Tyler Robinson's Hearing Was Supposed to Take an Hour. It Took 5 Days.

[00:00:09]Is there more to Charlie Kirk's death?

[00:00:12]Was it an assassination? Seems so. By one people, by more. And by whom? Tyler Robinson? Is he another Lee Harvey Oswald? Meaning what? Well, just part of something. Not everything.

[00:00:30]Is it as simple though as the text that we've seen? This was a confused, deranged, sick, whatever young man who acted on the increasing impulse in our society of expressing extreme politics through violence. Is that the explanation? Is that why this happened?

[00:00:51]Because Tyler Robinson didn't like what Charlie Kirk said? maybe what he thought Charlie Kirk was about and he thought he was defending something or protecting against something or fighting for something or fighting against something. And that's what this was. Summer's here. If you want to actually feel confident, less bloated, more energized, uh not just look like it on the outside, but feel it starts with your gut. I thought being bloated every day had just gotten like normal for me. It's not. Inflammation doesn't have to be there. Once I fixed my gut, everything changed. Digestion, skin, hair. The one thing that made the biggest difference, my opinion, cowboy colostrum. Why? It's just worked so well for so many for so long. If if if it's prepared the right way, cowboy colostrum works because it is the best, most pure version of colostrum that you can get sustainably and in a way uh that is ethically treated. All right. So, I saw, do I have hair in new places? No. But my hair is thick and I have maintained it.

[00:02:00]My inflammation has gone down. My gut has gotten better. I believe that when you start with the colostrum, you're starting in the right place and then everything else follows. Digestion, uh, dealing with that inflammation, skin clarity, all of it. Uh, Cowboy uh colostrum ran a clinical study. The numbers back it up. 83% of participants reported improved gut health. 79% experienced less bloating and inflammation. 72% had improved digestion. 62% even saw fuller, thicker hair. Today's sponsor is Cowboy Colostrum, and they offer the highest quality boine cow colostrum available in the US. 100% made in America, 100% from American grass-fed cows. Unlike other colostrum, cowboy is true first day whole colostrum rich in bioactives like immunog globbulins and growth factors. I mix it into my iced coffee every morning. It doesn't mix as well or act as well when mixed into something hot. I pack it when I travel. I throw it in smoothies. It's easy. I like the flavors. It works for me. I think it can work for you. Cowboy colostrum. Try it out. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order.

[00:03:12]Just head to cowboyc colostrum. That's c o l o s t ru m.comquomo.

[00:03:19]Use the code quuomo at checkout. That's 25% off when you use the code quuomo at cowboyc colostrum.com/quomo.

[00:03:27]Or no, that the crime scene doesn't make sense. That what was done to the crime scene doesn't make sense. That there was intrigue within Charlie Kirk's organization. that there was intrigue involving foreign governments and Charlie Kirk. It was the Jews, it was the gays.

[00:03:50]A lot of people have gotten a lot of clicks, a lot of cash advancing these ideas.

[00:03:57]How? Well, mostly through what is not known.

[00:04:02]Every once in a while, something comes up. the angle that the slug may have not have matched the weapon.

[00:04:10]Maybe there was another round found somewhere, a bullet found somewhere.

[00:04:15]Maybe the way the scene was tampered with. Maybe what else is known or assumed or believed.

[00:04:24]Now, ordinarily as a lawyer, as just a student of criminal investigation like many of us are, well, assumptions are not facts. Well, questions are not answers, right? And correlation is not causation. What does that mean? Well, just because somebody said, "I wish that Charlie Kirk was dead and then he dies," is there a correlation? Yeah, you said it and then the next day, week, whatever, it happened.

[00:05:05]But does that mean you caused it? No.

[00:05:09]And that is a very big distinction, but not on social media.

[00:05:13]It can make something very tempting.

[00:05:16]Well, Charlie had just said this about not backing this anymore, them anymore.

[00:05:22]And then and then it happened right after he said this. Charlie was afraid that somebody was going to come after him. Charlie's wife knew this guy who had this affiliation that is a group that may have wanted is all of this, right?

[00:05:39]It was the government. It was our government. It was another government.

[00:05:42]And a lot of it also plays on something else, right?

[00:05:45]our collective paranoia, our suspicions of institutions, our belief that there is usually something more up than what we are told. So what do we do in those instances? We work. We grind. That's what we do at Cuomo Crime Time. So that's what we're going to do. And with that introduction, I say to you, welcome to Cuomo Crime Time. I am Chris Cuomo and I am taking this case on in terms of what we know, what it means, what we don't know, and what it could mean.

[00:06:21]Okay, those are your categories.

[00:06:24]What we know, what it means. Facts, analysis. Then what we don't know, open questions. What needs to be shown and what it could mean? How big are the implications? Is there enough known? How much reasonable doubt remains?

[00:06:42]I couldn't ask for better people because this is about investigations and prosecutions. Right? They are different disciplines related of course but different. All right. So we need a lawyer and we need an investigator.

[00:06:58]I have both for you. Par excalance.

[00:07:02]Okay. We have Mark Iglar. Okay. He worked prosecution and now does defense.

[00:07:10]We have Mr. Jules Epstein. He is a wrongful conviction and an evidence expert. All right? So, he looks into when they make the case the wrong way and he understands how evidence is produced, aduced and also reduced within its materiality and its significance.

[00:07:34]I welcome you both and I thank you both.

[00:07:37]>> Thanks for having me, Chris. So, let's just start with the opening statements so as to speak. If I were arrogant enough to dain myself a judge of you and uh Mr. uh Mr. Igelarish and Mr. Epstein's prodigious abilities, which of course I am not. I'm here to learn from you two, not to judge either of you. But uh to start with an opening of where you feel this is based on what you know, I'll start with you Jules. Based on what you see in terms of the evidence that has come up, how the crime scene was handled, how things look as they've been produced, what is your initial suspicion?

[00:08:18]>> Initial suspicion is they probably have the right person. initial suspicion, and it's actually more than suspicion, is they certainly put on a case that under Utah law would let them go ahead to trial. And if I can get 10 seconds on that, >> oh, sure.

[00:08:38]>> What took five days there was what's called a preliminary hearing.

[00:08:42]>> And under Utah law, and this is true in lots of the states, a preliminary hearing does not ask, "Is this guy guilty?" Mhm.

[00:08:51]>> It asks, "Is there a modest probability, not even 50%, that a a crime was committed and b he may have done it?" Using that low threshold, they dotted the eyes and crossed the tees. Probable cause is what we call it. Although I usually think, switching over to Mr. by Larars for his initial take, his opening statement that probable cause I always thought was a little bit more than that. I that's like a that it was about 51%.

[00:09:25]Um but you're saying it's even less in your estimation. Of course, this isn't math. Um but you understand the methodology, Jules Mark, where are you on probable cause? Where are you on what you heard? And what must your opening also include?

[00:09:40]>> I am frustrated.

