Steve Palmer [00:00:00]:

Lawyer talk off the record, on the air, we are going to do some Q and A stuff. We've got Troy with me. He's got the. We got our iPads, we've got the laptops, and we've got lots of questions and comments coming from the various videos we've been posting. So we're going to call this like a little Fireside chat Q and A session, lawyer talk style. Lay it on me, man. And by the way, I'm just taking these as they come. We are not preparing.

Troy Hendrickson [00:00:24]:

Yeah. So the first one comes from Emily nettle. This is YouTube. She says, can you elaborate on what makes the case very complicated? When the prosecution has essentially a full confession via the shooter's text messages, tying the gun to the bullet and the shooter to the gun, slash location should. Should be, foreseeably speaking, pretty straightforward. Unless there's a debate on even those points. She's talking about the Tyler Robinson.

Steve Palmer [00:00:49]:

Yeah, Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk assassination. Yeah. And I think I made a comment. What she's getting at is I made a comment when we first did a breakdown of this, that this was a complicated case. I was talking about what the lawyers are signing up for. It's a good question because, you know, on the face of it, it does seem like it's pretty straightforward. They've got this guy, they've got him behind the. Or, they got his fingerprints on the gun, allegedly.

Steve Palmer [00:01:08]:

They've got DNA and everything else. What makes it complicated is really there's multiple things that make it complicated. But let's start at the fundamental level. Every time we take on a case on behalf of a client, we're obligated to actually do the work. I mean, just because it looks like it, a duck and quacks like a duck. And you know the old saying.

Troy Hendrickson [00:01:27]:

Yeah.

Steve Palmer [00:01:27]:

We still have to verify that it's a duck. And every. Think of all the levels of scientific evidence in this case. You've got fingerprint evidence, and I get it. That's pretty established. But you still have to look at it. You've got DNA evidence. And, you know.

Steve Palmer [00:01:41]:

Well, now that when we get a DNA case, the first thing we do, get the bench notes, we get the bench notes, we hire an expert, we get the lab records. Because. Just because. Just because the police and the prosecutor says there's DNA there doesn't mean that our guy is guilty. And look, this is not a defense of Tyler Robinson. I'm not commenting on that case. We're talking generally here. Yeah.

Steve Palmer [00:02:03]:

So I get DNA evidence, and if I'm representing Robinson, I'm going to want to know, does the DNA establish what the probable cause statement says it does? In other words, just because his DNA is on the gun, Tyler Robinson's DNA, does that mean he pulled the trigger? And is there a way that the DNA evidence or Tyler, or DNA matching Tyler Robinson or attributable to Tyler Robinson, better put, could have gotten there in some other way? You know, you have to uncover those stones, particularly in this kind of case.

Troy Hendrickson [00:02:38]:

Yeah. And one thing that she talked about, that we actually talked about this upstairs when this case was going on. I even asked this question, was the text messages.

Steve Palmer [00:02:45]:

Yes.

Troy Hendrickson [00:02:45]:

And you were making a good. I was like. I was confused. And you kind of, like, enlightened me that, like, you ever think maybe it's not his, like, partner or whatever that's sending the text messages? And how, like, this could. These could be cops sending the text? And I never even thought about that. I thought the texts were just basically.

Steve Palmer [00:03:02]:

And they may be. Yeah, we don't know. And we were just speculating at the time because this was stuff, was breaking news. But you're talking about the text messages from Robinson's cohort. We'll call him.

Troy Hendrickson [00:03:13]:

Yeah.

Steve Palmer [00:03:14]:

Or it. Or whatever. Whatever pronoun the cohort wants to use.

Troy Hendrickson [00:03:19]:

I was trying to figure out which one to use. I was just going to figure it out.

