Tyler Robinson Prelim Hearing BEGINS, Kouri Richins Wants New Trial, Charlie Adelson Appeal Denied, with Jill Coil

A.K.A. the Florida Lawman and current managing partner of Dave Aaron Berg Law.

“I'm joined today by Mike Coast, Ashley Merchant of Georgia, formerly though of Florida.”

She's a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta. Hello, Ashley. Hey, Dave. How are you? I've got a lot to talk about.

So, it's only interesting cases today. Only a few, actually. Lots happening. But let's go over what we've got on the docket today. So we have Tyler Robinson, highly anticipated preliminary hearing.

It began this morning, Monday, July 6th, and it's expected to be the biggest public release of evidence against the 23-year-old who is accused of shooting Charlie Kirk. That's the biggest release today, and we'll discuss. Yeah. Also, discuss Corey Richens, that's the Utah mom.

Lot of Utah today. It's a lot.

“Yeah, she was convicted early this year, uh, murdering her husband Eric with a fatal dose”

of fentanyl in his nightcap. Well, she's moving for a new trial, not a surprise, but unless she has Ashley Merchant as her defense lawyer. She's got no chance. We'll get into the grounds for the motion, and we'll also talk about the judges

behavior in the trial and how it could be under close review. Yeah. Later, we've also got Utah attorney, Jill Coil.

She's going to join us to discuss the first witness who was called in the Tyler Robinson's

preliminary hearing. But first, Dave, let's talk about this. Let's talk about the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing. It kicked off this morning with Judge Graff reminding Council to treat each other like human beings.

Let's take a look. I'm turning to Council. Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that over these past 10 months I've had a chance to observe each of you. I find that you are all competent, prepared, and that you care deeply about this case.

I ask you to continue to conduct yourselves, and in accordance with the rules governing professional conduct, civility, and ethics. I also ask that you remain mindful of the constitutional rights of all parties. And in every engagement that you treat each person, you engage with with the dignity and respect they are inherently due as they are human beings.

I love the little pep talk. What do you think about that, Dave? It's fine. I mean, it's Utah, where they're nice, they have a standard of ethics and a code, and they don't want this to be a clown show.

“That's why he allowed cameras, but only up to a point.”

You can't just have any Rando with a cell phone camera in there. You got to be approved by the courts, got to be camera in the back of the room, and when the prosecutor just mildly push back against the defenses spread of misinformation about the ballistics, the prosecutor is now being almost held in contempt, I mean, it's sort of held in contempt, but it hasn't been any real sanction to it.

So this judge wants to run a tight ship, and so far he is, I don't think Ashley. No, I mean, he's definitely doing that, and I love the little preview. Hey, everybody be nice, be professionals, I think that's good. It's interesting because, you know, you and I were on Megan's show earlier, talking about it, talking about a preliminary hearing, we're going to talk about this a lot more

of their guests, but typically a preliminary hearing is not a big show. I mean, it's typically a very short, brief thing, but in this case, this is such a significant case out in Utah. This is the man who is accused of killing murdering Charlie Kirk, and this hearing is expected to last up to five days, and going to be the largest public disclosure of the

state's evidence to date. So a lot of people are going to be learning a lot of facts here, and, you know, information

that has never been released to the public, we believe is going to be released during

this hearing. The security, of course, as you can imagine, was very high around the courtroom. They had armed officers on the roof, they had police actually on the ground, and they've allowed the public in, they've not allowed laptops, but they have allowed the public in, and allowed a camera, like you said, Dave, they've got 14 seats that are are essentially

available for the public. So some lucky people were able to get in. And Erica Kirk, Charlie's widow, actually was there with Charlie's family, and she posted a statement on X before the hearing posted a public statement, and it said, the statement on behalf of Charlie Kirk's immediate family, his parents, Robin and Catholic, his wife

Erica and his sister Mary, Charlie was a beloved husband, son, brother, friend, and father. Every court proceeding serves as a painful reminder of his death, and the loss that his irrevocably impacted our lives and the lives of his children, where he remained deeply grateful for the support, prayers, and kindness we have received. This outpouring has sustained us during the darkest days of our lives.

Out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be commenting further at this time. We ask for continued privacy as we navigate this process and immense grief, and reportedly

description of the actual homicide, which does not surprise me, but I understand why they

want to be there and show their support and make sure that their voices are heard. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in a little bit with our guest, but apparently they've had the judge did say that he did not want to have anything displayed on the TV. So they've got different exhibits and some of them are very sensitive, but let's take a listen to sought too, where he talks about things not being displayed on the TV.

Do not want them to be displayed on TV.

“I believe it is important that the parties know that the exhibits are being viewed by the”

judge in real time and in open court. However, what I will do is have the monitor placed against that wall to reduce the possibility of it being broadcast and so on the exhibits that the court grants to be published in court and not going to Mr. Novak's point, not to be given copies to you, and the court is trying to be mindful that if it's shown on TV, that's essentially giving a copy to.

Okay.

Well, first off, not surprised by any of this, he's been very careful.