[00:09:42]I like a lot about this judge. I like that he listens to both sides. I like that he's careful. But the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that he is so cautious that he's delaying a ruling that should have been made already. Probable cause, these typically are resolved in an hour, two hours. The fact that it took five days is unheard of. The fact that he's making us wait would be tantamount to Okay, we've got this sign out there. It's octagon shaped. It's red. There's white also in it. And the letters are sop. All right, let me get back to you in a few months.

[00:10:22]I'll let you know what that sign is.

[00:10:25]It's obvious and candidly it's cruel and unusual to the victims and it's frustrating because it leads to people thinking that this is a close call and there's something to speculate about.

[00:10:37]It's not. It's a slam dunk. The evidence shows he did it and no one else.

[00:10:40]>> Points of push back. One, uh, this is unusual because usually this would be done by grand jury and we wouldn't see any of the process. It would be all about the prosecution and they would hand up an indictment or they would not.

[00:10:53]Uh, Utah, like a handful of other states, do it this way, which is much better for the defense because they get a shot at the evidence that they wouldn't have in a grand jury, obviously. Um, so that extends it a little bit, but is your point? Let's >> give you a push back on that.

[00:11:09]>> Go ahead.

[00:11:10]>> Just on that one thing. Go ahead.

[00:11:11]>> You are correct. However, we're talking about when probable cause hearings are conducted.

[00:11:18]>> Mhm.

[00:11:18]>> It doesn't take 5 days. They're not trials. It's way too long. Now, I understand it's to show the public, but those people who need to be shown that evidence, they're still not either watching or they're not listening and they don't give a [ __ ] It's their view that this guy is the wrong guy and there's something corrupt going on. So, really, what's the point? Why are we extending it five days? It shouldn't happen.

[00:11:44]>> So, let me jump in for one second.

[00:11:46]>> Yes. But Jules, let me you jump in. you jump in, but on this pivot point, which is, isn't it fair to argue the reason it's being extended is because the defense did what is in its right to do in a preliminary hearing in Utah, which is ask for it all to be briefed and the judge said fine, they'll brief it.

[00:12:04]>> I'm not sure there's very much to brief to be honest. And the defense got got a lot of rights, as Mark was saying, the right to cross-examine and actually to call their own witnesses. But Utah law is crystal clear. A judge is not supposed to make a credibility decision unless the case is total garbage. So the judge could hear all this and then say, and I agree with Mark, it's like, okay, got that. Here's the one twist.

[00:12:34]This is being presented as a possible capital case.

[00:12:39]And in Utah, it's not on and everywhere in the United States, merely committing murder does not make a death penalty eligible. There has to be something called an aggravating factor. The aggravating factor in this case, and this is a paraphrase, but it's um creating a great risk of death, let me finish, to others. So if I walk into a house and shoot one person 28 times, that aggravator is not present. If kids are in the house, it is. I suspect that one reason the prosecutor put on the dog and pony show beyond trying to show, you know, how thorough they are was to get to the place.

[00:13:29]>> My my friend, that could have been handled with one question. Okay. It doesn't take five days to establish that aggravator. Candidly, I mean, there's no exc there's no excuse for it. And I'll look to keep it fair and balance. I'll defend the judge for one second. In his mind, because it is a death case and it will be appealed, he wants to dot every eye, cross every tea, and when you're giving the defense time to brief it.

[00:13:52]Yes, I get it. But there comes a point where you have swung so far that it's absurd. That's where we are. So you saying he's got a little Judge Eido in him?

[00:14:04]>> I didn't say that, but others have said that. Yeah.

[00:14:06]>> So, and you can go Google what he was.

[00:14:09]Judge Eido was of course of OJ fame or infamy depending on how you uh want to see it. And the allegation was that he loved the attention and milked the process.

[00:14:19]>> I'm not saying that. I'm not I am not saying it.

[00:14:21]>> No, but you can I that is not my impression. I'll keep defending this judge. I like his demeanor. I actually said, "Wow, I really like this judge.

[00:14:29]I've been litigating for 34 years. If I had a judge who let me, you know, speak uninterrupted the way he did, boy, that would be just wonderful. I love all that about him. But at some point, it becomes taxing to everyone watching and an actual expense. Like, it costs a lot more money for them to do this over five days and keep having a circus there.

[00:14:50]It's just not necessary.

[00:14:52]>> Nobody cares about money in this particular trial, though. But though Jules, what does it mean for what the trial could be like? If this is what the preliminary hearing is, this is the easy part.

[00:15:02]>> So if the case is set as a capital case, in other words, if the judge approves holding it on this aggravated murder and then the prosecutor says, "We're giving formal notice, we are seeking death.

[00:15:18]It's going to take months and probably years to get to day one of the trial because beyond the need to contest all the evidence, whether that's even realistic, the entire separate task is the defense team has to try and save this guy's life. And that's its own trial and its own investigation.

[00:15:43]Mhm.

[00:15:43]>> Um, and they will need tons of money, tons of social work resources and psychological or psychiatric resources um to try and get one juror to say, "I'm not voting for death >> or do they milk the process, Mark, uh, to get the death penalty off the table and take a deal?"

[00:16:08]>> It's exactly what I was thinking. I've said from day one and again to minimize the hate mail. I'm not saying prosecutors should give him I just want to minimize it. I I'm not I'll get it.

[00:16:18]They called my office the other day four times. Um I'm not saying that prosecutors should give him life and wave the death penalty. I'm saying both parties should give serious consideration to exploring that resolution. Okay. But going back to this judge, your your guest makes a very enlightening point because this judge has that quality in him. And I would say it's not eidoesque. You can call it that. I'll call it just being wanting to be overly fair. He's not going to be one of those judges that I encounter who says, "Mr. Agelash, no more continuences. This is going to trial no matter what." He seems like someone who will let the defense do exactly what most defense lawyers do. Cases for the defense get better with age like wine.

[00:17:01]And every day that the prosecution is saying, "We want death. We still want death. We still want death. We're not waving death penalty." That's a day where you want to keep moving on, moving past until you can unlock it and get a prosecutor who will say otherwise. It took me five years on a recent death case to finally get the prosecutor to give my client life and the facts were 10 times worse than this case.

[00:17:23]>> Um, so you know what he also did? Not on purpose to um be like Mr. Ilar and defend the dignity of his honor. But he has given huge opportunity to conspiracy theorists because now what they are saying is this was so simple. Why was even the preliminary hearing so protracted because there's more here and the judge knows it that it's not as simple as they want you to believe. And uh look, you know, that is an absolute truth because I hear it in true crime uh circles and monitoring and preparing for how to deal with this uh a lot. So, let's look at what they put out there and whether it passes uh the smell test uh for Jules and the legal threshold uh for Mark. So Jules, the first one, and I think the most compelling, if there were a cintillaa of truth to it, is if this was as simple as what it was, then why did the Charlie Kirk guys and the TPUSA guys do all these weird things to the crime scene immediately after? Do we know that anybody did anything to this crime scene that should be seen as suspicious or unusual? So, I'm going to have to plead a little bit of ignorance there as to what was allegedly done at the crime scene. So, assuming somebody messed around, that's grist for the defense mill, right? Because anything that raises a question is quote reasonable doubt type argument. Um, the real question is, is there anything that tampered with the gun, the towel, the fired cartridge case? Um, as long as that is, my word pristine, >> right? That the um collection there was fine.