Steve Palmer [00:03:24]:

So you first want to verify the validity of those text messages, but beyond that, there's all this other chatter in the Internet ether of other possible people who knew about it. And there was probably Discord Chat and some others at the time. I remember coming out, and there's going to be subpoenas, all that information. And as you know, once you get that kind of information, that sort of forensic stuff, it's a complicated hornet's nest. And I'm not saying at the end of the day this is going to yield any fruit, but you have to look at it. And I think ultimately the point we're trying to make here. And one more thing, this is a death penalty case, and you've got a client who is likely, if he's convicted, to face a death penalty. You don't leave stones unturned.

Steve Palmer [00:04:13]:

And a case like that, and his lawyers will not, I am very confident will do all the work. But once you add death penalty to the equation, you have, like, two phases. You've got what. What we would call, or what the system calls the guilt phase, or what the death penalty advocates would call the innocence phase. And if your client's convicted, then you go to the penalty phase, where the prosecution has to establish whatever criteria is necessary to impose a death penalty, legally speaking, like the type of crime, etc. But then it usually goes to this next thing. Like, should the person actually die? What are the redeeming qualities of this person? Are there circumstances where even though it's eligible for death penalty, you shouldn't impose it? You know, and typically this involves getting something called a mitigation expert. We would hire somebody, and I'm sure their lawyers have hired somebody, typically a psychologist, social worker, somebody like that, and maybe some other.

Steve Palmer [00:05:06]:

The whole team whose job it is to dig into the past, the history, the psychology, whatever they can. And they'll give us a report or give the lawyers a report about all the possible arguments in favor or disfavoring the death penalty or in favor, whatever you would get. But. Yeah, and then finally, and this is the point I think I was going to make a minute ago, everybody's watching. Everybody's watching. You're on front street. If you're defending this case, you're on front street. You are not going to screw with this.

Steve Palmer [00:05:37]:

You're going to do everything you possibly can to make sure that the government does its job. And look, we all have our feelings about this case one way or another, or maybe you don't, but the two sides are obvious. You got the one side says, fry the guy. You got the other side that says, well, you know, after all, Kirk was a horrible guy. Yeah. You know, sort of the mangione type, folks. Yeah. Not taking a position on that.

Steve Palmer [00:06:00]:

But this case is in the spotlight. And when cases like this get in the spotlight, you have to do everything you can to defend the guy. And if you. If it's. The human cry is, we don't like this guy. He's horrible. And if you go back in history, think like the Lindbergh kidnapping and some other, like the biggest case in history. Go read your history.

Troy Hendrickson [00:06:22]:

Okay.

Steve Palmer [00:06:24]:

Leopold and Loeb, some of these big hits, these are the cases that I think require us as criminal defense lawyers to, I guess, really, really, really do our job. Meaning hold the government accountable. Because when there is a hue and cry, when there is an outrage by the public, that is when you need to create the bulwark the most. Because if you let down your guard in these types of cases, and it will be gone in other cases, it is really easy to say, well, we all know this guy's guilty. We all know he's a rotten sob. We all know that he deserves to die. So let's just skip to the end and do it. As the defense lawyers, our job in the system, to make the system work.

Steve Palmer [00:07:11]:

And what I mean is, so the system works when you are wrongfully accused of something. We have to make sure they check all the boxes and do what they're supposed to do when the worst of the worst is wrongfully accused or is rightfully accused of something. And there's a, I think it was a man of all seasons. There's a great quote. But anyway, we can dig into it. But the point is that you don't get rid of, you don't get rid of the protections of the law because you hate somebody. Because as the quote goes in that scene, the devil will eventually turn back on you and there will be no protections for you. So that's why it's complicated case forensically, legally, death penalty wise, and then public outrage wise.

Steve Palmer [00:07:59]:

You got a big job to do. And time, it's just going to take time. Yeah. So look, great question, great comment. Thanks for listening. If you've got your own question, you want to submit it right in the comments, or you can go to lawertalkpodcast.com, send a question there. There's a little interface you can use. Until next time, Q and A style.

Steve Palmer [00:08:15]:

We'll be back.