow in a preliminary hearing compared to what's allowed.
>> Absolutely. Very very astute observation there. Yeah. And I think a lot of people get that mixed up like you know the preliminary in uh hearing is just a probable cause hearing burden's really low. It is on the state but it's really low. They'll allow in evidence that might not be fully admissible at least right then in that form just to kind of get a feel for what might be present at trial. So yeah it's completely more relaxed and especially on the prosecution in these preliminary hearings.
Yeah. See?
>> Yeah. Um, let's see.
>> Lots of good comments though.
>> There are >> guys, thank y'all for showing up, turning out. Um, >> what are your thoughts for Tyler's Tyler's defense is for him or against him? I I to be honest, I I'm tending to think that they're actually for him. I do. They they've got to be. Look, this these people I mean, >> these are not just regular run-of-the-mill public defenders. Like we talked about before, Katherine Nester is a very very, >> you know, she's been a lawyer for a very long time, very highly decorated, done some, I mean, really big cases. Why would you what could anybody offer you at this point in your career for you to just you know throw it all away?
>> Yeah. A lot of the a lot of the stuff that I at one time had suspicions of like them keeping that report private and January 9th motion stuff like that a lot of that was actually resolved today.
I I I came to understand now why they were doing that trying to comply with judge's order and be within the rules.
Um, and so yeah, I I I I felt at one time maybe that, but as time's gone on, I've looked at more of their pleadings in the cases developed. I now have a much more firm understanding of their strategy, what they've been doing, stuff of that nature. So, I'm tending now to think that they are working for him and and doing it competently. Uh, yeah. You know, now I I do believe that.
>> Well, yeah, >> good question, though. And I get it. I mean, with the way this case has gone, y'all, I don't fault anybody for having suspicions of damn near anybody. Their own mama be involved in all this, man.
>> I'm telling you, >> it's crazy. They they don't make them like this every day.
>> Yeah.
Let's see.
Somebody got a super chat.
Super chat. Uh oh. Who's that? Okay.
ISM, what's up? Uh, the fact that they paved over the crime scene should be case closed. I mean, >> I certainly agree. I mean, and man, it's And if you want to K, I did a live stream on this. I actually think I did more than one talk. I've I've talked about it a lot, but yeah, I mean looking back at the only thing that and I pointed this out to Adam earlier that makes it a little bit difficult on the due process for that is just the Tyler and them would need to identify like the specific piece or kind of evidence that is that would have been destroyed.
>> Yeah. and then connect how that would have been exculpatory and you know I hate to think that like well man it's kind of like their bad behavior there prevented them from making that due pro >> I hate that I agree and was that part of the part of the thing you know >> yeah and I mean look at the end of the day that and this is what a lot of people just got to come to terms with I kind of have it sucks um legally I mean I just don't think they did anything wrong. Um, from a practical, you know, standpoint, from just a good common sense practice, if you were truly, you know, um, I think if you were truly uh, if this was a real investigation, I think they would have wanted to leave that available in case something came up later and they wanted to go back and test.
>> It almost makes you feel like they wanted to make sure that couldn't be done. But did they break any laws? Did they pave over it while it was still under, you know, while it was still under law enforcement, you know? No.
Technically, it was no longer a crime scene. I mean, they released it. They did what they had to do. Pretty suspicious, but, you know.
>> Yeah. Now, I think that if if Tyler's attorneys could for in some way argue that or or come up with some type of evidence or indication that no, there were other maybe pieces of bullet fragment there or you know something that again and I don't want to go into a whole host of possibilities but you know latch on to something and say that would have been there you know and based upon maybe other evidence whatever like would have been exculpatory and and in that case I mean I think just because of the boldness and brace, you might be bordering on case dismissal type stuff.
>> I mean, look to do it on a dum Sunday of all days. I mean, like, come on.
>> Not a Sunday. I'm pretty sure it was done on a Sunday.
>> Yeah, >> that just >> Yeah, it was. I'm almost sure it was.
>> Here goes uh in in his image 777. I like that name. Uh, if the DA tries to use the Discord messages, he should be charged for false private evidence.
Well, you know, hey, I look I to the extent I'm I'm going to premise mine on this that, you know, to the extent that they are aware that that was contrived or manufactured. Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely. You know, I just there might be the instance where like the feds did all that and then handed it to them like here you go. You know, again, just speculation, but I I could see that situation too. So, I don't want to say like, you know, if they try they got to go to jail, but you know, depending on their level of knowledge.
>> Yeah, >> we all got to pay the piper one day, you know.
>> Yep. Yep.
That is true.
>> Let's see.
