Transcription
Mark, uh, I grew up watching you on TV for all the big trials and stuff. This is so cool. I, uh, was very excited when Mario, uh, told me that he he needed me to fill in for him today. So, thank you for, uh, for joining me.
>> My pleasure. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Uh, is there anything you want us to plug in terms of a Substack or Twitter? Do you want No. Okay.
>> No. Twitter. Twitter's fine. That's fine. Mark Gargas. That's fine.
>> Phenomenal. Okay. Well, uh, I was intrigued by the the topic. I don't normally cover, you know, I'm a foreign policy nerd. Uh, so this was, um, of course, I think that, you know, they might be related. I mean, who knows?
>> I was going to say there are [laughter] there's a substantial number of people who, uh, take the position that this is foreign policy related.
>> Yeah, I I should be careful, right? Uh, yeah. No. So, so let me ask you, um, you know, what what is going on? because I I I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem like regardless of what people think happened, the Utah trial just seems odd. Am I wrong in thinking that?
>> No. And by the way, there are um kind of weird uh facts and uh things that are brought out uh that strike, I think, people who follow this matter as odd. And I I don't think that it's, you know, I know that whenever you bring this up, people want to debunk it as conspiracy theorists. People want to diminish people as conspiracy theorists, but there are legitimate questions. One of the ones that that kind of intrigues me, if you will, is they want to use the words of his roommate/lover by virtue of putting up a videotape. and it was a videotape that they only were allowed the prosecution to put up a portion of. Well, the interesting thing about that is you can't cross-examine a videotape. And they wanted the defense wanted to do some cross-examination. And people say, "Well, it's a preliminary hearing. What does that matter? Why does that matter?" I will I'll give you an example of another case that's been in the news non-stop in the last week. That is the David case. Now, the first four days of that preliminary hearing, it was basically all the people in the uh comments and most commentators are saying, "Oh, this is horrible. The there he's good for it. Uh meaning he's guilty. There is no defense." Right? Well, then they get to the medical examiner, and I've been saying all along in this case, but I understand the horrific nature in David of the cover up, so to speak, of the disposal of the the body, which is horrific. However, that doesn't answer any questions about the crime itself, meaning the homicide. And then look what happens. Yesterday, as we're taping this on Tuesday, the defense got up in that case and they were able to cross-examine a medical examiner. And boy, and cross-examined the officer and boy, all of a sudden, people started to say, "Well, wait a second here. These text messages show something different. The medical examiner is saying something different." It gives fuller context to it and you're not getting a one-sided what's obviously skewed prosecutorial view. Now go back to Tyler Robinson or Circle Back. I I wonder and I jokingly maybe not so jokingly have said who is the who is the lawyer for Lance because he deserves lawyer of the year because I know prosecutors who would have Lance sitting at the council table as a defendant.
>> This was my question as well when I I was watching the trial. I didn't I'm sorry but yes you're Yes. Yeah. Exactly. Keep going.
>> Yeah. I so you've got somebody who clearly had some involvement whose DNA was in very odd places at least from a prosecutor. Now you can explain away the DNA. You can say, "Well, they live together. Of course, the DNA is going to be on this or that." By the way, if you're doing that, you're doing what a defense lawyer does. You're not doing what a prosecutor does. a prosecutor tries draws every negative inference when he's trying to accuse somebody of a crime. And so all of the things that point towards the roommate and you know some people said well the roommate didn't know one of their theories working theories is that the roommate that that uh Tyler Robinson was trying to impress his roommate/lover. Well, there there are other alternatives and the theory of the case for the motivation. Motiv motive is not an element of the crime. The elements of the crime are did Tyler Robinson go? Did Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger? And did Tyler Robinson have any accomplices? And what happened before, during, and after? That's what the So even though it's a preliminary hearing, even though I often say that just means is my client breathing, it still requires a modicum of proof. And I will tell you that if the prosecutor went into that preliminary hearing with Tyler Robinson and had the expectation that we're going to debunk all of the conspiracy theories, I would tell you that I think you ignited or gave great credence to a lot of the conspiracy theories.
