Hi everybody. I’m Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Phil Harvey. Phil, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for having me, Britney. As we all know, last week Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated while on stage at an event at a Utah university.

 Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old, is accused of his murder. And here are the charges he faces. Felony aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily harm, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. So, to start off the conversation, as a criminal defense attorney, can you break down these charges for us? What do you make of them? Britney, it’s very common in uh cases like this where you have a heinous act and a a quick investigation

along with uh a lot of evidence that the prosecution is going to pursue every charge available to them. And so obviously we see the murder charge um then in in this case a uh felony discharge of a firearm charge in the obstructions of justice. What the prosecution is doing in this indictment is they have they are examining the evidence they have thus far and asking which crimes apply to the specific actions taken by Mr. Robinson.

Obviously, the murders, the killing, uh the obstruction of the justice for things like uh attempting to hide the rifle, the witness tampering for asking his romantic partner to delete text messages and not share additional information. And so we do have quite a detailed indictment of what the specific conduct is supporting each of these charges, but the prosecution’s job moving forward will be to continue to flesh those out.

I do want to talk about the evidence that prosecutors say that they have. According to them, Tyler Robinson’s mom saw a photo released by law enforcement of the shooter. She recognized that photo and she thought it was her son. Her son then quote implied that he was the shooter to his parents. There’s also DNA evidence that’s consistent with Robinson’s on the rifle.

 And I want to talk about some text messages that prosecutors say are between Robinson and his roommate. He, according to these text messages, told his roommate to look under his keyboard, and there was a note that said this quote, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I’m going to take it.” He also admitted that he was the shooter to his roommate via text.

 When you’re looking at all of this evidence that prosecutors compiled, how strong do you think it is, Britney? Could it be any stronger? I mean, honestly, in in so many murder cases, I have seen just one or two of those uh pieces of evidence would be enough for a prosecution to move forward. Uh then, of course, the after the indictment comes, the question starts to become, can they prove it at trial? But to me, to my mind, the some of the the the three strongest pieces are he made a confession, people who know him identified him based

on the surveillance footage, and the DNA on the rifle allegedly at this point is consistent with his DNA. Any one of those things would be enough for a prosecution to ask a jury to convict in this case. And so then on the flip side here, what type of defense do you think his team should mount? Especially considering you’re saying could this evidence be any stronger? The a prosecutor for the state of Utah has already has already gone on the record saying they’re going to seek the death penalty. And Britney, whenever you

have a case like this where the allegation is murder and the evidence is strong and the state is seeking the death penalty, essentially it becomes a referendum on capital punishment. Was this an evil act? And does he deserve to be killed or was he suffering from some sort of mental illness or were there other factors that suggest that uh he doesn’t deserve the death penalty in this case? Uh obviously uh this is a politically charged issue, politically charged case.

 Um and I think the danger here is that politics might overshadow uh what the prosecution might be trying to do or what the defense might be trying to do. But typically what you would see is this case in terms of what happens in court legally that it quickly becomes about whether or not the death penalty is warranted.

 Let’s talk about the death penalty here because prosecutors said that they are pursuing the death penalty. Do you think that the death penalty makes it harder for the prosecution? What do you think this adds by being on the table? Death penalty cases do tend to take longer. They take more effort and the uh the defense afforded to even an indigent defendant in most states is more robust.

And so uh the anytime the prosecution decides to seek death penalty in a case they are signing up generally speaking for a longer harder fight. Uh one of the most important aspects of any death penalty case is the defense uh will seek to uh the defense and the prosecution um put it this way that the prosecution wants to death proof the jury.

 In other words, they want to make sure that every juror impanled in the case is willing to impose the death penalty uh if the facts support the law and the law requires it. The defense on the other hand will be uh will not be allowed to exclude people who are pro death penalty. And so the law requires a juror a jury of individuals who are all um willing to impose the death penalty.

 And then the defense will attempt to uh select a jury and present a case such that even those individuals who are in favor of the death penalty generally won’t apply it in this case specifically. So that is what most of the additional work and complexity surrounding a death penalty case looks like. And so based on this evidence, based on the fact that they are seeking the death penalty, do you think what do you think the hardest moment will be for the prosecutors? What do you think is the biggest hill that they have to climb

here? Probably getting it to trial. Uh the what will what will happen often times in death penalty cases is uh the defense will want to uncover uh every stone in Mr. Robinson’s past and every stone in his potential defense to make sure that once the case is presented to the jury, the jurors have enough information to feel like they understand Mr.

 Robinson and his motives and his actions. And um and so just that preparation process is probably going to be the uh the hardest part of the prosecution’s job once they get to trial. Again, Britney, it just seems like the evidence already sounds to be overwhelming and uh and then it’ll be a matter of again uh asking the jury to decide whether or not death is warranted in the case.

I do want to talk about the motive because that has been a central point of the conversation when it comes to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is what prosecutors have said of the motive so far. The charging documents said that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his quote belief or perception regarding Charlie Kirk’s political expression.

Also, prosecutors say that Robinson’s mom said that Robinson has been leaning left in his political ideology as of late. And then in a text message, the roommate asked why Robinson would shoot Charlie Kirk. And this is what Robinson texted back. Quote, “I had enough of his hatred.

 Some hatred can’t be negotiated out.” So, as a criminal defense attorney, is that a strong enough motive? What else do you think needs to be discovered here? Well, technically, motive is not required under under the law for a conviction. Uh, what motive does do is it helps uh paint the picture and perhaps helps the jury understand why a defendant may have uh acted with premeditation and planning and intent to cause the death.

 uh the uh so the s the short answer to your question is no the prosecution doesn’t need any more evidence about motive and you know I I think what the defense will be looking at is you have an otherwise straight A student who all certainly was by all accounts motivated politically but he seemed to conduct this crime and his his actions afterwards to suggest just that.

I mean, how did he think he was going to get away with it? He he was sharing essentially making confessions and sharing uh details about what he had done with individuals that certainly he thought he could trust, but somehow he thought he could share this openly with other individuals and get away with it. And so I think that while the motive is clear, what was actually going on in his head may be the issue that’s that’s more thoroughly litigated in the case.

So, we just saw this evidence. We saw this charging document just earlier this week. What specifically are you looking out for next? Because we’re still in the beginning stages here. The next steps here will be a lengthy discovery process. Uh the the prosecution will share information about their investigation with the defense.

 Uh the defense will need to build a team here. Typically, you’re going to have at least two attorneys on a death case as well as per perhaps a private investigator, a mitigation specialist, and they’ll begin to do their work in in their own investigation into his Mr. Robinson’s life as an individual. So, I think what we’ll see are several uh several court appearances in the near future where the prosecution and the defense discuss how far along that discovery process is going and then eventually perhaps a scheduling order

where the judge gives uh gives both sides some deadlines in the case as they try to get it ready for trial. Well, we certainly have a lot to look out for and as we see major developments in this case, I hope you can come back on and break them down for us. Criminal defense attorney Phil Harvey, thank you so much for the conversation.

 You’re welcome back anytime. Glad to be here, Britney. Thank you.