I am surprised that this preliminary hearing is taking five days. This was not supposed to be a mini trial. This is as long as most trials, more, I mean, fact, most trials are like a couple days. A five days, just for a preliminary hearing, where the outcome is not endowed.

“I think the longest preliminary hearing I've ever had was four hours and it was on a homicide”

and I mean, and that was like exquisitely long and there were specific reasons, so this is just, this is, this is significant. We'll get into that. We actually have a Utah attorney. So we're going to talk a little bit about that later on in the show. The best summer pieces are the ones you end up wearing on repeat, comfy, versatile, and right for almost every occasion. So let me tell you about quince. They make elevated essentials

using premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, and washable silk without the traditional retail markup. They're 100% European linen pants, dresses, and tops are

lightweight, easy to style, and they started just $32. You will never believe that these

things start at $32 when you get your hands on them. Everything at quince is priced

“50 to 80% less than similar brands because they work directly with ethical factories and”

they cut out the middlemen. And it's not just a peril. They also have home essentials from betting and bath to kitchen essentials and furniture. Make your summer wardrobe feel easier. Go to quince.com/mktc for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's q-u-i-n-c-e.com/mk-tc for free shipping and 365-day returns. One of your most interesting cases that I know you like, and we all have our favorite cases here

at MK True Crime. When we see him on the docket and talking about him, I said, "Oh, I know Dave is going to be excited. We're talking Charlie. Eightle Synuptakes. What's going on with Charlie?" Okay. Well, this is my top case because I knew Danny Merkel, the victim. Not that guy. That's Charlie Aelsin. Yeah, he won part, black sheep, won part. Mama's boy. He was convicted of the murder of my friend Danny Merkel. He and his mother, like, mother-like son because they decided to try

to help their sister, Charlie Sister, Wendy, in a custody battle over the kids. They lived in South Florida, eight hours away from Tallahassee. It's like a world away. And Danny Merkel would win in court, and the kids were going to stay up and Tallahassee. And the family was involved in hiring Hitman to murder Danny, and he was murdered, and then the family got what they wanted. They immediately moved the kids to South Florida to be with them. They also wiped Danny's last name, Merkel,

off of the kids last name. They changed the last name to their last name. And then there was even a family member who had passed on from Danny's side of the family. And he gave one of the kids the middle name of that family member. Struck, struck, struck as well. Oh, my God. Oh, yeah, try to whitewash Danny Merkel from the kids past. And they have since grown up with their mom and their grandparents, but only on the Adelson side. And now the grandmother's in prison,

the uncle Charlie is in prison for the rest of their lives. Wendy, the ex wife, the mother, has not been charged with any crime. And that's the question a lot of people have, is if she's next, and the only, well, I shouldn't say the only, the processors have not charged her, and that could happen.

Wendy? Not yet, because Charlie still has appeals, Penny. He believes that he can still get out of prison on appeal. He's living his own world. He's in a bubble. He's a sociopath. And he keeps losing. He lost in court at the trial. And now he lost in the appellate court on his appeal. He'll go to the, excuse me, the state Supreme Court. He'll lose there. And then he'll come back again on what's called the collateral appeal. And then challenge his lawyers in effect of assistance of council.

That hasn't happened yet. But that's inevitable. And then after he loses then, and only then,

“I think, could he open himself up to the possibility of flipping on his sister?”

Yeah, I think you're right on that. I mean, we've actually got a side of the first verdict,

the first loss. And then we can talk a little bit about what's going on with this with his post-conviction, you know, his appeal, because he did just lose that first round. If we've got, um, sought three, which is actually his guilty verdict back when he was found guilty in 2023. In the circuit court, the second judicial circuit in and forth Leon County, Florida, the state of Florida versus 12 Angles in, case number 2016, CF-3036B, verdict.

Count one. We the jury find it as follows as the count one of the indictments, first of remurter. The defendant is guilty of first of remurter. Count two. We the jury find as follows as the count two of the indictments, conspiracy to commit first of remurter.

The defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit first of remurter. Count three. We the jury find

as follows as the count three of the indictments, solicitation to commit first of remurter. The defendant is guilty of solicitations to commit first of remurter. So I'm saying we all in the sixth day of the number 2020. So Charlie thought he's smarter than everyone else. He and his mother looked down upon the people of Tallahassee. They see him as hayseeds. And so in prison he came up with this elaborate

explanation of why his money got into the killer's hands because he had a unique way of stapling his money. He was stapled his cash. What staples their cash? That's crazy. Yeah, well he might as well put his fingerprints all over it because the staple is his fingerprint and then he had to try to explain why did the killer's a hitman have stapled cash in their hands. Well, he came up with this theory of double extortion and we have a sod on it. It is so preposterous.

I want to warn our audience. Please, if you think for yourself either any critical thinking

skills, you may want to sit down because this is so stupid that it's amazing that he thought he would snow the jury by it. Let's play this side. She's like my friend killed them and he wants

“to be paid a third of annoying dollars. How did you react? I was like, what did you just say?”