[00:19:29]Um, especially with this what's found in this guy's house, including that instrument, I forget the name of it, that allows you to like inscribe things on cartridge cases. Um, the the real concern here is the link to that gun and the link of the gun to the body. What about, because you're talking about the cartridge, what about the idea that uh this what they found in Charlie Kirk didn't match the rifling or the marks inside the weapon that they found.

[00:20:03]>> So, I didn't get that it did not match.

[00:20:06]I get Okay. When a bullet gets fired and goes into the body, it can fragment.

[00:20:14]>> Um, you know, if you're up close with a 22, it might not. the higher power and the greater distance and depending on what bones it hits. So, it's not that it did not match.

[00:20:28]It's that there's not enough left to say we can match it, but as best I could tell, there was nothing that would say it's inconsistent. In other words, one is metal and one is copper, you know, or something like that. There's no discord.

[00:20:47]There's just a shattered bullet.

[00:20:50]>> Okay, I'm with you on that one. And people can say whatever they want, but they are wrong because I've seen it dozens and dozens and dozens of times.

[00:20:58]Uh where exactly what you just said is the case, which is why Jules analogizes it that way is because this is fairly common. Okay? And it certainly didn't mean anything to any of the investigators or the judge. However, here is an interesting one that is true enough. Okay, I don't know why though, and that's why I'll bring you in on this, Mark, even though it's an evidence question. Um, after the event, Utah Valley University did make changes at the area where this happened. It had been all grass and it was dug up and covered with brick pavers. And this did happen. Reuters uh and other local uh you know types documented the work being done. So why was it done? There is no answer from Utah Valley about why it was done. But it was done and it is being used >> while you tampered with the scene. You were trying to cover it up because it was actually something else.

[00:22:06]>> There you go, Vald. You know what?

[00:22:08]Listen. Okay. All right.

[00:22:10]There are many non nefarious reasons why they changed the scene.

[00:22:18]There would be no reasons I can think of that they would benefit from changing grass to brick because somehow that will then mean that it shows that that this defendant did it to the exclusion of others. Like it makes no s. It's almost silly that we're but we have to discuss it because some knuckleheads are raising it. fishing emails. Not the kind I like with an F, a ph. They happen all the time. They're getting better and better.

[00:22:46]You got all different kinds of software and troll farms and AI and automated things coming at you. It's harder and harder to see it coming. And it's harder and harder to escape it. Once you make one wrong move, you click the link, enter your information, and suddenly you're done. They got you in a way that is very hard to undo unless you have Omniatch.

[00:23:11]Omniatch is a great counter measure.

[00:23:16]Scans Gmail and Outlook for fishing threats before you click. Offers 360°ree identity protection. Gives you access to US-based scam experts. If something does happen, restoration specialists are available 247 365 to help you recover.

[00:23:35]You're backed up by up to $100,000 in scam and ransomware coverage and up to $4 million in identity theft insurance. That's what Omni Watch is about. Don't wait until you're a victim.

[00:23:51]Click the link in the description. It's safe. or any of the pinned comments that you see to run a free dark web scan and see if your information has already been exposed. Click the link in my description and use the code quuomo and you'll get 50% off your first month with OmniWatch. Look, the threat is real.

[00:24:12]Omniatch is the way to deal with that threat.

[00:24:16]>> Well, usually you preserve a crime scene as for a while. Here it was just a few days. So let me stay with that right there are two entities or interests here. Uh the prosecution and sort of public interest is forget when they changed it until they changed it. Did they have enough video footage and forensic examinations to say, okay, I mean I'm here in my law school office with one of my students who I brought along because she did all the research for today. She's the one who gets the real credit for anything I say. Right?

[00:24:54]My office isn't real big. And so if my student decides, I'm tired of this professor and blows me away, right?

[00:25:02]They're going to come in and they're going to take the photos and do the measurements and then they're probably going to repaint the office. So the real issue is what was preserved prior to this makeover.

[00:25:16]>> Yeah. I have every reason to believe that crime scene went out and took photographs and preserved the area and then the fact that they change it or they move on could be for many reasons and it's not anything nefarious.

[00:25:28]>> Correlation is not causation. Right.

[00:25:31]>> But what about uh the other Lee Harvey analogy here which is that weapon, that distance, that angle, uh the way Charlie was hit, it doesn't add up. Is there anything to that analysis? I'll start with you Jules.

[00:25:46]>> So I haven't seen Okay. Bullet angles are you know bullet angles vary.

[00:25:54]>> You can bring the student in Jules if you want. This is a very open format.

[00:25:58][laughter] Now that I know that you're nothing but hair and teeth. Now that I know that you're nothing but a puppet for somebody else's agenda.

[00:26:05]>> A puppet. Now so here's the deal with bullet angles.

[00:26:09]Okay. Bullet angles depend on a couple of things. the relative height of the shooter to the victim. And in the second before the shot hits, did the victim move? Okay. If I'm standing up and I get shot here, it should come out at the same place in my back. As soon as I lean forward, it's going to come out lower on my back.

[00:26:36]So there's no magic that says it's from what I've read that from where the shooter was alleged to have been to where Mr. Kirk is that that angle is at all impossible.

[00:26:53]>> Yeah, good points. And let me add to whoever's coming up with this stupid theory. So let me guess. So that so what they're saying is there's another shooter. It wasn't Tyler Robinson.

[00:27:04]Another shooter, even though the DNA ties Tyler Robinson to that particular gun in that particular location. Another shooter, not Tyler Robinson. Oh, yeah.

[00:27:16]Did that shooter write? I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. Oh, no. That was Tyler Robinson. The DNA matches him. Gun area.

[00:27:27]Boom. Boom. Yeah. I I don't I don't I'm not buying it.

[00:27:29]>> But what if he's not alone? And boy, this is of course it's so obvious.

[00:27:34]That's what you do when you're covering something up is that I lead you. I lead you like the simpleton that you're being here. I gush and you just jump on that one text which I gave you to distract from this much bigger conspiracy.

[00:27:48]>> You're right. Where was Carrot Top during the shooting? I mean, you know what I'm saying? Gloria Stefan, where was she? Anything is possible. So I think we're asking also the different question now which is what's the evidence against Tyler versus which is an independent issue was Tyler flying solo right none of that has to do or very little has to do with Tyler guilt non-guilt culpability nonulpability whether I do it because Mark you've already heard that I'm a puppet.

[00:28:26][laughter] Okay. So, if Elizabeth makes me do the shooting, I'm still the shooter, >> right?

[00:28:34]>> Um there's no question uh about that.

[00:28:37]But again, you know, and look, on one level, uh this is social media, the streaming, it has hatched in a cottage industry here. Uh and it's one of the reasons that I got into it is to kind of try to put some guard rails on this, try to put some reasonable uh in uh this.

[00:28:55]Why? Well, I'm not sure why. And here's the question, and it's a little bit of a departure, but it's an important conversation.

