Method — How This Exercise Works
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 — retained on September 12, 2025, with unlimited time, unlimited budget, no career risk, and 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 retainer date in that question is not decoration. It is the whole exercise. Our attorney has been counsel of record since the second day of the case, so nothing on this track was ever procedurally defaulted, and — far more importantly — every demand it makes was made while the evidence still existed. The Day-One Track sets out that calendar date by date, and Two Tracks Compared sets it against the visible record.
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.
7. Every claim carries a verification tier. This is the honesty rule and it constrains every right-hand column on every page. We hold certified preliminary-hearing transcripts for Day 4 and Day 5 only, plus a redacted transcript of the October 24, 2025 sealed-motion hearing. Days 1, 2 and 3 exist here only as machine transcriptions of the pool feed, and those are not the record.
- T1 — certified. A certified transcript we hold covers that witness on that day and we searched it. This is the only tier that supports the words "was not asked."
- T2 — filing. A document in the archive shows the motion made or not on the docket we hold.
- T3 — press. Press, pool or secondary reporting only.
- T4 — not checkable. Sealed, gagged, or a stage not yet reached.
At T3 and T4 the only permitted phrasings are "not found in the material we hold" and "not visible on the public record." And when a page leans on the absence of a filing, it quotes the ratio: the archive holds 374 PDFs against 867 known docket entries, only 258 of which ever had a public PDF at all, and 62 are marked private or sealed. Absence in an archive that incomplete is weak evidence of anything, and every page says so.
8. Reason up from the physical facts, not down from the charging document. The State's information is a pleading drafted by one party and it is evidence of nothing. This section starts from what is physically established — wound morphology, acoustics, timing, custody, what was tested and what was not — and builds up from there. It also hedges symmetrically: the State alleges a .30-06 round fired from the Losee Center roof, and this section writes it that way. It says "the seized rifle," not "the murder weapon"; "the person the State alleges was on the roof," not "the shooter"; "the message attributed to the defendant," not "the confession."
9. The product is reasonable doubt, not a counter-narrative. Our attorney is not trying to publish a theory. It is trying to get its client acquitted, and that is an easier job. Every page says which of two routes it serves. Route 1 — mechanism: if the fatal wound was not caused by a rifle round, the identity of the person on the roof stops mattering. Route 2 — the investigation itself: if the scene was altered, if tests that would have settled the mechanism were never ordered, and if federal decisions reached the courtroom only secondhand, then the jury is being asked to convict on the output of a process it cannot inspect. Route 2 needs no alternative perpetrator, and it is the route most often underrated. A discovery instrument feeds it whether or not it ever produces a document, because a refusal is also an answer.
10. The pages get out from under witnesses, not only around them. A large part of what a defense lawyer actually does is neutralise testimony that appears on its face to prove the State's point. The tools, in order of cheapness: Rule 602 personal knowledge — nearly every federal decision in this case has reached the courtroom secondhand, through Utah officers repeating what federal personnel told them; the limits of the witness's own science; what the witness was never asked to look for, which beats "are you sure?" every time; chain of custody and the warrant underneath it; the author behind a report a witness is merely reading; and impeachment by omission from the witness's own contemporaneous notes.
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.
Six more, added on the September 1, 2026 run after reading the primary filings rather than the press:
- The negotiated preservation order is a win, and the easy reading of it is wrong. The defense moved to preserve evidence on October 8, 2025 and the court granted it outright on October 20. The State moved to set that order aside on a procedural ground and argued on the merits that due process requires no notice before destructive testing. The parties negotiated, and the November 4, 2025 stipulated order kept the notice requirement — with a definition of "potentially destructive" that reaches anything "likely to change the character of a piece of evidence." That clause is what the April 2026 fragment motion stands on, and the defense negotiated for it.
- The opening discovery request was early and it was specific. The Formal Request for Discovery under URCrP 16 was filed September 30, 2025 — twenty days after the killing — and it already asked, at specific request 10, for every dispatch communication, at request 1 for all 911 audio, at request 8 for field interview cards, and at request 11 for the date, time and substance of every officer-witness contact.
- The defense does use the private-party subpoena. A Notice of Subpoena Duces Tecum to the Utah County Sheriff's Department was filed on April 1, 2026. The instrument this section keeps recommending is one counsel already reaches for.
- The July 3, 2026 Standing Objections to the State's Exhibits attack the whole Rule 1102 architecture on Eighth Amendment heightened-reliability, Sixth Amendment confrontation and compulsory-process, Fourteenth Amendment due-process and Utah separation-of-powers grounds. That is not litigating inside anybody's frame.
- On Day 5 the defense caught, and fixed, a selective reading. Counsel told the court that the State had presented DNA reports "through a nonexpert" who "selectively read into the record a portion of those reports, which left an extremely misleading impression" — then called the report's actual author, who read the paragraph that had been left out. That is the correct answer to a hearsay conduit, executed live.
- A motion to compel the federal forensic discovery is coming. The August 28, 2026 Discovery Status Report states that a motion to compel the material the FBI and ATF have refused to provide is being prepared with supporting expert declarations, and that counsel will ask for a briefing schedule on September 1, 2026. That is this section's Cluster B argument arriving on the real track, and it is the single most important thing to watch after the bind-over ruling.
A defense holding an inconclusive ballistics result, a documented custody-timing conflict, a negotiated destructive-testing bar and a pending federal motion to compel 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.
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.