>> Some sooner than later.
some of these.
>> Boy, this is a lively chat. I'm loving it. I >> There's a lot of people in the chat.
>> I love to see it hopping like that.
>> Go, baby. Jesus is always listening.
Amen. Uh like don't give up on him.
That's all I have to say. And I'll leave it there. He loves you. He wants a relationship with you. Amen. Thank you, Bri.
>> There you go. the type of comments that we need. Uh, let's see.
Yeah, Bree's uh Bree's awesome. She um Let's see. How did Oh, yeah. My Mystic.
You know Mystic, don't you?
>> I do know Mystic. I haven't seen her in a while. I've seen her in a while.
>> Yep. Bri was uh Bri's uh good friends with her, I guess. and they they do some uh modding and uh yeah, Mystic Center on one day and she's been been hanging out ever since.
>> Let's see.
Oh, here we go. The MK Ultra is a lot more than some wacky psychedelic drug.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> It's like, dude, it's like every day I learn more and more about this stuff.
It's like, man, it's insane. Yeah. You know, I um I had an LSD case one time in federal court and just was anytime I get a case, criminal civil, whatever, I'm always thinking jury, jury, trial, judge. So, I'm like asking people I meet and encounter just various questions about the issues that might come up just getting opinions, you know. And one thing I found is that man, your average US citizen who is aware of MK Ultra is not happy about it.
And like they like >> I've had a lot of people tell it's like the only bad thing about LSD is when the government gets gets their hands on it.
>> So yeah, it's funny that you brought that up. Yeah, people are are upset about I mean rightfully so. And especially >> and never mind the fact that the that the CIA went in when when when the government was on shutdown and pulled 40 boxes of documents out, you know, on MK Ultra and some other stuff uh from the DNI. Yeah, that story office raid.
>> Yeah, >> man.
Damn.
>> Yeah. I still can't believe about the 200k contract with who who verified that? I assume they went online and saw >> Yeah. Yeah. I can send you I can send it to you. Yep.
And uh listen here. One of the one of the purchases of of all things was for night vision goggles. Why in the would the United States military Yes. buy night vision goggles from Gary?
>> He's not a manu No, that's what I'm saying.
>> He doesn't manufacture them.
>> I would think that his inventory would be very limited compared to what the US military would need.
>> This doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.
>> No, I mean, so I'm wondering going to go down there.
>> Oh, it got my gears going, too. just because like you know I'm just thinking like so where would you originally even acquire these goggles for some kind of surplus or something it's like >> seems like a circular thing almost maybe to me like >> right right >> yeah yeah I mean some type of true military grade you know I mean they're not gener I don't think they're generally available to the public so >> I don't know >> I think kism is referring to the Thomas Massie thing here but they have the age 65 and up Fox News demographic on lockdown >> apparently. So, dude, wow.
>> Yep. For the most part.
>> And thank thank you, Virgo. I appreciate it. God bless always. Good to see you.
Hope life's treating you well.
>> Yes. Good to see you here.
>> Uh let's see.
>> Uh yeah, I'm hoping Massie runs for president to be quite honest. I mean, to be I mean, I don't know if I'm gonna get out to vote for anybody else to be >> I know. I know. up with it with y'all.
>> And you know what? Maybe that's the best thing that could have happened to him is losing that race.
>> I hope it motivates >> because if he stays in Congress, you know, he um you know, >> I think he's I think he's presidential material. I really do. I I think through and through. Um yeah, like a breath of fresh like I could, you know, I I agree with Massie on, but it doesn't even matter to me. Like I just like Massie.
You I trust that like >> whatever he does, he's sincere and that's the whole thing about it. that it's the best thing.
>> I might not, right? I might not 100% agree with it, but I feel like it's going to be in good faith.
>> I'll suffer through some stuff for a man who's got goodwill and doing what he thinks is right. You know what I mean?
>> Um, let's see.
>> Well, I'll probably get off here in a minute, y'all. It's 11 here. I need to >> Yeah, it's getting late.
>> I shot myself in the foot. I could have I could have got me almost another hour of uh >> what happened.
>> Oh yeah, >> just all the technical difficulties trying to get on here.
>> Yes, it's frustrating >> when you need it the most.
>> Yeah. I don't know what I don't know what it is, but um I don't know if I'm um every time I I'm on as a guest, it seems like there's some dumb problem.
And why I don't Well, I guess it is a different browser. See, normally I use um I think normally I use um actually I don't know. I think it is a different browser.
>> Oh yeah, Edge is what I normally use.
And >> Oh, okay.
