Method — How This Exercise Works
:::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 Exercise
This section asks one question and answers it twenty-one times:
If an idealised defense attorney — unlimited time, unlimited budget, no career risk, no relationship to protect with any office in Utah — were defending this case, what would that lawyer do that does not appear on the public record?
It is a thought experiment about strategy, not an audit of anyone's performance. The distinction matters and it is enforced on every page.
The Rules This Section Follows
1. Public record only. Every statement about what the defense has or has not done is limited to what is visible in press accounts, pool reporting, docket notices and the preliminary-hearing transcripts. Filings in this case are gagged and partly sealed. The correct phrase is "not visible on the public record," and it is used everywhere rather than "the defense failed to."
2. Every page carries the honest counterargument. Each difference page has a section explaining why competent counsel might deliberately choose not to do the thing proposed. Those sections are written to be persuasive, not to be knocked down. In several cases — the alternative-perpetrator notice and the gag-order posture in particular — the counterargument is stronger than the proposal.
3. Timing before criticism. A step that belongs to a stage the case has not reached cannot have been missed. Roughly half of what is described here is not yet due, and every page says so in its stage table. See the trial cursor.
4. No accusations against living people. Nothing here states as fact that any person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Where a proposed step would require an accusatory question with no factual basis, this section says so and declines the step — see family and inner-circle witnesses.
5. No attendee names for the September 9 meeting. This site's charter forbids naming attendees or likely attendees of the possible Fort Huachuca meeting, even where a name is known. That rule governs this section too.
6. Sequence matters more than content. The most common error in public discussion of this case is proposing an intelligence subpoena without the procedural step that makes it relevant. This section is written in the order a court would require.
What The Defense Team Is Actually Doing Well
Stating this plainly is part of the method, not a courtesy.
- The ATF comparison came back inconclusive — neither identifying nor excluding the seized rifle — and it is in the record because the defense called the examiner.
- The defense called three forensic experts, all government examiners, and used them to establish the limits of the State's own science.
- The cross-examination of the lead case agent surfaced the rooftop search, an unfired round on another building, and an occupancy conflict in the vehicle evidence.
- The custody and confession-timing attack is a genuinely strong line and it is being pressed.
- In April 2026 the defense filed a detailed motion to stop further testing of the bullet jacket fragment and to let a defense expert examine and photograph it first — a document hosted on this site. It is exactly the right instinct about exactly the right piece of evidence.
A defense holding an inconclusive ballistics result and a documented custody-timing conflict is not a defense in trouble. Most of what follows is addition, not correction.
What This Section Is Not
It is not legal advice. It is not a complaint to any bar. It is not a claim that any lawyer has erred. It is a citizen's written model of an ideal defense, published so that readers can compare it against the real one and reach their own conclusions — which is the purpose of the score card.
:::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.