Defense Attorney Score Card
:::caution This is a simulation, not an accusation Tyler Robinson's attorneys are licensed professionals with duties, constraints, and information this site does not have. A gag order, a sealed filing, a strategic decision, or a client instruction can each explain any gap below, and none of those would be visible from outside. Nothing here alleges misconduct, incompetence, or a conflict of interest by any named or unnamed member of the defense team. This card simulates an ideal defense and asks what the public record shows — no more. :::
What this card is for
Take the position of an ideal capital defense attorney with unlimited resources and no political exposure. Given this record, what would that lawyer have filed? Then ask, for each item, does the public docket show it?
The honest answer for most items is "cannot tell from outside." That is a finding too — a capital case where the public cannot tell what the defense has done is itself a transparency problem, and it is why closed hearings with no transcripts matters.
The scoring key
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 2 | Filed and pressed. Visible on the public docket and argued. |
| 1 | Raised. Mentioned or filed but not pushed to a ruling. |
| 0 | No public sign of it. May exist under seal. |
| N/A | Foreclosed by law, by the gag order, or by the client's own instruction. |
Twelve items, maximum 24.
The twelve motions
| # | What an ideal defense would file | Why it matters | The site's working page |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Suppress the Discord confession on custody grounds | If Miranda was at 6:25 PM, the 7:57 PM message cannot be his | Confession suppression motion |
| 2 | Daubert challenge to the ballistics | The fragment comparison is class-only; CBLA was abandoned in 2005 | Ballistics Daubert challenge |
| 3 | Independent autopsy review | The examiner did not testify and the report is not public | Independent autopsy review |
| 4 | Blast and acoustics experts | The two-event audio signature is testable and untested | Blast and acoustics experts |
| 5 | Explosive residue testing on everything remaining | The competing mechanism has never been excluded | Explosive residue testing |
| 6 | Spoliation motion over the paved courtyard | The scene was altered within days | Scene alteration and spoliation |
| 7 | Compel the surrender video and bodycam reports | Two camera systems produced nothing; the statute requires a written explanation | Missing surrender discovery |
| 8 | Alternative-perpetrator notice | Preserves the ability to argue anyone else did it | Alternative perpetrator notice |
| 9 | Subpoena the Fort Huachuca and NCTC records | A named former director says a foreign review was ordered stopped | Fort Huachuca records · NCTC subpoena |
| 10 | Brady enforcement and sanctions | Discovery disputes have run through the whole case | Brady enforcement |
| 11 | Oppose or narrow the gag order | It binds the side with the weaker megaphone hardest | Gag order and publicity |
| 12 | Subpoena the microphone hardware and custody chain | The burnt object is the pivot of the alternative mechanism | Microphone hardware subpoena |
The full simulated-defense workspace is the AI Attorney section, where each motion is drafted rather than merely listed.
What the public docket does show
Some of this is visible and should be credited. The defense did file the motion that put the 6:25 PM Miranda transcript into the public record — item 1's foundation exists because a defense lawyer filed it, and this entire section of the site is downstream of that filing. See the Miranda defense filing. Discovery disputes have been pressed — discovery and Brady disputes, the discovery dump and continuance.
Where the record shows less is on the mechanism. The public docket does not show a fought-out Daubert challenge, a blast expert, or an explosive-residue demand. Independent commentators have raised that — gag order acquiescence, Kent probe as defense ammunition — and attorney Baron Coleman has said publicly he believes Robinson is in grave danger.
The most important caveat on this page
A capital defense team is not obligated to run the theory the internet prefers. If counsel believes the strongest path to an acquittal is the custody timeline rather than an exploding microphone, then filing a blast-expert motion would be malpractice-by-distraction, not diligence. Defense lawyers win capital cases by narrowing, not by proving everything the public wants proved. A low score on items 4, 5, and 12 may be excellent lawyering.
That is the difference between this card and the Fed Narrative Score Card. That one scores whether someone checked a claim, and checking is always right. This one scores against an ideal that a real lawyer has good reasons to depart from.