And she's like my friend killed them and he wants you to pay a third of annoying dollars. What happened next? I stood up and I started cursing it. I'm like, what the fuck are you kidding me? And she's like, no, she started telling me like, I'm so sorry. This was all my fault but I didn't know any of this was going to happen. And I'm like, Katie, I'm not going to be part of the shit. Like, I'm not going to be part of paying for a murder. This isn't saying. And she's like, look, if you

don't pay in 48 hours, they will kill you. And I said, Katie, I feel like I'm getting extorted now. How did she respond to that? She got really mad at me. She got angry. She's like, look, I'm not extorting you. She's like, I got dragged into this the same way you got dragged into this. She's like, it's my fault for prodding my mouth the way I did. But I'm not extorting you. Like, I'm trying to help you. So she's like, you got it. She goes, what are you going to do?

Are you going to go to the police? Is you going to the police? They'll kill you. Oh, watching that as a defense lawyer. I'm just like, you know, you know that they prep. I mean, you know they told him not to act smug like that. And just I can just feel sitting there watching that. I'd be like, you just made your own grave. That was just not good testimony. I'm not going to want not good testimony. No, I don't. Yeah, I think he nailed his coffin and, you know, the appeal.

So so recently he has appealed and it focused mainly his appeal focused on an argument that he thought he was denied a fair trial due to the intense pretrial media coverage of the case. I think he probably lost because of that lovely little display that he put on on the stand. But can I, can I add something that? Oh, yeah. So his explanation is this double extortion plot where you heard it. Where he said that I was extorted. I had to pay the Latin kings and then he said he

didn't have all the money right away, but he paid in an installment plan because, you know,

“gang members. That's what the Latin clings he'd love to do and stomach fans. Yes, right, right,”

right, extortion installment plans. It's on their advertisement. It's on their webpage. Right.

Right. So, so here's the thing. This is not how extortion works. Okay.

Now extortion is when you have the bad guys go to the victim and say, you're better pay me or else. That's extortion, right? You better pay me or else I'm going to kill you or your family. You know what is not extortion is when the bad guys first drive to it. Tell us how to say eight hours. Come back because it didn't work and then go up again. So essentially that's 16 hours, 32 hours that they drive, then they kill the enemy of the victim. The person, the victim hates

the most in the world. Then after doing that, then they come back and they say to the victim. Okay. Now, unless you pay me, I'm going to kill you and your family. What? What? Why go up to tell I ask you twice? Why kill the victim's enemy? Why? Because this is a lie.

“Great. Well Dave, I think you would have enjoyed prosecuting this case. I have no doubt.”

I'm clearly passionate about it, but it doesn't make any sense. None of this has. None of their defense has made any sense. It's just such a loser for the defense. And again, guess what? A loser for them on appeal because he lost. They said, "Hah, we don't really think that you have this, you know, do try a fair process, you know, fair trial denied because of this intense pretrial coverage." The court said, "Sorry. Those things were okay. They didn't

demonstrate that you had, you know, that you failed to receive a fair trial. The defense argued that it was this persuasive prejudice, pervasive prejudice in the community because everybody essentially had already made up their minds about his guilt." The problem with prejudice is sometimes the prejudice is actually because you're guilty. It's not because of some undue prejudice or some outside prejudice. It's just because you actually are guilty and everybody knows it.

And that's kind of what the appellate court said here. Said, "Sorry. We're not going to give you a new trial on that." But then, on a lot of the issues, they actually said they weren't

preserved for a pellet review, which, you know, as a defender always makes me kind of cringe because

I'm like, "Ooh, you know, one of the hardest things we do when we're trying cases is try to make sure that we get everything preserved." And what that means for our listeners is just basically you gotta object to it. If you don't object, you can't later on say, "Well, the judge got it wrong when I objected and they made that ruling because if you didn't object, they didn't make a ruling and you can't complain about it." So, most of the arguments they were saying weren't preserved

and actually during oral arguments on this case, the defense said that they didn't bother submitting written motions because it would have been a useless gesture. Which, I mean, we all know, but you can't really say that. Isn't this the grounds for ineffective assistance of council that they're going to come up? Oh, eventually, eventually. But, you know, we've got a

“spot where Adelson's attorney actually was attacking, which I think it's funny attacking the”

appellate review preservation rules, which didn't really win, but we can take a look at that, that's not five. You know, the rule requires a written motion, an affidavit, and a good faith statement, correct? Yes, sir, order. All right, and that didn't happen here. No, you're order. And what type of things would we have seen in an affidavit before any jurors were interviewed? I don't know, and my response to that is, and I understand that I'm attacking the rule

and it's a requirement, although there's certainly case law that says that if a motion in any context is made orally, and if there's a component within our criminal procedure rules, there requires it to be written. If it would be a useless gesture for such a motion to be submitted and writing, when it's been thoroughly discussed and ruled upon orally, then that's not required. One of your arguments is that the Tallahassee community, almost 300,000 people,

was so tainted by what you characterize as pervasive media, that there could be no jury selected, that would be impartial. But what you don't have in this record is how many times those exposures happen, whether they were biased or not. So we don't, we don't have the content of that to show