>> I couldn't agree more. Um I but I've been saying this too. Regardless of what people think it's that I don't think the trial has been very helpful uh in terms of clearing up. Uh let me ask you this. I did catch some of that hearing. I think it was a week or two ago and they interviewed um this English accented cop who was apparently the lead detective. And I I wish I had kept the video saved. I would have played it here but I don't have it saved. Um, but he indicated that the ring camera footage that they're using to place the car that Tyler, excuse me, Tyler Robinson owned, he said the ring camera footage, they have the car driving by near the the campus, but it's got a bald guy and three other unknown people. I He testified to this. What What is going on here? Because in my in my experience, lone gunmen act alone. So, you know, I don't I don't really understand. Could you clarify? I mean, is this just sort of
>> I I No, I think this is precisely what happens when you do what uh what we call a hearsay pre prelim where you just introduce things because you think, if you're a prosecutor, it's the prefuncter way to get the evidence in. And when it turns out that the evidence can be viewed or is susceptible of two interpretations. By the way, that's the definition of reasonable doubt. Two reasonable interpretations. And the other thing that was particularly annoying about that hearing is the way that the prosecutor would show grainy footage and then suggest or say, "Well, there's Tyler Robinson shooting." Well, you can't tell that. There's nobody who can tell that from the various uh shots or videos that they're showing that were entered into evidence. But they say that as if you will just fill the gaps or your brain will fill the gaps of what your eye can't see because a lot of what was put on as evidence, I'm telling you, is very susceptible to an interpretation that there was an accomplice. And I'll cite another matter that's also, and this happens quite a bit with these high-profile cases. You know, Brian Coberger is in the news today because he's now trying to set aside his plea. And one of the things that's been suggested by by many people is that he had an accomplice, but that he kind of ran through it and pled guilty to spare himself the death penalty. and he's not saying it, but he's suggesting there's something else there. If there is in many of these crimes that or that have happened, more than one person, which I always think is where you should start with as opposed to this kind of lone person acting out there perfectly calibrated, executing uh flawlessly. And if you let the evidence take you to where you the whatever conclusion you're going to draw, a lot of these cases are a lot more complicated than I think at first blush.
>> I think you're right. And uh certainly, you know, not not to dwell on the foreign policy angle, but but man, there is a lot of there's a lot of stuff going on in the background with with this story that is very disconcerting. Let me ask you also um
>> Well, I let me let me ask you something. what your your your Bailey wick so to speak is foreign policy.
>> What what resonates to you and what sounds crazy about what you've heard?
>> Well, um I mean the whole the thing is Charlie was a Zionist 100%. But he did at the end start to have a change of opinion and uh I mean it's very obvious and um you can just watch some of his interviews in the last year or so of his life and you see him really questioning that and um you know that organization he ran was very important um for the Zionist cause. So it it influenced and Charlie had a lot of influence with the president and you know his opinions on foreign policy. I think one of the reasons Trump deescalated in the 12-day war was because of things that Charlie was was sending his way and privately. I think that Trump was listening. So, I have no idea if it's connected, but it's Charlie was very important from a foreign policy angle, specifically in the Middle East portfolio. um when it came to the Republican party. Um obviously the Democrats different story, but but so I don't you know I don't know if they're connected or not but it is very odd and I don't think the Utah prosecution or the way they're doing this is helping to alleviate any concerns of you know
>> so that's so you kind of hit exactly on my point at least.
>> I have I do a podcast with Matt Murphy. Matt is a former homicide prosecutor. We used to do cases against each other for years. We now have a podcast called In the Well. Shameless plug. Anyway, Matt is adamant. He says it's, you know, you can't go there. You can't do this. It makes no sense. It's crazy. Blah blah blah. And what I what I would push back and say, okay, I understand your position and I get how you're framing it. The problem you've got is that when you put on evidence in a proceeding that necessarily is going to be questioned, you have a right to cross-examine. It's embedded in the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment. And when you cross-examine and start to look at the evidence, there are questions that have to be asked and have to be answered. And that's why, circling back to what you just said, uh, it did not, if the prosecution thought this was going to dispel the conspiracy rumors, it did quite the opposite. So, how does this impact though a potential jury pool? I mean, going forward, because you know, the way I'm looking at it, if all they need is one to to hold up the whole process on reasonable doubt in terms of jurors, um, do you think this thing could end with, you know, the jury not being able to come to a conclusion here?
>> So, every every case, I I say this all the time and I sometimes get in trouble for it. The case is over after jury selection. I don't care. You could pick the the best jury in the world. um if you're uh if you're the defense and no matter what the prosecution uh puts on, they're not going to overcome. I always say this, I can't overcome people who've got 20, 30, 40 years of life experience if I've got a trial in two months. I'm never going to change their worldview. I'm not going to change the zeitgeist of what they think and what they believe. But if you present to them arguments that resonate or and it's not all 12 to your point, one or two people, people always talk about well what if one or two people um hang up the jury. My concern and I've had more than my fair share of hung juries. My concern always is what if I leave on one person who ends up driving the jury who's kind of the person who you know the the uh the quintessential what I've seen happen in many cases where that person gets in and controls the jury room and
>> becomes an advocate an advocate almost. Yeah.
>> L as you say to jurors jurors the judges are the ones who wear the black robe. They're the judges of the law. Uh the jurors are the judges of the facts and the facts drive what how you apply the law. And so that's what is scary both from the defense and the prosecutorial perspective.