[00:29:03]Really, none of this matters except what happens in the courtroom. And if it wasn't for idiots in the media like me asking for access and cameras in the courtroom, um really none of this matters because it'll all just happen in the courtroom and the people out there can think what they want and you have your conspiracies and we're not going to show you any of the proof and we're not going to do anything until after the trial. and that's how it is and nobody's talking and nobody's going to explain it. That would be fine. But that's not how it works these days. And it does seem that what happens in the court of public opinion does matter.

[00:29:35]>> You're right. You're right. And it scares it scares me because when I first read I remember where I was when when I don't know John Lennon was shot. I remember you know where I was when obviously at the hospital when my first son was born. But I also remember the first time that I read somebody saying that it was okay that Luigi Manion shot and killed an executive because of how that executive was treating other people. And I thought there's one fringe nut job out there. I've been floored by how many people share that belief.

[00:30:07]Similarly, when people are starting to believe these conspiracy theories, these are the ones who are selected to go in and serve on jury duty. And there's no such thing as the mainstream media and and and everything else is just to be, you know, ignored. No, it's all blended together. So people say, "I heard this.

[00:30:27]I heard that." It all becomes fact to them. And then they're asked a few symbolic questions in court because we rarely get enough jury selection time.

[00:30:36]And people present to you what they want to present to you, leaving out all the other stuff that they heard. And then, oh my goodness, you got stealth jurors.

[00:30:44]That does scare me, Chris.

[00:30:46]Um, Jules, you've been doing this a minute.

[00:30:51]I thought that this died with Rush Limbbo. I was wrong. Then I thought it died when Alex Jones was exposed by his own attorney in a custody hearing when he said, "My client plays a character. What he says is not what he means. It is an act." And I was like, "All right, now they'll get it. Now they get the Sandy Hook [ __ ] Now they get it all. That'll be it." I was wrong.

[00:31:20]And now we have Candace Owens who is doing the same kind of thing. And it is working every bit as well as it ever has. Is that because the rate of disrespect for the institutions and for anything approximating power is stronger than people realizing that there are those feeding their phobias?

[00:31:50]>> So now you're going into my extremely non-expert area of what the hell is wrong in this?

[00:31:56]>> I already know somebody's feeding you information. So really I'm just asking you as a guy who's done this for a long time what your sense is of the culture around it.

[00:32:04]>> So what my sense of the culture around it is exactly what you said that there is no common ground for what is a source that we can all reasonably rely on. Mhm.

[00:32:19]>> And obviously there are people who, this is a mixed metaphor, fan those flames because it's good for them financially or politically or whatever. Um, in this case, if we bring it back to this for a second, Chris, um, it it's going to be an interesting problem for both sides.

[00:32:38]So, right, um, what was said a moment ago about the the limited inquiry, what's called vardier, the jury selection. Um, I suspect that there's going to be a demand for jury questionnaires. Um, really wide open jury selection here. Um, and the prosecutor is going to want it as much as the defense >> because everything you're talking about, Chris, I think in yours to the benefit of the defense. Um, on the other hand to, right, if I'm trying to defend someone who killed Charlie Kirk in Utah, my client is not the most popular, nor is his cause, right? So, the ability to get any fair jury is always tough.

[00:33:28]um the ability to get it here.

[00:33:32]adding to it that the only people who can sit on the jury are people who favor the death penalty. It's going to be a really hard task to get 12 people who can say maybe I've heard some stuff but I can put it away which is a a really hard task cognitively and I can start from scratch and say let me look at this objectively and I won't judge this by anything except what is in the courtroom not some rumor or not some political free screed or something like that.

[00:34:12]>> I I I got No, no, no, no, not at all.

[00:34:14]I'm happy for it. Uh I like complete thoughts. It's one of the best values of podcasts, right?

[00:34:19]>> Um you know, Mark, here's something that's easy to slap away, but it is very much in play. And it is that Yeah, who cares if they're really fair? The guy obviously did it. And uh if that's overwhelming to them before they even get in there, yeah, that's how it is.

[00:34:37]That's what happens when you admit to something like Manion, you know, when they get you and you wrote a manifesto about why you were doing this and then they catch you doing it with the manifesto and then you have the weapon.

[00:34:47]That's it. You know, I don't care if you come into it with a bias because it doesn't matter. It's an openand-shut case.

[00:34:53]Why is that on one level that's very satisfying for me to say that? That feels righteous and yet uh all the training, all the years make me feel that that is really frightening thing to give into.

[00:35:06]>> Correct. And it seems like we are giving into it.

[00:35:08]>> No, we we cannot. It's a challenge for all of us.

[00:35:12]>> Why can't we give into it?

[00:35:13]>> Because when we lower the burden of proof for Casey Anthony, for OJ, for whoever the hell else you think did it, and I happen to believe that Tyler Robinson did it, when we lower the burden of proof for him, it affects us all. Picture your precious offspring being arrested for something. Now, the burden of proof is lowered, right? in certain instances because we we think that they wrote some confession, right?

[00:35:38]We don't know that. That's the alleged confession. Did the officer write it?

[00:35:42]Did he write it? That has to be proven, right? So, all of it has to be proven.

[00:35:47]Now, we're not in a court of law. We're in the court of public opinion. So, I'm free to have whatever thoughts that I want. We just want the jurors to come in there holding the government or the state if it's a state case to the b highest burden under the law and presume or believe that he's innocent and as long as it works we're cool but yeah we cannot give in to those urges where we go well screw it because there have been people dupacross those guys were thrown under the bus many believed erroneously in what Nancy [clears throat] Grace was spewing these guys were guilty as hell and they weren't they were innocent >> now May I real quick?

[00:36:22]>> Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. Please don't.

[00:36:24]>> There are two other things. One is there's did he do it?

[00:36:29]>> That seems a relatively crystal clear thing.

[00:36:33]>> And then we get into layers of crimes.

[00:36:36]Was it first-degree murder? Was it aggravated first-degree murder where we're talking about can we figure out his mental state?

[00:36:44]>> So there's it's not guilty or not guilty. It's >> Yes. And to Jules's point, then we go to, okay, well, does he deserve death?

[00:36:53]That's a whole another layer because death is different. The Supreme Court has ruled. Is this the type of case that warrants a death penalty? And let me tell you something, people can kneejerk and say, "Yes." Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I've seen jurors on slam dunk cases say, "You know what? I think life is more appropriate." And you're going, "Oh my god, so now the prosecution's a failure." No, it's it's reasonably foreseeable. You got to have all 12 saying he should die. And you know what? I don't know that that's an easy task, >> especially where his widow, >> right?