“how that would have influenced the veneer. Well, that's painful. Yeah, you know, that's, I believe”

that's a Michael Offermint. He is considered one of the best appellate lawyers in the state of criminal appeals. He's, there's an exo reputation. I just think, you've got to deal with the crap you're given. You do. You do. And you know, it happens all the time. We get things where it says not preserved. And, you know, the the opinions published, and I want to tell the world, not my fault, not my fault, you know, maybe my client, maybe the court. I don't know, not my fault. And it

always, we always blame the lawyer. But yeah. So I don't know, we'll be following that and see if

there's any new attacks to this case, maybe later on post conviction in a habeas, but we've also got an updating query ridgins. So she, again, talking about appeals. And just to catch our viewers up, she was convicted recently of killing her husband with a Moscow mule that

poison him that lethal dose obviously killed him. And now she is filing for an appeal. She is saying

“that she's innocent. And she is saying that the judge, the first thing was she's saying that the judge”

was bad. But let's before we talk about why she thinks the judge was bad and she'd be kicked off the case. Let's watch her actual guilty verdict at Sussex. Count one, aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously, find that the defendant Corey Richens is guilty of aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously agree that the prosecution has proved the following circumstance or circumstances regarding count one beyond a reasonable doubt. The homicide was committed for

Picunier again and the homicide was committed by means of the administration of any substance administered in a lethal amount, dosage or quantity. Count two, attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously, find that the defendant Corey Richens is guilty of attempted aggravated murder. We, the jury unanimously agree the prosecution has proved to following circumstance or circumstances regarding count two beyond a reasonable doubt. The attempted homicide was committed

“for Picunier again. Actually, the only thing that this judge is guilty of is having an amazing”

voice. He does. He does have a great voice. And you know, they argue that he was more bias towards the defense. I mean, I've definitely been in front of judges that had their favorites and this just wasn't one of them. So I just don't really think that this is going to go anywhere. But we'll follow it. I mean, maybe another judge who looks at it will decide that he was biased. I sincerely doubt it. I don't think we're going to see that. I think we're going to see this conviction upheld just like

we saw Charlie Adelson's. Yeah, there was so much evidence against Corey Richens. And she, I mean, did stupid things like, she wrote the book about grief when she's the one who killed her husband, the father of the children and went on TV to promote it. So the jury was not going to like her from day one. As soon as they saw that stuff, at least. The next we're going to talk to you Todd, turn a Jill coil because that's the theme of the today's show. It's you talk about the

little more stuff, right? Do you want to join us to discuss the early developments coming out of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing? So stay tuned. Our next sponsor is Varacity. They're founder, Ali Egan is a CEO and certified hormonal health coach who learned about Metabolic Health the hard way. See, for years, she struggled with an autoimmune disease that attacks the thyroid. That's the body's primary metabolic engine. She created Varacity to ensure that everyone is

access to the whole of six solutions and optimal health that they deserve. The name Varacity actually means accuracy and truth. Unlike companies that over promise and under deliver, Varacity is built on clinical integrity. Their breakout product called

Metabolism Ignite is a game changer. It's an all natural way to help you slim down,

booster energy, and sharpen your focus by tackling the root cause of so many health struggles. That's your metabolism. Everything they offer is drug free. It's clinical proven and Dr. formulated to support your body's unique needs. So learn from Ali, it make the switch of Varacity head to VaracityHealth.co and use code mk for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's v-e-r-a-c-i-t-y-health.co for up to 65% off. Make sure you use my promo code mk. So they know

that I sent you. Welcome back to the mk tree crime show. Joining us now is Utah attorney,

“Jill Poel. Welcome, Jill. It's so good to have you. So what are your thoughts on this hearing?”

So far, Tyler Robinson, we've talked about it at the beginning. The alleged, I hate to even have to bother saying that alleged killer of Charlie Kirk, but you're out in Utah. So tell us what is going on and what your thoughts are on this preliminary hearing that started today.

Yeah. My first thought as an attorney was thinking that it was interesting. The defense wanted

to do the preliminary hearing a lot of times the way that and just go forward with their right to speedy trails. So, but now looking at the first day of what the defense's strategy is, I can understand why they're doing that. They're getting as much information as possible to

at trial. I think this isn't a matter of if they're going to have probable cause that that's going to be met. Now it's really on the defense to be able to get enough evidence or enough information they believe to help them in their defense at trial. I'm curious if you've seen any indication of what their theory may be. I mean, I know they're trying to lock in testimony right now, but you know, are they just trying to pick little pieces

“away on reasonable doubt? Is there any inkling as to what their actual theory of defenses?”

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to say that they're trying to find any kind of reasonable doubt. And because of that, I mean, I think they're goal right now is to get the death penalty off at the table. And so they're trying to get as much information now to be able to show the prosecutors that there's probably not enough for a death penalty and maybe a plea to go forward,

but again, we're just in the first day of this. There's a lot of information that we know at least

that has come out that could, you know, that makes this not just like this like black and white case. So I think that it's, it's been very interesting to listen to some of the testimony today and it's going to be really interesting to get more of the evidence we get this week to really figure out, you know, do the does the prosecutor just have this, you know, open and shut a case that they think they do? Yeah, well, you said some things have come out that would make some people believe

it is not an open and shut case. It seems like that to me, an open and shut case, they got multiple confessions, but what do you see as a problem, Jill? Well, I mean, and we're not going to get a lot of the defenses side from this, right? They're not going to call their witnesses, but we do know that there was in consistency with the ballistics report that's come out. We know that the prosecutors now, you know, been held in contempt for their talking about the case.