>> Yeah, whenever I get the the email, it always opens up in Chrome. I need to remember to start opening it up in Edge instead of doing the default to Chrome.
Rick said it's 1 pm there. Yeah. You know he's in Australia, don't you?
>> Yeah. I tell you, I um was trying to get Rick a membership the other night. I was trying to get Rick a membership that way he could show up to our thing on Sunday, which I'm going to get him one this week. But um dude, I didn't realize like if you either buy or you you actually get um YouTube let you give out I think 10 free memberships a month. So I was like, "Okay, well I'll just give out free ones. Rick will get one." Yeah.
>> It doesn't let you pick. It just randomly.
>> They got to be random. Yeah. I remember hearing that.
>> We pick your biggest supporters and stuff. And I mean, nothing wrong with the people who got them. I'm blessed for them. But it's like, >> in all fairness, has been like one of the day one people here. Get one. We're going to work the system and get him a membership so that way he can come in on Sunday. Um, and then I'll get you one too, Adam, next time. Uh, >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> We get the uh But anyways, I was here looking at the comments. Look, I love y'all. I'm um I'm going to go grab a bite to eat and catch a catch a video and uh lay her down for the night. But I had a good time and it sounds like >> Yeah.
>> got a lot out of it. Uh I'm glad I'm I'm continuously catching up on these pleadings um and getting my feet back up under me with the court proceedings. So, moving forward, you know, a couple times a week, I'll be doing, you know, videos on that and then meeting with Adam. Uh, I think Baron's off all this week, so you know, maybe we meet up again Thursday and just let him do Friday this week or something if you want to.
>> Well, and if nothing else, I mean, um, I as far as I know, I know we may not have anything hammered out as far as topic and all that, but I'm assuming um, we're we're still planning on going live with Matt this uh, Friday night.
>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I'm good with that.
Yeah, I'm good with doing live streams on this channel pretty much any night, man. And I mean, with a with a day or so notice, yeah, we can definitely do that.
So, just um >> I'll contact you about Thursday and then yeah, we can do Friday. I can uh help generate some conversation stuff if I need to. Just let me know.
>> Yeah, sure thing.
>> Yeah, man.
>> Um yeah. Um definitely. I know everybody everybody loved that last time that we uh we all >> Yeah, it was good, man. I had a good time.
>> I always have a good time with Matt.
He's a good one.
>> I do, too.
>> I do, too. Uh yeah, y'all guys, make sure y'all make sure y'all subscribe.
Look, when I when I started, maybe the numbers gone down some, but when I started tonight, I think I lacked 38 to making it to my 500 and then uh some watch hours. So, >> how many watch hours do you lack?
>> 800, I think, was what it was roughly the last I saw.
>> Okay.
>> Out of 3,000.
>> Okay.
>> So, I'm getting there. I think I was at 461 462 something like that.
>> You get credit for this.
>> Uh yeah.
>> Okay. Good deal.
>> Well, any of them that are on my channel, I will.
>> Okay.
>> Well, okay. So, we'll switch back next time then. I I didn't realize that.
We'll uh we'll get you there. Yeah, we're going to get you there.
>> There's I've noticed that don't have the little paper clip on them.
>> So, uh as far as I know, those without that little paper clip are watching on my channel. Um, so you know, it is what it is. Um, but yeah, and y'all guys can always go back and replay replay crew, you know.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Yeah.
>> So, Yep. Um, all right. Well, anything else? Um, if you go to the description of my video, I got my three uh super chat links there.
>> No, cash out.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Support Adam. He's a he's a hardworking man like we all are.
Um, God bless y'all and thank y'all and Yeah. Go subscribe Adam Thomas podcast if you got enough bandwidth. Come back to the 500.
>> Uh we will be back.
>> Yep. Absolutely.
>> Cool. All right, guys. See you, dude.
All right, brother. Good. Much love, man. I'll see you soon. All right. All right, brother. Peace.
Videos Relacionados
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Monkton family worries husband who murdered wife could inherit all of her assets
WMAR2news
152 views•2026-06-02
Jury seated in the Frisco Track Meet stabbing trial — opening statements set for tomorrow
Wfaa8
343 views•2026-06-03
They Dismissed Every Black Juror in the Karmelo Anthony Trial — Every Single One
Tim_Black
406 views•2026-06-04
ترمب وأسواق المال الأميركية.. كيف أنعش "رأسمالية المطلعين"؟ - شرق غرب
AsharqBusiness
282 views•2026-06-04
How a Court Clerk Broke the Murdaugh Verdict: How Becky Hill Primed the Jury
GuiltyWords
192 views•2026-05-30