[00:37:29]>> And I I I'm not a fan of Mr. Kirk's beliefs, but I'm incredibly admiring of his widow saying, "I forgive him." Well, she has said with respect to the death penalty and again she has every right to shifts in her emotions um as she processes uh this you know blindsiding of her reality right and her future and everything else. These are young people that we're talking about. Anyway, um I don't want it on my ledger. She said uh I don't want to have to own the decision of whether or not he dies. Um, now what's interesting as a side note is that that has been weaponized. Oh, she doesn't want him to die because that was the deal. And although I don't know how anybody was going to make a deal where they're going to go away forever uh for this when they're a young person like it really matters. They're basically dead anyway. But it doesn't make sense, but it is out there and that is what she has said about it. one step sideways to make Ilar's point and as a pat on my own back, the Duke Lacrosse case, Nifong was the prosecutor. People couldn't believe that he would just be lying to your face about what had happened. And then he gets asked, "Hey, did you bring the boys in before?" And he said, "Well, some yeah, some came in." minute. Then I get a call from a parent who says they didn't just go in. They were all told to come in. They were all told not to call their parents, not to call anybody. And when they came in, they were told they had to take their shirts off and turn around because they had been told that the woman had scratched them up and the boys wanted to clear themselves. So they did it. And when that was put to Nifong's office, they refused to comment and we started to get suspicious. And then the kind of moment that only happens when you're actually doing the job. I'm sitting in a taxi cab in Raleigh, Durham, working for ABC News, and the cab driver hears me having a conversation about the timeline and how long they were there.

[00:39:37]And then this guy left, and this guy went to get a hamburger, and you know, who rapes a woman? and then goes and gets a hamburger. What does that say about what kind of kid this is? And he turns around and he says, "That's not when he went home."

[00:39:51]And I said, "Excuse me?" And he says, "That's not when that that's not when that guy went there. I took him." And I [laughter] said, "Wait, what do you mean you took him?" He's like, "I remember. I remember. I know. I remember who this kid is. I've been following what's going on. I took him." And I'm telling you, it was like an hour and a half earlier than that. Hm.

[00:40:10]>> And I was like, "Wait, what do you mean it was an hour?" He's like, "I'm telling you, I remember, you know, and he was right. He got us the I don't even know if they still do it anymore, but they used to have like a book where they wrote down all their all their fairs, uh, called a hack list, and there it was and what time he picked them up and what time he dropped them off. It changed the time frame significantly in a way that made Crystal Mangum, who was the main complaintant, her story not make sense and a huge gap in ours that she had to account for. And of course, Nifong was lying. She had manufactured the story. Whether it was with or without his assistance is uh, you know, up for debate. and they had it wrong and he had it wrong for political reasons. Now, that was the right outcome. But what did that do? Fuel that there's always something else going on.

[00:41:09]You can't believe the system. You can't believe them. And uh I hear about it all the time. That case gets thrown in my face all the time. So, back to the nuts and bolts, which is where if you really care and you're a critical thinker, that's where you live on these. Not, "Wow, Candace Owens really hates Erica Kirk." Who cares? You know, on one level, you got to give it to Candace.

[00:41:31]She's getting those clicks. You guys have made her million, at least hundreds of thousands of dollars at least on this. Bravo to you because let me tell you, nothing she's saying is gonna pan out and she can explain it any way she wants, but she's on about the same footing as she is that Mcronone's wife is a man. Okay, that that's about how sure her footing is. When you look at what we know and what you would need to know, Jules, the idea that looking at this setup, it had to involve somebody else. He could never have done this on his own. What is your professional assessment about there's anything about what we know to this point that is suggestive that this was a lot for him to pull off?

[00:42:17]>> Um, I I'm going to have to beg off on that one a little bit. I will simply say it's amazing. I I started trying homicides in 1993, so you're right. I'm been around for a long time. Um it is amazing and sad what an individual can put together and do. Um especially when people have done it before, right? This wasn't the most original and I'm not trying to minimize the horror. It's not like this was a super creative super anything. This was a sniper thing. Um and there are movies about snipers. Now, does that mean he didn't have a an echo chamber, you know, some sort of system that was reinforcing his beliefs?

[00:43:11]That's sadly the case often today.

[00:43:15]>> I'll tell you what, the roommate, the roommate doesn't help their conspiracy theory, I got to tell you. Now, I will say this, the roommate Mark, uh the boyfriend, the roommate, the girlfriend, whatever, whatever you want to call them, um uh the testimony or whatever the statement that, uh they recorded wasn't as compelling as I thought it may be, but it definitely checked all the boxes. Uh there was no mention of anyone else.

[00:43:42]There was no mention of anything else in terms of why this happened. And the one thing that was in there uh that I think is very helpful uh for the defense is he was immediately upset and regretted having done it, says this person. Now, we don't know if they're just trying to help him out because they care about him. We don't know. But um when you look at it and the video that they have already and the texts already, um what is the chance in your mind that this was part of a larger plot and he was just one piece as opposed to a guy who walked in because the security was lax with a gun down his pant leg.

[00:44:21]>> Look, I'll start off with anything is possible, right? But I'm following the evidence. I see no evidence other than what supports the state's theory. I agree with you that the roommate is not Martin Luther King. You know, he doesn't speak, you know, as eloquently as that.

[00:44:39]And if it was just him saying Charlie, not Charlie, Tyler admitted to me X, Y, and Z, I'd be like, you know, they're going to be able to rip him a new one um fairly easily. But what he's saying is corroborated by what's written down. You know, you'd have to believe that a law enforcement officer somehow put down the words. For example, I wish we could have lived in a world where this did not feel necessary. I lack the words to express how much I love you and how very much you mean to me. Please try and find joy in this life. I love you always. I mean, look, to the to the theorist's point, you go through great lengths, Tyler Robinson does, to prevent him from being identified and then knowing that they're going to find all this, what, you just throw it out there. That's probably the best point that they've got. And the truth of the matter is, who knows why he did it? You know, who knows? People do stupid stuff, which is why motive never has to be proven in a homicide case because people do stupid stuff.

[00:45:36]>> But a jury always wants to hear it.

[00:45:38]>> Sure they do. And if prosecutors got it, then you put it out there as potential theories. Why not?

[00:45:44]>> They don't have to.

[00:45:46]>> Um, I think that what is interesting is to your point, Jules, the is the opposite of your point, uh, what we used to call the contraositive. Uh, which is people can do really sophisticated, horrible things all on their own when they're not, um, sophisticated genius types. Also um the reverse point is that when something involves multiple people there's usually a signature that of that as well. There are communications, there are meetings, uh there you know there there is coordination uh you know and sometimes you actually get lucky enough that there are visuals you know of other people. We don't have any of that here yet. They are very good at investigating digital footprint. Um, and what is the likelihood that if he was talking to people about this, even if he was trying to hide those communications, they're going to find them?

[00:46:43]The way people can unravel or get inside of social media today is amazing and scary. And let me add one other thing, and I think I'm right, Mark. Please tell me if this is crazy sounding or you, Chris.

[00:47:01]Given the politics of today and the FBI jumping in, they would love to have this be a greater conspiracy, right? What would feed into the Cash Patel view of the world more than and we've got it going right now where the Secretary of State is trying to get a meeting of nations to deal with left-wing terrorism, right? They would love a conspiracy here. It would only further their agenda. So, the fact that they haven't come up with the cintillaa, at least to my worldview, >> right? makes some sense there that if it was there, they had no reason to deep sex it.

[00:47:42]>> I can I can't speak to the politics of it, but I don't think it helps their position legally. You want to keep it as simple as possible. You got one guy. He did all this. He's capable of doing it.