One of the things that shocks me as an attorney in Utah is that the judge decided to keep it in

“Utah County versus moving it to up to third district, Salt Lake, to get it out of such what I think”

intensely populated where there were so many people that live in Utah County that were there at this event or no somebody that was at this event, I'm really shocked that Judge Graff is keeping it there. So, so again, as an attorney, and again, my job is to look at the evidence he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's still a lot of things that are happening in this case that I just don't see that it's going to be guilty. Right, just a slam dunk. So, I'm curious this judge,

Judge Graff. So, I know he's sitting as a magistrate to hear the prelam, but I don't believe he is a magistrate, right? So, can you kind of fill us in on Utah how that works? Is he the trial judge? He is the trial judge, and I think people are considering that in the media, and that's just wrong. We don't have magistrates in Utah. We just have district judges. He's a district judge.

He is fairly new, and I actually have never been in front of me, from now yet, because he is very new,

but he's a very good attorney. You can tell from the decisions he's making in this case, he is thinking very methodically. Utah is not shy of having some of these infamous cases that are coming out, you know, we've got the rich in case if in Park City, Judge Morazics, all over the news. Yeah, we just talked about him. Yeah. Yeah, he was great. He was great. They were wrapped on him and

“trying to recuse him, but I mean, we all thought he was great. With a great voice. Yeah. Yes, right?”

I talk about it on my TikTok and my Instagram all the time, that people love him for that, but Judge Graff is following those footsteps of being very methodical. But I also, I want them to, you know, not just take the case, because they want to have this opportunity for such a big case. If you, I, I really struggle how many jurors are there going to have to go through to get a impartial jury? I think that's going to be hard in Utah County. So the fact that he's kept it,

but some of his other rulings have been very fair. He is a district judge. He will be overseeing this at trial. Very smart guy. I definitely, I have, I have no qualms that he can't handle this case. It's just a matter of us being able to get that fair and partial jury and be able to have this fair trial so that we limit the ability to, to an appeal. Right. Well, the witness today

who was up there, the most was Officer Chris Bagley. He was the first witness. He was the one that

listen to Officer Bagley and then we'll talk about it. If we can play SOT7. So you mentioned

you heard something. What did you hear again? I heard a gunshot. Okay. And can you describe the re, you described Mr. Kirk's reaction? Was that simultaneous to hearing the gunshot? Yes, it was.

“When he fell to the left? Yes. Did you see the reaction from the crowd? Yes. What was that?”

I heard a guy got up, they all said a lot of people were screaming, setting up and starting to run and all different directions away from the center of the tent. People are running up, people are laying down on the steps. I'm trying to jump over people to get to the palm of stairs so I can help soften individuals, probably shooting. What happened next? By the time I got to the bottom of stairs, I was informed on the radio that we had a shooter in custody. Typically, what I'm

used to is hearing from a lead officer like that. But that's it. That's that's difficult to me.

And Utah, I mean, are you typically have these many trials where they call multiple witnesses? Or is it usually just one officer? I mean, in this case, for a preliminary hearing, as you know, they're here just to find proper because it's a very low standard and just because they call one cop on this doesn't mean that they can't have several others on their witnesses. So I think that they wanted to call the one that they thought would be the most. They obviously don't want

to do a two month preliminary hearing. This is slotted for five days. So I think that that was their decision to call this one witness. This one officer. I don't think that's a bad strategy. I don't think his testimony was as strong as I wanted it to be. I don't think that I think he's got to be

very careful in trial because the defense are taking notes. They're going to look at his deposition.

They're going to, you know, they're going to look at his police reports. They're going to call them out if he changed his story. I was a little concerned about that when he was speaking, like I didn't feel like there was a lot of conviction. And so I was a little concerned about that. But at the end of the day, I think probable cause is going to be found. I don't think there's any

“question of that. Yeah, that's why the only benefit I think here is for the defense to be able to”

flush out the prosecutor's case, see their cards. On the other hand, the prosecution can make a pitch to the public. I think that's why they're showing so much evidence that those conspiracy theories that you're finding on the internet when you go down the rabbit holes. They're nonsense. Here's the evidence. We got the guy. So I guess both sides are playing the PR game in a case where I don't think I've ever seen a case where conspiracy theories have run more rampant than this one because it's so

highly politically and emotionally charged. Would you say the same thing, Jill? Yeah, I mean, this one obviously, there's just the whole political side that is just made it. So it's just run. It's kind of coarse. But if you look at the Brian Coburger trial in Idaho and you look at what the defense did and as an attorney, you were like, what is this defense attorney doing? And we were all kind of frustrated with it. And then at the end of the day, he took a plea dough where he took life in prison

and the death penalty was taken off the table. So I think it's a well strategy. Yeah, I mean, that's