>> Yeah. No, it is it's it's very unfortunate that the trial is unfolding this way because this is too important, I think, to have any kind of questions. Um what about also and just I'm just kind of remembering what I saw and and feel free to to you know tell me you know um whatever but um there was this one of the people they interviewed or they they had testify I think it was a coroner or some medical examiner they were saying that they found DNA on the rifle that belongs to four or five different individuals. What? How can that be explained away or I mean because that to me the conspiracy more?
>> It it does. And when one of those individuals is somebody who's also giving a taped statement that is can't be cross-examined. you you wonder why are you presenting the evidence this way if you're the prosecutor and your goal look when I say the goal so that people understand if you wanted to do a preliminary hearing 999 uh out of a thousand preliminary hearings are two or three hours or less and I know many prosecutors they would only admit it if they were probably having a beer with me who would admit to you that they actually have played the game where they try to hold somebody to answer that's means find probable cause with the fewest amount of questions. I mean it is not something that goes on and on and on. In fact, a lot of my um colleagues and friends were perplexed when they nationally who don't practice in California um uh or uh Utah and places like that where there are preliminary hearings. They said, "How is this possible? How do you spend a week in a preliminary hearing? That I heard people asking me that all last week with the David preliminary hearing. And I said it's not the normal course, but it happens. And when it happens, if there is a high level of media scrutiny, it is it ends up backfiring on the prosecution.
>> That's interesting. That's and and it's also interesting because all 50 states have their own sort of eccentricities when it comes to the law. And I think people because we have a foreign audience that watches this as well. I don't think people outside of the country really understand sort of those eccentricities. Um what about the role of the federal of the FBI and I know this is a state trial but there's a heavy FBI feel um to this and to this whole is the how involved is the feds with this specific case do you think? very very let me make an analogy to another case. Luigi Manion, he's being prosecuted. He's the man who was accused of uh killing the healthc care executive in New York uh in shooting him. And in that case, Luigi Manion is being both prosecuted federally in federal court and in the New York City state court, the New York City Manhattan Supreme Court. So, you have dual prosecutions. I've always felt the only reason that the feds got involved in that case along with the state is because the state filed the charges. But New York, you're not going to get death penalty in the state.
>> They will get the death penalty or at least they will try in the federal.
>> Now go to Utah. In Utah, I believe death penalty is by firing squad and they don't it's not like sitting in in California where there's 600 people on death row who never get executed,
>> right, for 40 years, right?
>> Utah takes care of business. um you know, not that I'm an advocate of that.
>> Yeah, I shouldn't be laughing at that, but it's
>> I know, but but but it's it's true. And the um the idea that the in in the Utah state court that there's no federal prosecution. Well, the reason for that is they don't want to muck it up. They want Utah to get the death penalty. So, yes. Is there an FBI presence? Heavy. Is there FBI involvement? Absolutely. You'd be uh naive to say otherwise.
>> But isn't that a bit irregular, the FBI being this involved, if it is only a state matter? And and forgive my ignorance. I I don't I mean, maybe maybe that's
>> Well, I I think I this cynical me thinks that whenever you have a case that reaches a certain boiling point in terms of the media, the FBI gets involved. You know, take another look at another case that's topical. Nancy Guthrie. I mean, the sheriff there has taken a fair amount of criticism for bungling that case initially. Then the FBI came in and, you know, now they're they subsequently they've been accused of bungling and there's been all kinds of problems there. But when there is a um national and international focus or kind of a critical mass of media attention on a case, it's not unusual for them to get involved. I mean that's a it's a natural kind of phenomena that we witness now as part of the modern era.
>> Yeah. And I guess given given the proximity to the administration, it makes sense that they would want to have some kind of hand. It just is always very interesting. Um because I I have a very negative view of the FBI, but um that's just my personal take. Um but so let me ask you this then since I mean you clearly so you don't think that that this was a lone gunman is is what you're getting. I I will tell you based on the evidence I've seen, it does not look to me like it's a lone gunman. Um, and Tyler Robinson and there's just enough there that I and and I don't want I haven't talked to the defense. I'm just observing from afar rank speculation, but it would shock me if they have not conducted a parallel investigation with the idea that they are assuming Tyler Robinson was not the only person who was somehow involved in this. It would be shocking to me if they didn't think that.
>> But based on Start from there.
>> No. Okay. So, but but based on your reading, do you think Tyler Robinson was involved on some level or do you think he's completely as he's as some would say?