[00:47:53]We see him on the video. That's him. All the stuff matches. It's simple. Open and shut. That's it.

[00:47:59]>> Right?

[00:48:00]>> Anything more than that gives the defense something to play with. Maybe there were other people involved and and the jurors start to erroneously think, well, that matters. If there's other people involved, why is he the only one here? And maybe they did something and all of a sudden it turns into something more.

[00:48:13]>> I think the reason I think the most convenient one that I actually haven't seen anywhere yet and I am not advancing it. I don't believe it. But I guess the reason I haven't seen it is that it doesn't really advance any of the agendas that are at play in terms of playing on people's phobias and paranoia and suspicions and animus is it was the roommate. The roommate engineered this.

[00:48:36]The roommate is the LGBTQ plus person.

[00:48:38]This guy is her psy, his psy, their psy.

[00:48:42]And they put him up to it. And those texts are exactly the way they wanted them to be because that's how they massaged it in the uh world of fiction.

[00:48:51]that's the most likely alternative universe uh is that that's the guy who wanted it done. That's the person who hated Charlie Kirk. That's the person who wanted to use this useful idiot to take the fall for their own agenda. But there is absolutely no proof of that Jules and Mark. But that's you want to play. That's what they should be playing with as opposed to it was Erica Kirk.

[00:49:14]>> But it's no play. It's no play because he still took the gun, right? It's not like he was drugged. It's not like he was hypnotized. If someone plays on my emotions and and gets my head in that place, the law doesn't absolve me because my lover used their lover whiles if that's such a right to get me to my head to a certain place. But you could prosecute somebody who did that.

[00:49:46]>> You could separately, right? It's a lot harder. You'd have to show that they weren't just playing on the emotions, but really had in mind the intent that Tyler would then go out and kill.

[00:50:01]any of that background stuff if anywhere again at the death penalty phase or death penalty trial might be interesting when we're trying to say okay Tyler the jury's found you guilty what drove you to this is there anything that would take away from your being deathworthy >> uh what do you think about that Jules do you think that if you were at the bench uh you were at the you uh could get this to not be a death penalty case.

[00:50:35]>> Well, okay.

[00:50:38]Would that I were so good that I could predict my own success. All right. There are two parts of that question. One is could I convince the prosecutor to not proceed?

[00:50:49]That would take a ton of work. And [clears throat] frankly at some point and this happens in the world my or someone on my behalf going to talk to the Kirk family.

[00:51:03]And in a weird way I think this prolonged preliminary hearing may have been also important for them in the sense they got this out, they got to see it and they also know how painful a trial will be. That's part one. Part two, suppose no. It goes to a jury. The jury comes back aggravated murder.

[00:51:31]The answer is maybe. And it it's a crapshoot. And the reason I say that is number one, it depends on who those 12 jurors are and how relatively hard or soft they are on capital punishment. And number two, what other information we can dig up about Tyler and this is what's in right in death penalty world. I know Mark is an expert in this. This is what's called mitigation. And mitigation has two things. One is find all the horrible things that happened to Tyler that left him susceptible to being in this position. And then number two, if you can find one or two redeeming things about Tyler and we know especially in recent years that in incredibly tragic and there's no murder that's not tragic, but think of the Parkland case, okay, multiple students, I think it was 17 deaths and a lot of other people injured. Three of the jurors or two or three voted for life and that was enough to do it. And and and boy do I know because I had the next trial concerning the March Stoman Douglas. I represented Scott Peterson, not the one who killed his wife, but the alleged coward of Broward and all the families were there and they didn't get justice in the first case because he got life. So now they wanted Scott Peterson, my client, to pay for not going in and killing the killer when candidly they had no idea. He didn't really know where the shooter was located and jurors found him not guilty on all 11 count.

[00:53:06]>> What role does it play? uh and how much of a role that this is a young stupid kid who if they were to put him on the stand, which they probably won't, um would come across as someone who wasn't an evil guy with an agenda, but a mixed up idiot with misplaced uh senses of uh of righteousness. Um one, is there any chance they put him on the stand? And two, without him being on the stand, what role does his youth and really not being connected to anything other than his own stupidity as an agenda uh play a factor in whether or not they want his blood on their ledger as jurors?

[00:53:46]>> It should all be considered. We don't know what weight, if any, the jurors individually will give. Nobody knows that. That's very personal. But the fact that he is young, the fact that he lacks prior, uh, again, I could already hear the hate mail, like I'm advocating for life, but they're going to make the arguments that while the outcome, we all saw that video was horrific, the act itself, the pulling the trigger, one shot, can can that be plausibly analogized to some of the other cases that you go, my goodness, that is absolutely abharren and horrific. And some would say yes and that's fine. But this will be a consideration for jurors.

[00:54:29]You know, you you hear about some cases where people are getting death and then again are those facts plausibly analogized to the facts in this case and does this case warrant the death penalty? And it's a very personal decision >> and we don't know yet. You know, I got to tell you, watching this guy, and I'll call him guy, you I I make a mistake very often, which you guys uh will be sensitive to, which is I call these people kids a lot because when you're in your early 20s uh like that, to me, you are a kid. I've got a kid who's that age and having been that age and now raising them that age, >> they're still there ain't me. Okay? They ain't a 40-year-old, okay? Okay. I mean, you could be a stupid 40-year-old, but um they're not fully formed, and I'm not making any excuses. I'm explaining um the fragility of human development, but you know, and I get beat up for that.

[00:55:22]But this guy, when I watched him at the hearing, he is not registering the kind of emotional attachment to reality um that he should be. Uh he's sitting in there kind of passive, making his notes, handing it to them. you may die for this. Like there's a decent chance in Utah um they're going to kill you and they're definitely going to hook you.

[00:55:47]Your life is definitely over and you are not showing it. And I wonder if that is a nod that there may be another chapter of this story that uh they plead diminished capacity, they plead disease mind, they plead um you know NGRI that there's something else to come on that or would we know already, Mark, because they would have done the testing on them already?

[00:56:08]>> No, we're still early on. They're free to put forward any defense. This judge is going to give this case four to five years if the defense wants it. It's going to take a lot to work up the second component, the death portion of this, to find people he's ever said, "God bless you," to, anybody he's ever, you know, helped cross the street. You know, anything you can throw out there to save his life, that's what they're going to do.

[00:56:30]>> I hate to say this, but that passivity can actually also boomerang.

[00:56:36]I mean, obviously we're going to need people to explain it, but sometimes jurors see a guy sitting there like a lump of something and say, "He doesn't give a fill in the blank. Let's kill him." I mean, this is what's bizarre, >> especially when you're dealing with young people and I mine were my clients were usually 18, right? Um, so there are so many problems there. Um, the real question is who's going to be able to paint that picture? And this is a weird thing in death penalty litigation.

[00:57:11]This is the one time the defense is trying to fragment the jury. We don't want unonymity. We want them fighting one another. We want jurors who don't get along because we're holding for that one person or two people who say, "I I'm not voting death." Chris, one other reason for his demeanor in court may be he already accepted his fate. In writing to his roommate, he wrote, "I'm either going to be dead or facing a lengthy prison sentence." Um, expressing regret while he why he couldn't return home, telling his partner. So, he already knew, look, I'm either going to die or I'm going to prison for a long long long time. Um, so he already knew. He knew.