“what I, that's what I've been saying this whole time. I really think this case and this hearing”

and everything is coming down to the death penalty. I think that's what it is. This isn't a who done it. This isn't a, you know, did he do it? Is he going to get sentenced? You know, it's, it comes down to whether or not the jury is going to vote to kill him or not. And I think a lot of this piling on that the prosecution is doing is for the jury pull. Like you were talking about, you know, moving, moving the trial. It's still saying in this community. And so the community, I'm sure

is talking about this at all the lunch tables all around. You know, I'm sure everybody in that world is, is chattering and so the more they pile on, the less likely they have a residual doubt sort of, you know, death penalty. We're not going to vote on the death penalty because a lot of times in death penalty cases, there's different reasons that jurors say no to the death penalty. And one of the most common ones nowadays is this residual doubt. And it's, you know, it's

developed over time with the advent of DNA, jurors want certainty. They don't necessarily want certainty to convict, but they want certainty to kill you. And I think that they're, they're just really piling on with that right now to try to, you know, get the community. And that's probably part of the theory because you mentioned that they don't want to, that they're not moving it. So I'm sure that that community is all talking about it. I mean, is that, is that what it's like

locally? Everybody at the lunch counter is talking about this case, right? Great money. And what shocked me was that the judge, judge, graph decided to allow this to be public. So because of that, just like you said, so we get to see everything that's going on. So us as

each side is playing to that jury pool. So I mean, you have sitting in the courtroom,

Erica Kirk, you, which is, I think, really like I was shocked when she showed up today. You have Donald Trump Jr. sitting in the courtroom. Wow. You have his parents. They all showed up today. I think, I mean, that is definitely a play into the, you know, this side. But then now you have the defense who's bringing up these different things. And, you know, going to bring up, you know, it is, it is, it is, unfortunately, in our justice system in the way that we set it up. It is a,

“it is a game. It is a way of, but that is the only way that justice can be served.”

A defendant has the right to prove his innocence and tell it proven guilty. And,

and unfortunately, this is a spectacle. Like, right, whatever side you lean on. Like,

this is a spectacle. And I don't know how judge graph is going to do a really good job at keeping that home again and making sure that it doesn't get out of his hands. But I'm concerned. I have some concerns about it. Yeah. What, one of the, uh, interesting thing was when Officer Bagley said on the stand that he thought, well, that was kind of fast when he heard over the radio that a shooter was in custody, that's a kind of thing that a good criminal counselor like Ashley

Merchant would exploit saying, yeah, you had your focus on one person to the exclusion of everything else around you. So, that could come back and press play a role. In fact, Officer Bagley described a bunch of things. When he heard, we played the side about when he heard, there was a gunshot. He also, we have a side of him, a side aid. We can play that where he realized that there was possibly a shooter on the run, uh, quit play that. That there was a male individual on top of

“the roof that was there at the time of shooting. Did they describe what his movements were?”

They did, they stated that he ran to the edge, dropped down, crawled, uh, gunner prone position. I'm going to stop you right there. Ran to the edge, uh, what direction and what edge? Uh, ran running west and south west of the Lossie building. So then towards the tent and where Charlie Creek was, so they could get a line of sight. Um, and then the individual stood up after shooting and ran northeast on the top of the Lossie building. Okay. Um, you mentioned that this

individual on the video dropped off off the edge. Did you, did you, did you get that mentioned? Oh, what happened? What else was described to you? Um, then, well, at that moment, so I knew that there was possibly a shooter on the run. Yeah. So the fact that he admitted that he thought it was quick that a shooter was in cussie right away. Do you think that plays a part in the defense strategy, Jill, and Ashley? The information he was getting right there was, like, from another

party. So he was testifying, it was, I mean, here's say they're going to have to call those people to the stand to get that in, but, but it was chaos. I mean, I have personal friends that were there.

“I was not there. I was, but, but it was chaotic. I think that's going to be the biggest thing. And”

then, as you guys know, when he, after, you know, the chaos, they thought somebody started screaming it was me, it was me and they, they tackled this guy and they arrested him and they thought that they had apprehended the person that did it and it ended up not being it. I mean, so there was a longer time gap than what we're realizing. And I think that the prosecution is going to have to do a really good job again in the preliminary hearing. I don't think they need to tighten this up,

but the defense is going to know this bite, everything. And they're going to poke as many holes as they can. They're going to have to tighten up that timeline. They're going to have to be able to connect the dots of how they got him. Yeah, they, they really are and to answer your question Dave. I mean, I think, and we'll play in a minute. We'll play satinine where, you know, we start seeing their theme really coming out in the cross examination, but I think one of the

things that the defense is going to argue is this was a rush to judgment. You know, that they didn't know what the facts. They rush to judgment. They made a choice and that, you know, it was the wrong choice. And the thing is, even if jurors feel like the police got the right person, if the police and the government don't do their jobs, the jurors are going to hold them accountable for that. You know, I mean, those, you get hold out jurors for that. You get jurors that say, well, I think

he probably did it, but you didn't prove it. And that's your job as the state. And so they may be

playing into that. And then also, you know, that residual doubt always. But, you know, any time the

they have to prove everything. And so a good defense lawyer will do that. We joke that defense law is making, um, pardon for my French, but making chicken scratch out of chicken shit. And oftentimes, it is. It is the art of making chicken scratch out of chicken shit regularly. So that may be what they're doing here. Let's take a look at satinine. We'll see one of the cross examination questions.

