Tyler Robinson: The State Responds + Vindman Crashes Out

**Charlie Kirk** (0:03)
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.

**Blake** (1:17)
All right. Welcome, everybody. It is August 19th, 2026
Lots to get through today. They're very, very packed and busy show. We obviously had some important primary races yesterday. We're going to be covering that. The half hour mark with Rich Barris at the beginning, however, here. And by the way, we've got Mark Halperin coming on and we're going to revisit the Arday case out of the UK.

**Jay Town** (1:44)
Yes, we have the guy who kicked it off.

**Blake** (1:46)
Who exposed it, who blew the lid. So a massive, massive show today.
But first here, we have to get to the news. And that is breaking that the state of Utah has responded to the defense in the Tyler Robinson hearing. And we have Jay Town joining us. He's a career federal prosecutor, knows this stuff inside and out. You've known him. If you watch this show, he's helped us break down ATF reports and the like because he's seen hundreds and hundreds of them himself. Jay, welcome back to The Charlie Kirk Show. Honored to have you. You've read the state's reply memo. Again, it's a bit of a volley back and forth. So the state, it's called a bind over.
The state issued its first position, a memo, a brief. Then the defense responds, basically says, if all of these things are true, it's still not, shouldn't be a death penalty case, basically. The aggravated add-ons should not be relevant. They made their argument. Now, the state has responded. When you look at this 19 page memo, what are you looking at? What do you see? Do you think they did a competent job here?

**Jay Town** (3:00)
I thought they did a great job. In fact, the prosecution hip checked the defense pretty hard against the boards of Utah jurisprudence.
It was actually pretty systematic in their response. The evidence is overwhelming against Tyler Robinson. So to me, some of this didn't probably have to happen because anybody with a functioning limbic system would know that there's probable cause to believe that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and that there were other people in the, you know, and he did so first, political expression, which is one of the aggravators, and also that it was endangering the public, the people around Charlie Kirk or behind Charlie Kirk, or in that line of fire. But the prosecution took the extra step, which I think the Kirk family appreciates, and everybody watching this appreciates, to explain why, and explain why the arguments made by the defense were false. Their reading of the law was just wrong. Right on down to them calling reasonable inferences, which is always a postulate in the law that is for a fact finder, and calling that such things as speculation.

**Blake** (4:15)
Yeah, yeah, okay, so Jay, pause right there. So when I'm reading the brief, again, I'm not a lawyer, Blake sometimes plays one on TV, but there is a lot of ink spilled in this memo that is arguing about the difference between reasonable inferences and speculation. From a legal perspective, why is that important and what is the distinction?

**Jay Town** (4:38)
Right, so speculation is, if you're speculating, you can't get to even probable cause or certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. But let me give you a great example, and this is what I would tell juries in my murder cases and my death penalty cases. If you went to bed and then you woke up and across your driveway, there were deer tracks across the snow. You would know three things. Now, you weren't there, you didn't see any of the following, but you would be able to reasonably infer that the following three things happened. One, that it snowed last night. Two, that a deer crossed your driveway last night. Three, that the deer crossed the driveway after it snowed. Those are all reasonable inferences that none of us saw. None of the 12 jurors were there that day. None of the, and this is just sort of common misdirection by Defense Council to say, you're just speculating, sure.