>> No, I think as of right now based on what has been publicly presented, he's there, he's involved. I I you know, when somebody says, "Was he a pathy?" You know, for many years after the JFK assassination, one of my dear friends when he was still alive was Sirill Wet. And Sel Wet was one of the greatest coroners, elected corers and pathologist, expert pathologist. I never, even though I was just a kid when JFK was assassinated, I always assumed, as most people do naively in the 60s and 70s, that, you know, the government had nothing to do with it. There was a lone gunman, blah, blah, blah. You know, if you spent um 45 minutes, as I did on multiple occasions listening to Sirill Wack talk about the JFK assassination, you would never ever trust what the government tells you again. So,
>> you shouldn't trust what the government tells you. [laughter] Well, I often I will often say to jurors um you know and and it cuts both ways because I've had prosecutors very kind of quick prosecutors on their feet when I say you know if the government's at your door the uh the old Ronald Reagan joke knock the government we're here to help. I said, "Is there anybody here, I'll ask you, jury selection, who believes the government is infallible and gets everything right? [laughter] And if you believe that, have you been to the DMV recently?" And what what inevitably I will hear in closing argument from prosecutors is, "Oh my god, you think Mr. Garagus' conspiracy theory holds water. Can you imagine this clumsy bureaucracy all getting their act together to commit this conspiracy?" So, it cuts both ways.
>> It does. Well, there's also compartmentalization though within the government, but that's another story for another day. Um,
>> exactly. [laughter]
>> But let me ask you then also, um, do you think during the course of this trial it will come out that he was acting with others or do you think it's pretty much going to be fixated on him all the time?
>> I look, I do not think it's always tough to predict. I don't get I don't get the impression um that they will cut a deal and he will take life to avoid the death penalty. Speaking of Coberger, but uh he'll be under a lot of pressure. He will, his lawyers will, and uh to some degree his family will to have him take a plea. Um and then who knows what happens in a lot of ways. You know, I was just discussing with somebody this morning. If you don't get as a prosecutor some kind of nightly nicely tied up package explaining everything that ties it together, you're going to be sitting here like I am decades and decades over a half century removed from JFK still not having anybody believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. So, uh, these are things that especially in today's day and age,
>> um, and I don't mean this negatively with internet sleuths who do some incredible work sometimes, I I just don't buy that you can that you can convince people, um, absent some compelling narrative.
>> Yeah. No, I agree. And I just actually got off the phone with one of those internet sleuths who apparently is going to be breaking a big NATO story on Tucker tonight. So there's there's there's a lot of just you can find out a lot of things just from being on Twitter. It turns out
>> I I have seen a revolution in with private investigators. I it is people I used to have to have private investigators out in the field doing the parallel investigations. I I now find that the first kind of 48 hours of them doing uh searches, database searches and and online searches produces the best leads that I get in almost every single case, civil criminal or whatever.
>> Isn't that amazing? That's amazing because
>> it's really been a revolution.
>> I bet. And let me ask you this. when you when you look at the prosecutor and the defense teams, prosecution and defense teams, I should say, um, with all your background and experience, how would you grade I know we just started the trial and every or the preliminary, but how do you think the two sides are doing?
>> Oh, I think that the um the defense in Tyler Robinson's case is very able. they, you know, you've got the one woman uh lawyer, defense lawyer who's kind of um the face of the defense, but they've got a team behind them of very capable uh experienced lawyers as well. Two from California, I believe, who are excellent, excellent lawyers with a long pedigrees of being very effective. So, uh the prosecutors, like I say, they were workmanlike. That's what I will give them. I watched they they do what they're supposed to do. But a lot of prosecutors are like that. I always I always tell the joke and I'll close with this because I've got a job. But I always tell the joke about and it's not a joke about my friend Marsha Clark and Johnny Cochran after OJ. And Marsha was telling Johnny um something to the effect of uh I could never do what you do. And Johnny's response is of course you can never do what I do. who would ever hire you. So, I mean, [laughter] there
>> that's a great way to close it. And uh
>> yeah, that's by the way, uh real quick, thank you for coming on and uh that was uh Mark Geros, legendary attorney. Uh Mark, have a good day and thank you for stopping by and hopefully we can do this again. It was an honor to meet you.
>> Thank you. My pleasure. Bye-bye.
>> Bye-bye. All right, guys. Bye-bye. And we will be back, I think, in half an hour. Mario will be back on. I'll just say a closing um I was a little nervous doing this because this is not normally my Bailey Wick, but um that was really cool for those of us who grew up watching the OJ trial uh and the white bronco and the chase through the streets of LA in the '90s. Um it was pretty cool seeing you know people like that. So um be sure to tune in in less than half an hour. Mario will be taking over the next interview. I am Brandon Wert. Please check out the WERT brief. Check out we the Brandon on Twitter X and keep it right here on Mario's channel. He's got some great stuff coming up. Bye-bye.