You never attended any kind of, I'll just use the word debrief or meeting to talk about what

the officers on scene were going to do that day to keep everybody safe. No, not that one. As far as you know, were there any drones that were flying above campus that day? Not I know of.

“And did anyone ever talk to you about covering anything near or on top of or in the low sea building?”

Were you ever signed that area before the shooting? No. Do you know who was? I don't. And when you got up to the roof that afternoon, was anybody around that was law enforcement? No. Nobody on the roof. Nobody on the stairway. Nobody on the walkway. Interesting watching what they're doing there. I mean, I think that they're trying to

nail down where else evidence could lie. You know, was there a drone? Maybe there was a drone.

They didn't go and get that footage. And maybe there's this missing video, you know? I feel like that might be what they're doing here. I mean, do you think that that's it? I don't know how liberal your discovery rules are there in Utah. But I know most of the time we're trying to get as much information at these preliminary hearings because the discovery rules and criminal aren't very good. So I'm just curious if that might be one of the things they're trying to do here.

They are trying to show that, you know, UVU or Charlie Kirk's security detailed didn't do their job, that they were not prepared, that they were that it was chaotic, that they allowed

too many people. Their security failed them. And then they scrambled to put together and try to

find the person. I did it. I absolutely, I could see almost a pivot. It's like they went away from the ballistic stuff. They're like, we don't need to bring that up right now. What we're going to do now is prepare questions that are going to really show this reasonable doubt and how you did

“a bad job at trial. And I think that that absolutely what you said, it plays to the jurors.”

It brings in this doubt of you didn't do your job in the forefront. Why would we think you did a good job in the back? And in fact, they didn't. I mean, it wasn't like we were just talking about it. It wasn't clean. It wasn't, oh, we got the shooter. We know he's there. This is it. Like it was, you know, and it was chaotic and people, you know, the cops were so confident that they found them that the president and I states tweeted it. I mean, like it wasn't done well. And I think that

that's exactly what the defense is going to bring in. I think that that's their strategy. They don't have many strategies left because they don't have a lot. Right. Yeah, they don't. But they're going to do everything they can. And like I said, I think it's reasonable doubt or at least something that's going to bring maybe a plea to the

“table and to be fair. I think that is probably going to happen. I think that's that's what's going”

to probably happen. Wow, just we haven't added death a death case in Utah in a really long time. It, you know, it's I think that it costs, you talk county millions of millions of dollars on a death penalty case, which they've already said they're going for it. And then they asked other counties to pay for it. I mean, I don't think anybody really understands how it works when we have to do these kind of high profile count money. Like the governor's not giving us money more money.

Right. Yeah, they're expensive. It's crazy. It's so expensive. And the taxpayers aren't, you know, like we don't have the budget. Does that make sense? So a lot of people don't understand these trials are really burdensome on the on the on the system. And, you know, that they shut the court room, the court house, the entire fourth district court house down every time they have one of these hearings. That means every other trial, you know, proceeding has to be delayed. And so I think that it's a

really big, you know, and that might be the direction that they're trying to go. And if not, if the prosecution is determined, I think we will be having a full trial on this case. Wow. And I think a lot of folks don't realize that, you know, jurors are hesitant to impose the

likely to get a death verdict. But I have one question before we let you go. What, knowing this judge, do you think he's going to rule from the bench? Or do you think he's going to take this under advisement? Oh, good question. I think that for preliminary hearing, I think that he might, I know, he's been so methodical with his with his reasons, which is the only reason why I think he could take it under advisement. So he does like a full like reasoning behind it. But I also

could find that he, he just finds that he, there's enough property to buy this over for trial. And then it does a scheduling conference to get that schedule. So just so that we can keep this moving. So I do see that that could be a plausible ending to this at the end of the week. Awesome. Well, thank you, Jill. So much. Can you tell our audience where they can find you? Yeah. It's just my name, Jill Coil. So I, Jill Coil at my Instagram,

“Jill Coil.com. That Jill Coil on TikTok. I break down. That's how you found me. I break down new”

stories. And I talk about them in short form. I also have a YouTube channel that you can check me out as as well. So, cool. Well, thank you so much for joining us. And and telling us all about you, talk, we appreciate it. And everyone else, next up, we've got our closing arguments. Just have a quick talk about life insurance. Most of us have it, but you actually know what you're

paying or exactly what you're getting. The truth is, you're likely paying too much for too little.

