Put FBI Case Agents On The Stand
:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::
The One Thing We Would Do Differently
Subpoena the FBI personnel who directed evidence collection at UVU — the evidence-response team leader, the on-scene supervisory agent, and the agent who handled federal-to-state evidence routing — and examine them under oath.
Across five days of sworn testimony, exactly one FBI witness took the live stand: Amanda Bakker, a DNA examiner from Quantico, and she was called by the defense. No FBI special agent who worked the scene, directed collection, or handled the federal side of this investigation has testified in this case at all.
That is remarkable given how much of the physical record ran through federal hands. Federal personnel are reported across the scene work, the ballistics routing, the witness contacts and the hospital footage. The State's four live witnesses — Bagley, Hull, Faumuina, Davis — are Utah officers. When the questions reach federal decisions, Utah officers can only say what they were told.
An AI defense attorney treats that as the structural weakness of the entire proceeding. The people who made the decisions that matter most to the defense have never been in the room.
What The Defense Team Did Instead
The defense used its examination time to strip the State's forensics through government experts, and did so effectively. Kathryn Nester's cross of Agent Hull is the most discussed passage of the week: the rooftop search, the shell casings, an unfired round on another building, and a Ring-camera occupancy conflict in which a witness described a bald driver and three people against a one-person theory.
That is real work. But it was all conducted against Utah witnesses about Utah observations. On the public record the defense did not subpoena a single FBI agent, and did not move to compel federal testimony when only a laboratory examiner was made available.
Where This Belongs In The Case
| Stage of the case | When that stage runs | Status of this step |
|---|---|---|
| Preliminary hearing | July 6-10, 2026 — completed | One FBI witness, a lab examiner, called by the defense |
| Motion to compel federal testimony | Available now | Not visible on the public record |
| Trial subpoenas | After bind-over | Still fully open |
| Trial — defense case | No trial date set | Still fully open |
Witness Or Discovery Target
| How it would be done | Target | Took the stand? | Status on the public record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness never called | FBI evidence-response team leader at UVU | No | Never subpoenaed publicly |
| Witness never called | On-scene supervisory special agent | No | Never subpoenaed publicly |
| Cross-examination — witness testified, question not asked | Amanda Bakker, FBI DNA examiner | Yes — July 7, 2026 | Examined on DNA mixture policy; not asked about scene direction or other testing |
| Cross-examination — witness testified, question not asked | David Hull, SBI case agent | Yes — July 6-7, 2026 | Not asked which decisions were federal rather than state |
The Questions That Were Not Asked
- Agent Hull, which decisions in this investigation were made by your agency and which by the FBI?
- Who had authority over the courtyard scene on September 10, and who released it?
- Which items went to a federal laboratory rather than the state laboratory, and who chose the routing?
- Examiner Bakker, what other analyses were requested on the items you received, by whom, and what came back?
- Was any evidence in this case examined by a federal laboratory and the result withheld from the state prosecutor?
- Which federal personnel were present at the autopsy, at the hospital, and at the vehicle?
Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This
A capital defense cannot cross-examine an institution. It can only cross-examine people. As long as every federal decision in this case reaches the courtroom through a Utah officer repeating what he was told, the defense is fighting hearsay it cannot test and the jury never sees a federal witness answer a hard question.
Putting an agent on the stand also does something no motion can: it produces sworn answers about what was not done. A subpoena for documents can be met with a production that omits. A live agent asked whether anything was submitted for explosives analysis has to answer.
The Honest Counterargument
Federal employees do not simply appear on a state subpoena. Testimony by federal personnel is routed through agency regulations, and a state court's power to compel it is genuinely contested. A defense attorney who fights that battle at a preliminary hearing spends months on a procedural question and may lose it entirely.
There is also a simple resource point. A preliminary hearing is about probable cause, not about the whole truth. Spending the defense's limited examination time on federal witnesses, instead of on dismantling the State's forensic case through its own examiners, would have been a defensible strategy and might well have been a worse one.
Sources On This Site
- People on Witness Stand
- FBI — Investigation
- FBI — Discovery Delays
- Discovery & Brady Disputes
- Suspicious — FBI
:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.
Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.
Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::
This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.