Why Does the Judge Keep DELAYING the Tyler Robinson Hearing?

Showing Erika Kirk the exhibits and Mr. and Mrs. Kirk the exhibits is not going to get this case- No, the time- That's ridiculous. I agree. The time- It's not going to. But- There's no reason to exclude them from, to treat them like press. They're not press. Here's, forget my word. First of all, and the other thing I've just got to say, it's a bone of contention. The judge continues to call her Miss Kirk. She is not Miss Kirk. She is Mrs. Kirk. She was very notably married to Charlie Kirk. That's why she's there. She's the mother of his children. She's his widow. Show some respect. Get it right. Yes. It's the same way judges should learn how to, like in Idaho, how the judge still couldn't pronounce Madison Mogan's name and Zanna Kernodle all the way up to the end. It's like, learn the names of the victims and their survivors if you're going to say them as the judge. She's not a Miss. He's not even saying Ms. half the time. He's saying Miss. It's annoying. Yes. Most women who take their husband's name or even just become married, I'm fine when people call me Mrs. Brunt, even though I didn't take Doug's last name. The Mrs. is an honorarium that is meaningful to you. Yes. It's an honor to your husband and to the union that you have, and especially in these circumstances. I know he's not doing it intentionally. He's just on my last nerve. Okay. Mark, I want to bring you in. Let me finish that thought. No. No, it's Mark's turn. But listen, I've got to play for you Erica's and the Kirk's family lawyer. Okay. This is him arguing. He's fired up this morning. Take a listen. We appreciate the court is trying to balance here, but the Kirk family has waited 10 months for this hearing and they have a right to be here and they have a right to hear the evidence. They have a right to see and feel what's going on in this courtroom. Just like they want to understand, judge, what you are, what you were viewing. They want to see the evidence. And we understand you have to balance, but at a minimum, this courtroom needs to be open for the, for, for the evidence to be displayed openly in this courtroom, for them to see it. The Utah constitution gives them the right to be here and to be here and not to see the evidence. What's the point of being here? They ask you to let the evidence be seen in the courtroom, please. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Counsel. Okay. Mark, Eric, let's go ahead. You've been so patient. This may have been the most frustrating 30 minutes sitting here listening to this and you know, I love you, you know, I adore you and you know, I've known you forever. Let me have it. It's fine. Yes. But you are so wrong on so many counts and at least Matt, who is the consummate gentleman, you know now why I always hated going up against him. I loved him as a person, but he's, he's lethal when you go up against him. He, I, he articulated exactly what this judge is doing contrary to the characterization that this is, by the way, I think Lansedo, um, before the OJ case was one of, if he was on the short list to be at the California Supreme court, he was one of the most well received judges. I know that he got caricatured by OJ, but Lansedo, he ran. You're just completely undermining your credibility before you launch into your diatribe. I think nobody has ever done a full throated defense of who he was when, before he did that trial judge, by the way, to Matt's point, there's no way you watch this judge and you think he's new on the bench. He's doing exactly. Yes, there is a way because I watched him and I said, this guy's new on the bench. He doesn't have the confidence. And my team checked and he's been on the bench since May. And I was right. There is a way it happened this morning. You come to this case through the, even though you're not a former prosecutor, you look at this as kind of the rabid prosecutorial viewpoint, and that is not the prison. Not true. Not in this case. I'll tell you why. You're normally right about me. 100%. You're right. And my, my, all my instincts are more prosecution oriented. However, in this case, my friend was killed in this case. I know the murder victim and what I really want is for the right person to go to prison. And so I, I think Tyler Robinson is the trigger man, but no question, but I, I am not closed minded to his defense. I'm not, I actually like, cause it's more, what's most important to me here is getting it right. Well, so look, you, both those things can be right. He can be the trigger man. Number one, number two, this judge to Matt's point, if this judge does not do what he's doing, you do not understand the legal colonoscopy that a death penalty conviction gets. When Matt talks about the 10th circuit, you know what he's doing? He's damning with faint praise, the ninth circuit, because he's been on the receiving end of doing decades of law, decades of law at the ninth. And the IAC. No, I know the ninth is ridiculous, but it has gotten better. I have to say, we did a deep dive on this last year. Trump got a bunch of judges on that ninth circuit court of appeals, and it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but they're all generally not so great. They're all generally stacked with libs. But what you have to, the stack of libs is, look, I'm old enough to remember when the liberals were the ones who challenged authority as opposed to wanted totalitarian authority. So that's kind of an ironic situation. But the fact is, this judge has to do what he's doing. He's doing it very, very adroitly. And Matt's point also, and I found this out kind of ironically during Menendez last year. Marcy's law, which is the victim's right, which is a constitutional right, is a right without a remedy. And when I say in the Menendez case, it was on full display. I have argued for years that the victims are a proxy for the prosecution, that when they support what the prosecution wants, the victims are right there front and center. When they don't support what the prosecution wants, they're kind of dismissed. But there is no real enforcement mechanism for victims. It's a right that's enshrined. And Matt, I did not know, it's both Article I, Section 28 in both constitutions. It's amazing kind of coincidence. But there is, everything that lawyer is saying for Erica Kirk is true to some extent, but it's not really accurate. When he says she's got a right to see all these things, the prosecution is not limited in what they can show or share with her. So yes, the courtroom is limited. Yes, the public is limited. That is so they don't have a challenge later on to a tainted jury pool, because all judges usually kick the can down the road and say, I'll solve that pretrial publicity or prejudice in jury selection. But if you've got a jury selection and a jury pool that is completely tainted by all of the stuff that is now inadmissible, you just make your job infinitely harder. So he's doing the right thing. To your point about Tyler Robinson, yes, there is probable cause right now to have Tyler Robinson held to answer, which means bound over for trial. But I will tell you something else. I'd love to hear Matt's thoughts. I think right now you could clearly get Mr. Twiggs or whatever his name is also held to answer for trial as a co-defendant. There is more than enough probable cause that's been developed so far on Twiggs. This idea that he's a subject and not a co-conspirator is nonsense. He'd be held to answer 99 times out of 99 in almost every preliminary hearing court that I've ever been in. Think about this. In 2006, $20,000 equaled roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces would be worth about $165,000. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today it's a crucial part of any balance strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number 989898 to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information. With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to 989898 today. I agree with you on twigs, 100%. But they've given him use immunity. I'm sure Matt has a lot of thoughts on this exchange and wants to get in still on my miss versus misses, I know. But why do you do that? And then I'll ask you about use immunity and why Lance Twig's not being charged. Is that to me? Yeah. Okay. So number one, what Mark was saying, just to pick up on that, the time to sit down with Erica Kirk and the lawyers is in the prosecutor's office and to show her everything. So the argument that she's not receiving all the information is a completely different one than what the public should see. And again, Mark's exactly right. That is so they avoid the challenge long-term of the jury pool was tainted. Because we saw that. We saw that in Coburger, right? The jury pool's been tainted and they had to do a change of venue. There's all kinds of problems that ensue from that. The place, and I've worked with victims, Megan, every murder case I did, I sat down with the victim's family. I gave them my personal cell number. I did that for 21 years, okay? So I am pro-victim, victim-oriented, I represent victims now, but the place for that is in the prosecutor's office, not in a courtroom if it's going to create issues, because nothing is worse than a case coming back. I think the misses versus miss, of course, he's misspeaking, I can't take issue with that. You're right, he should clean it up. But look, this is about the long game, and in Utah, he's actually looking at the death penalty, and you want to be careful. There's a crass joke that I'm sure we've all heard about the two bulls standing on the hill, and it's probably inappropriate for me to share it, but it's like, there's a young bull and an old bull, and there's a whole bunch of cows down in the pasture, and the old bull, and the young bull says to the old bull, let's run down there and have sex with one of those cows. And the old bull says, I got a better idea, let's walk down there and have sex with all of those cows. That's how, in a very crass way, you have to look at death penalty cases. It's step by step, you have to be super careful and super methodical, because if you base one single call on emotion, and look, Megan, I'm with you on this. I've had friends who were murdered, I've had two friends, actually three that were murdered, but a good friend of mine got murdered in law school. And we cannot base decisions ever on the emotions of the moment, you have to look at it long term. Long term is you have to go very carefully, step by step, and look, what the defense is doing here, I'm seeing something completely different. There's the frustration of watching the antics, and one of the reasons why my friend Mark Geragos is so deadly in front of a jury, the jury's like him. The personalities of these lawyers is not gonna translate. It's annoying. What's that? It's a lot. He's so likable, it's annoying. No, I know. Listen, you have no idea what it's like going up against him, it's terrible, because everybody likes the guy. It must be. So, but you look at this, we watched this during the Corey Richens case, right? That woman, it's the same defense lawyer, she got up, and tactically, they're going through the motions, as annoying as it is, as a prosecutor, I love seeing that. Because their personalities, and it's called Keenan Counsel, the other lawyer that's making a lot of these objections, he just kinda, it's like nails on a chalkboard listening to him talk. He aggravates the hell out of me, and as a viewer, I wanna throw peanuts at my screen. As a prosecutor, you love to see that, because when you have somebody that stands up and makes obnoxious, obstreperous, pedantic arguments every 30 seconds, a jury is gonna hate that, and they will have zero credibility when they get into the penalty phase, and that is the best thing for Erica Kirk, and everybody who is friends with Charlie Kirk. Matt is so spot on. I have had cases where the prosecutor, or if it's a civil case where you're fighting over other people's money, the other person has zero jury appeal, and they don't understand it. They just don't understand how repulsive they are. They're repulsive in the sense that they repel people against them. What happens in a trial, as opposed to a preliminary hearing, in a trial, each side is the voice. Matt is up there giving voice to, normally, because we did so many cases where there were dead bodies, literally, we'll have people who have no voice. I'm giving voice, hopefully, to somebody who never is gonna take the stand, and so you become the proxy. If as the proxy, somebody doesn't want to help you in the jury, the last thing you're going to want to do, and I tell this to my new lawyers, why would you antagonize the jurors? Why? I can understand, actually, antagonizing the judge sometime if the judge is not likable. Matt and I have always commented on that when we're in a courtroom where the jurors don't like the judge, or the judge is issuing OSCs on jurors because they're five minutes late, and the jurors want to revolt. At that point, I almost purposefully will antagonize the judge, but absent that, that's your audience. You've got 12 people. Here, your audience is the public. You don't care. I have not had the pleasure of watching any of these lawyers in trial, but I push back on the objecting at a prelim. At a prelim, I think all bets are off when you're on the defense. You should be pushing. You should be going after the witnesses. You should be objecting. You should be testing everything out. It's the only way, as a defense lawyer, that you can refine. It's a wonderful kind of a test runs. No agenda. No fear.