Plus, if your coverage is tied to your job and you're unexpectedly laid off, you could be left with zero protection overnight. That's a scary thought, but it's incredibly simple to fix. Thanks to select quote, unlike those one size fits all companies, select quotes, licensed agents, work for you, not the carriers. In just 15 minutes, they compare policies from top rated providers to find the perfect fit for your health and budget. Best of all, their service is completely

free. So, if you're worried about a medical exam, don't be. They've got partners offering same day coverage up to $2 million. That's without a doctor's visit. Even if you have preexisting conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure, select quote, finds a protection you deserve.

Life insurance will never be cheaper than it is today. Select quote, they shop. You save.

Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at select quote dot com slash mk. Save more than 50% on term life insurance at select quote dot com slash mk today to get started.

“That's what quote dot com slash mk. Welcome back to mk true time. Now it's time for our closing”

arguments. Ashley merchant. Go ahead. Thank you Dave. All right. Well, today I'm going to put back on I'm going to put back on my professor cap a little bit because we have been talking a lot about appeals and post conviction. We started a couple weeks ago with the Mackenzie Schiller case and talking about her appeal. We talked about Adelson today. We're talking about Cory Richins. There's just a lot come on low Anthony a lot of appeals. So, I want to kind of just talk about that for a second

just the the process so that everybody understands what we're really talking about. So, we never

really get a chance to go into those details. So, when you're convicted at trial, when you actually have a guilty verdict, the first stage is what's called a direct appeal. And it's a direct appeal because you are directly allowed to have it. It's not permissive what I would call a permissive appeal. And there's a lot of appeals where they're actually by permission, which I call the permissive appeals because I think it's catchier and easier to follow. But what people like Cory Richins are doing

“is they're doing a direct appeal. That's what Charlie Adelson is doing right now. He's doing a”

direct appeal. It's where you appeal what happened during the trial. After that, you have all these other things. They're called permissive appeals. And so, when you hear us talking about Mackenzie Schrella for example and how her lawyers missed a deadline. And so, the court didn't even consider her appeal. That's what we would call a permissive appeal. Meaning that she was asking permission to appeal. She wasn't getting to what we call the merits. She was saying, I think we should appeal

because of this. And then if they say yes, then they let her go and argue the merits. So, I think it's important to talk about those as two very different things. Also, a lot of people ask us, okay, what is preserved for a pellet review mean? Hear that all the time? Oh, it wasn't preserved. And that's one of those words that we throw around as lawyers. But essentially, it means that an objection wasn't made. So, let's just use this example. Let's say that something was admitted

at trial and it was wrong. The defense should have objected to it. If they don't object to it, the judge doesn't rule. And so, it's not preserved for appeal. And that, well, it kind of seems nitpicking, a legal technicality. If you think about it, how can you say a judge got something wrong? If they never had the chance to actually make a decision. So, if you don't object, a judge can't

And then the other thing that I want to talk about is just this concept of ineffective assistance

of counsel using that same exact example. If you said, well, my lawyer should have objected to that. Then, and only then, you raised the ineffective assistance. You say, oh, well, my lawyer was ineffective because they didn't object to that. Had they objected to that, the judge could have ruled,

“and the judge would have ruled in my favor. That's what we call the ineffective assistance”

of counsel. So, I know we're going to be talking a lot more about this. And I only had a minute, and I want to stay in my time. But I just wanted to kind of preface that for everyone. So, you sort of understood what we're talking about when we're talking about this, a pellet process. Back to you, Dave. Good stuff. Ashley, thank you. And for my closing statement, I want to talk about the danger of a confirmation bias so blinding that it weaponizes a tragedy before the bodies are

“even cold. Last year, when 18 month old twins, Dallas and Tyson died in Idaho. Their mother”

Andrea Shaw went straight to an anti-vaccine podcast to claim routine childhood shots killed her babies. And the echo chamber, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr's network, instantly bought it, hook, line, and sinker. They didn't wait for a coroner's report. They didn't wait for facts. They rushed to use these dead children as a billboard for their cause, turning a grieving mother into a political martyr. But the legal system doesn't operate on conspiracy theories. It operates on evidence.

And last week, a grand jury handed out a devastating first-degree murder in diamond. The state's

medical evidence alleges that the twins did not die from a vaccine. They died from suffocation. And let's look at how calculated this false alibi truly was. Andrea Shaw used the fact that the boys had a doctor's appointment days earlier to construct a shield against suspicion. Buying her time when the internet was out there chasing ghosts. It worked for over a year. Because of her fabricated medical narrative, police, and medical experts had to painstakingly rule out

every single contrived vaccination complication, dragging out a homicide investigation for 14

agonizing months before justice could finally move forward. Let's look at the hypocrisy here.

The exact same people who claim that they are protecting the children lined up to validate a woman now accused of murdering her own babies. All because her story fit their narrative. When you are so desperate to prove a point that you embrace a potential killer without asking a single question, you aren't a skeptic. You're an opportunist. Dows and Tyson were failed by the person who was opposed to keep them safe and then used by a machine that cared more about

“clicks than the truth. But the truth is finally here and justice is coming for those two boys.”

That's my closing statement. I want to thank my co-host Ashley Merchant for all of our insights today. I want to thank Jill Coil, our special guest from the Great State of Utah. And we want to thank you, our audience here at the MK True Crime Show. We'll see you next time.