[00:57:53]He knew that. So, this is not a surprise. This is, okay, whatever. Let's have fun. Let's you know whatever I got to go through this okay whatever >> um what is the your read now this is you know is this forensic analysis legal analysis no but there's a lot of psychology and and uh sociology involved uh with prosecutions uh and so the family got him to turn himself in and that's always an interesting dynamic uh to me about what that says about how they see this young man that they reached out to him. They were suspicious it was him. They were desperate to find him and to get him to turn himself in. What does that tell you, Jules?

[00:58:40]>> Um it it's susceptible to a few meanings. One is if we don't turn him in, he'll get shot and killed, right?

[00:58:49]So, it's actually a very healthy thing as a parent to say, "I want to control the surrender process."

[00:58:56]And I'm not saying police would deliberately do anything wrong, but we all know things can explode in a second.

[00:59:02]Uh, the other thing is, um, it seems arguably say that the family has some decent moral grounding >> and they don't see him as an evil monster who needs to go away, right?

[00:59:17]because you don't make as much of an effort in those situations. Family still family, but if somebody's a really bad guy, I don't know that you show the kind of desperation they did here. And what does it tell you, Mark, that he goes along with that, that he didn't want to do death by cop? He didn't have another caper in mind. Um, you know, he didn't have to run away after the shooting either. He obviously wanted to get away with it. U, right. Or did he? Like, what does it tell you? It it tells me that I've got something to use to try to save his life. I bootstrapped that with he turned himself in. He didn't, you know, have some guns ablazing and go on the run. He accepted responsibility, told his his roommate/lover that he regrets it right away. It was impulsive. He wished he didn't do it.

[01:00:07]Yes, you concede it's abhorrent what he did. Yes, it's wrong. And yes, he should never get out of prison for the rest of his life and he's not going to have an easy go of it in prison. That's where it should end. He shouldn't then get the death penalty. So, I think those are good facts to help him. Maybe at one juror goes, you know what, he did turn himself in. Yes, he did realize he had done wrong and even cried about it.

[01:00:29]Okay, that might be the one thing that gets the to unlock that little safe with one of the jurors.

[01:00:35]>> And oh, I'm sorry. Well, the studies of capital jurors, right? This is an area that's actually been studied.

[01:00:43]Remorse is one of, if not the most important factor when a juror is deciding, do I vote death or do I vote life?

[01:00:53]>> Um I Yeah, look, I I wish the judge hadn't delayed this until September.

[01:00:59]Um and I Yes, justice uh delayed is justice denied if you have somebody sitting in in jail who doesn't deserve it, right? which can be a very nasty place. Um, but I don't think that's the case in this case. Um, if you had to go to trial today with what we know, including what the judge wouldn't let everybody see, but was used in court.

[01:01:25]Uh, do you think this pro what is the likelihood this prosecution succeeds, Mark?

[01:01:31]uh 99.9999% if we're defining winning by getting a guilty as charge. I'm not so sure. The odds go down because again I I know I've said it over and over again because death is different and all it takes is one juror. I'm not convinced even that it's Utah, even that they're death qualified like Jules pointed out because these are death qualified jurors. These are people who said, "Oh, I can give the death penalty under the right circumstances." That immediately gets rid of the the flag waving liberals who who might, you know, spare his life regardless of the circumstances. They're gone. These people are like, "Under the right circumstances, I could kill that guy over there." And those folks are going to be tough. But again, all it takes is one. So, the odds I would go down to maybe 75% um that the prosecution would be successful um because all it takes is one.

[01:02:25]>> What do you think, Jules?

[01:02:28]>> Based on everything we've seen now, and I looked at the cross-examination of the experts, yes, there's a minute chance it's someone else's DNA. Yes, there's a minute chance of something.

[01:02:42]Those don't add up a lot.

[01:02:45]Um, I think that, okay, I have to back up. There could be a fight at the phase one. Are you guilty or not guilty? again on that degree is it murder or is it aggravated murder with the ingredient that in his mind at that moment he knew I'm not just shooting Charlie Kirk I am creating a grave risk >> that others could be injured because that could be a place where the fight is fought and then that actually has advantages in the penalty hearing because you're not saying I didn't do it. You're just saying please, it's it's really close on this one issue. And the jurors sometimes feel, you know what, we got our pound of flesh when we voted guilty.

[01:03:42]Maybe we can give the break on the penalty. So, I think I'm with Mark on the numbers.

[01:03:47]>> I like what Jules say. They'll throw in this one other possibility. You actually have to have this discussion with your client. Look, the evidence is overwhelming. And since, like uh expert Jules just said, jurors spare lives when people accept responsibility, what about doing what they did in the Parkland case? Say that I'm guilty, avoid the entire guilt phase, and just have a penalty phase. And jurors will know that he plead guilty. He spared them a lengthy trial. He accepted responsibility to the roommate. He's accepting responsibility now. He just deserves life. So there may be something to consider there where he just accepts responsibility, he pleads guilty and then just goes to the penalty phase because otherwise you're really insulting them. Um what are you going to really argue with a straight face? So it may help you in the penalty phase. You know, Utah has a reputation of being a harsh place when it comes to criminal justice because they have the option of a firing squad uh there, which people see as brutal. Um, by the way, I don't uh if I had to get killed, there's and yes, I've probably thought about this too much, but I definitely would not go by lethal injection. I would much rather get shot in the head personally uh because every time I mean maybe it's my experience of just being around gunfire you you never even hear it uh before you see it right because uh sight uh light moves faster than sound but it happens before you even know what happened so I don't see that as a spe as a as a savage as a brutal as a primitive thing but people do but when you look at the numbers Utah is not a killing machine when it comes to how their juries resolve capital cases. There are a lot more capital cases or convictions of aggravated murder where you have they do not give the death penalty. I think they I think it's only happened like a couple dozen times since 197 something. Have they uh gone with the death penalty even in a capital case? Obviously, it had to be a capital case. But there really is something here that just because you have a case doesn't mean a Utah jury is going to kill you, >> right? I bet the ones where you where they impose death, you start looking at multiple victims, child, you know, rape, child murder, torture. And I'm not, again, I'm not suggesting that what he did wasn't bad and abhorrent. We're just comparing the cases where people did get death versus life because murder is wrong and murder in and of itself is bad and horrible. We got that. But what makes this so abhorrent? That's a personal question for the jurors.

[01:06:35]>> And how many times did he shoot?

[01:06:39]>> Right. I mean, right. I mean, >> how do you make these arguments and not have people go again? I don't give a [ __ ] about the hate mail. But how do you not get people going, "Oh, you're minimizing it. You're just saying you only shot once, so it's not that big of a deal." That's what people are going to do. Well, no.

[01:06:55]Within the specific within the specific context of arguing the aggravating factor, which is there were other people there. What is the mitigator of the aggravator? The mitigator of the aggravator, Jules, is >> how can you say he wanted to kill a lot of people? He only fired once.

