Tyler Robinson's Defense Seeks to Block Video of Charlie Kirk's Killing

In Utah today, an evidentiary hearing was held in the high-profile murder case of the death of activist, political activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot while addressing a crowd on a Utah college campus.

The man who's accused of pulling the trigger, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was inside of the courtroom today, facing the possibility of the death penalty in this case, but before this case ever reaches a jury, there's been a legal battle that's been unfolding inside of the courtroom.

It's initially over a conflict of interest. The defense wants to get the prosecution thrown off the case because they say one of the deputy attorneys had a daughter that was on the scene of all of this. So today during that evidentiary hearing, the defense wanted to block not only the public, but also potentially in the future jurors from being allowed to see this video that's at the center of this case.

And it is graphic video, the shooting itself. It's one that sparked outrage, of course, across the internet. It tried to be quickly pulled down because it showed these final moments of an activist's life while speaking to a crowd, and it's also drawing a debate about whether or not images like this should be shown to the public, fairness, bias, and right to a public trial and access.

So that footage, as I mentioned, it quickly circulated online. It had millions of views, and it appeared to show the moment that a bullet strikes the activist while he is speaking to that crowd. Blood is visible in it. He collapses in his chair. It is horrific. Defense attorneys argue that that video in court could potentially permanently taint the jury pool.

Meaning, if it's shown in this hearing and the members of the media are inside of that hearing, then other jurors, potential jurors who are out there may see it and they may be tainted. So they want the judge to block that footage from this hearing and limit the cameras inside of the courtroom. Now, prosecutors disagree. They say this video is critical evidence to help them show that that daughter that is part of this scene, that she won't have to be a critical witness because other people recorded what happened. So, let's bring in our guest panel.

That's a lot in this case, but it is a pivotal moment. Lisa Bonner, Michael Sterling, and Matthew Barhoma with us. Michael, let me start with you.

This is a sort of convoluted in the weeds when it comes to this conflict of interest and then this video.

But we have the prosecution saying, we have to show this video to show the court, hey,

this one daughter who is connected to this case,

that's connected to us,

she doesn't have to be a critical witness here.

Right. Yeah, and I think, you know, you have to realize that the evidence is the evidence.

All right, you don't get to pick and choose your evidence.

If the video is part of the crime, all right,

the jury, the jury, the judge, the public can't be asked to evaluate or look at the case with one eye closed.

You don't get to pick and choose your evidence.

The answer to viral evidence isn't isn't necessarily a closed courtroom, right?

The answer to viral evidence is a careful jury selection and a judge who controls the process.

And so, by pointing out, look, judge, this evidence is critical to our case, it removes the fact that we would have to call, you know, any number of witnesses who were there.

I believe that the prosecution has a right to show, you know, to show the video, you have to deal with that evidence, and if it were the other way around, defense attorneys who had some favorable evidence for them, they would be wanting to do everything they could to show that evidence to you, the public, Court TV, scripts news, and anybody else.

who wanted to see it. And so, you know, you just have to deal with the evidence as it comes.

And here we it's clear.

The evidence is the evidence.

You know, as a member of the media, I can appreciate that opinion.

That we don't want to just close the courtrooms and kick the media out.

Matthew, this video, do you think it would taint a jury pool and do you think we're going to see that come up once we get closer to a trial here?

You know, I got to respectfully disagree here with my colleague.

And the reason is, I mean, listen, if I was a defense attorney in this case, I would not want that video shown.

Okay.

Don't show that video.

On behalf of my client, please.

And the reason is,

we're not contesting that this was a shooting.

We're not contesting.

None of that is at issue.

The only thing that we're contesting is whether or not this defendant here, beyond a reasonable doubt, did it.

Right?

So, I wouldn't really want it.

Do I think it taints the jury?

You know, maybe not in the way that the defense is trying to paint it out, okay?

I think that it does taint the jury.

In the sense that, yeah, it's very graphic.

And maybe unnecessary.

Sure, it is the best evidence.

But again, it's not really at issue.

So, I think it just brings emotions into the jury that is maybe very volatile towards the defendant.

And, you know, does very little to protect his interests.

I think if we were to keep this out,

I think that would be fair game.

Lisa Bonner, you're going to have to split the tie here.

And I see you nodding your head.

I happen to agree with Matthew.

Uh, it is unnecessarily graphic.

I saw the video.

And it is horrific.

It is unnecessarily graphic.

It is down and dirty.

And I understand that what Michael is saying in terms of the evidence.

Is the evidence.

Um, I think this is right for appeal.

If uh, you if they allow this video into evidence.

I think there are other videos that if they they can show.

That are less graphic.

I it's just something that is unnecessary in my opinion.

To go down to to nail down and drill down on this particular video.

It is clear that the daughter was there.

And uh, it to have her.

They don't need to have this video in order to have her come and uh, to excuse her from presenting her uh, testimony.

I I think there's better ways to do it and I think it's right for appeal.

You know, for me, for me, I don't think that transparency is prejudice, right?

I'm always on the side of the more transparency in a courtroom, the better.

Because that is how the public trust that justice isn't being done in the dark.

By having open courtrooms, by having cameras be allowed in the courtrooms.

That type of transparency is the best disinfectant.

As as the quote says.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

So for me, it's not and and then even if you say it is prejudicial, the question doesn't become is it prejudicial?

It becomes is it unfairly prejudicial? Is it so unfairly prejudicial?

That it denies the defendant a fair to a right the right to a fair trial.

And I don't think it is in this case.

I think you have to deal with the evidence that comes your way.

I've dealt with cases where there was clear video evidence of my client doing things that I had to deal with that evidence the best way I knew how.

I I do believe it's unfairly prejudicial.

And I think that there are other ways to uh, to present this evidence.

And like I said, I do believe if you are to admit this,

this is setting this up for, I mean, they're going to appeal either way.

But we are not contesting.

The the murder.

We are and this is an aggravating circumstance.

And it's it really contains the jury because you are putting this in prior to the uh, them seating a jury.

And this is going to be widespread, right?

And so, who everybody that is in this potential jury pool is going to see this video.

And I think that you even if you do a change of venue,

it's it's it does nothing to advance the prosecution's case.

There are many less invasive and horrific videos that you can uh, evidence that you can present that can get the job done.

Matthew, you were trying to jump in.

What's your thought?

You know, I agree.

And, you know, I was going to ask Michael, you know, what is it sent to prove?

Right?

Because it doesn't bring the point closer that this defendant did it, right?

All it brings the point, the only thing it proves is that the shooting happened.

And this is exactly what it looked like, right?

And again, those things I don't think are contested.

So, you know, what does it really prove for this jury?

I I well, I think that a carefully crafted prosecution.

If you're clever and you know how you're doing your job and presenting your trial.

You're going to be able to show what angle the gun came, what angle the bullet came from.

You're going to be able to show the trajectory of the bullet.

How the bullet hit, the level of impact.

That that impact is actually what caused the death.

I mean, you'll be able to show various things that tend to prove a fact that's critical to your case.

I mean, that's that's my belief.

If you're able to present your to present your full case to a jury.

But how where that bullet came from, how it how it came, how it hit him.

All of those things, the trajectory, all of those things I think would be relevant to the prosecution's case.

And that's where we have to leave it, but we appreciate all these opinions.

It's getting argued out inside of a court of law with the prosecution and defense wanting this video either in or out.

We will continue to monitor.