[01:07:14]And apparently with I hate to use the word skill here because this is all abhorrent to me, but with the capacity to aim at a particular individual >> to be distinguished from the fool who spray paints like the guy in Vegas, right? There you go.

[01:07:34]>> Like the guy like the Vegas shooter who they never who they never really figured out by the way. Um which is why you have your conspiracies. And I'll tell you what mistake I'm not making to Ish's point about the hate mail. And look these days, here's what's sad. You want to hear another sad thing? It doesn't really matter if you hate Mark or if you love him or if you hate me more reasonably or lovely.

[01:07:58]>> It does. It doesn't really matter. It's all attention. It's Everybody hates you.

[01:08:01]Please.

[01:08:02]>> It's an attention economy. It's [laughter] an It's an attention economy.

[01:08:05]It's all the same.

[01:08:06]>> It's all the same. If you click on cuz you're like, I hate this guy.

[01:08:09]>> It's a click. A click is a click is a click. Our preference structure has been shot to [ __ ] pun intended. The mistake I'm not making is the Bill Maher mistake, >> which was, and I'm a big fan of his and a friend.

[01:08:22]>> Um, he said after 9/11, look, these guys, you can call them whatever you want.

[01:08:28]They're terrible people. They're not cowards. Uh, you know, they flew and killed themselves in a building. He I understand what he meant, but he's wrong. They are cowards because taking life because you're going to take your own is not a brave action. It's a stupid action but it's not a brave action. A brave action courage is where you put yourself into a situation where you're afraid but you want to try to overcome it anyway.

[01:08:59]That's not what they were doing. That's not what a suicide bomber does. A suicide bomber knows they're going to die. There is a cowardice involved in that as far as I'm concerned because bravery is this is really dangerous.

[01:09:11]This is go really bad. I may not make it out of there, but I'm going to do it anyway and try to survive. That that's not what they were. That's a mistake is to paint an act of cowardice as some kind of uh courage or strength or toughness. Uh that's not what I'm I'm doing here. I'm saying that in the law it's not that it wasn't that bad that he did it. It can't get any worse. I mean, if he had shot 10 people that day, it wouldn't be it would be worse for those families. But in terms of how heinous a crime it is, I mean, it's it's tough to get much worse than this. And yes, if you could show that he went there and he shot and he tried to kill a lot more people, there is a better chance that he gets the death penalty. And the fact that he shot once is mitigation of that aggravating factor because it just it just doesn't meet. Is there an aggravating factor, Jules, that you did it because of his beliefs, that you did it because of his politics, that you did it, you know, on that level?

[01:10:10]>> Not in the list of factors in the Utah statute. And that would also create all sorts of first amendment problems arguably.

[01:10:21]>> Um, that will Okay, Utah does this though. So Utah has its list of aggravating factors and some states say prosecutor that's all you can do. Utah says once you've proved at least one of the listed factors you may also introduce what are called non-stutory non-listed. I still think the belief thing runs into some first amendment problems that's been litigated a little bit around the United States. I think a smart prosecutor wouldn't argue it.

[01:10:56]>> It would just be out there. It's what's called the atmospherics of this case.

[01:11:00]You don't have to say it. And Mark's nodding his head and he's prosecuted cases, right? There are sometimes you don't have to say it and you don't want to say it because it creates a legal problem, but darn it's in the water.

[01:11:12]>> Jules is right. If this wasn't Charlie Kirk, let's say his name was Charlie Jones. and he's some random dude and Tyler Robinson just wanted to shoot someone cuz he wanted to see what it felt like or he didn't like what this random guy has been saying but it wasn't Charlie Kirk. I don't even know they'd be seeking the death penalty.

[01:11:33]>> Um yeah, but the you are it's going to be it's going to be part of the record though because you're going to talk about what was written on the bullets.

[01:11:41]You're going to talk about the text of course >> and it's it's all it's all there.

[01:11:46]silenced his voice. That's an aggravator whether it's a legal one or not.

[01:11:50]>> Yeah. Uh this is this is very interesting. Uh I agree uh with you Mark that this delay was uncalled for and I hope does not suggest uh what we see going forward uh in terms of allowing this to play out uh with all salarity of dispatch because the longer it goes the worse it is for everybody except the conspiracy peddlers. it works for them.

[01:12:17]Uh, Jules, thank you so much. Jules Epstein, I appreciate you. Mark Iglarsh, I appreciate you. Thank you each and both. Now, you can look at that conversation, study that conversation, and say, "Wow, they really covered everything." I mean, it really seems like uh this is what it's being presented to be. there's uh some wood to chop in terms of putting a case out there that all 12 jurors will be comfortable with as a capital case that is death penalty eligible and maybe that will play out. Depends on how the victim's family feels. Uh depends on how the prosecutors feel. Depends on how the trial goes early on. Or you can say there are still unknowns that make me really suspicious that this is about something more because isn't it always?

[01:13:05]I will tell you this, skepticism is real, can be useful, is a function of critical thinking, but it is the lowest level of critical thought. Skepticism is not the high form of, yeah, I don't know. I still feel like I know feelings aren't facts. Feelings aren't arguments.

[01:13:31]Okay? And at some point there has to be a standard other than feeding your own need for grievance. And I get that that can feel really empowering, you know.

[01:13:41]No, I don't accept what they say. I don't accept what the government's telling me. I don't accept what the man's telling me. I don't accept what the cops are telling me. I don't accept what the prosecutor, you know, fill in any power, whatever. Um, put it in there. There's something empowering about that. I reject it.

[01:13:57]Okay? You don't get You don't get me.

[01:13:59]Okay? You don't get me. I'm a real one.

[01:14:03]Okay, you can feel that way. But I'm telling you, you're making people money who aren't making sense.

[01:14:12]And it matters. Why? Because once you start to look, questioning things, question everything. Question everything. Question everything. Again, skepticism is a useful tool, but it shouldn't be the end point. It should be a starting point. And that's why I had it all laid out for you by people who this is what they do. And this is where they're not sure. And this is where they are sure. Okay? And I think both should be instructive to you. And we'll stay on this. We'll see what changes our analysis. We'll see what adds to the analysis. And we'll do it right here on Cuomo Crime Time. Thank you very much for watching. Thank you for checking me out at Sirius Radio in the Morning, NewsNation at Night. Now, look, I'm not wearing my gear today, but a lot of you have asked about it, and I'll tell you, um, go and get the gear. There's a link.

[01:14:58]Uh, you can go and brand yourself as a critical thinker. Brand back against these mouth breathers and conspiracists.

[01:15:04]I'm different. Okay? I'm a free agent.

[01:15:07]I'm a critical thinker. I'm an independent. Okay? That's who we got to be now. All right? It's time for this citizenry to take back its agency.

[01:15:16]That's why we have these conversations.

[01:15:18]That's why we chew on it for ourselves.

[01:15:19]So, we're not just accepting what is told us. All right. Thank you for being part of it. The challenges are real, my brothers and sisters. Let's get after it.