Thank you Dean for presenting COUNTY ATTORNEY JEFF GRAY as a BIASED & incompetent BOOB. 

Who ever heard of a prosecutor praising the VICTIM? 

Should have recused himself & requested a CHANGE OF VENUE! 

OCCUPY DEMOCRATS posted an HONEST OBITUARY of CHARLIE KIRK

(RACIST, BIGOT, HOMOPHOBE, TRANS PHONE. MISOGYNIST, LIAR....PROMOTED PUBLIC EXECUTIONS FOR CHILDREN TO WATCH, PROMOTED GUN VIOLENCE, PROMOTED LIES THAT FOLLOWERS WERE TOO LAZY TO FACT CHECK : 

THIS Honest Charlie Kirk OBITUARY Just Went VIRAL🚨

https://youtu.be/fU7PacILdes?si=L9C31HU7j3hvbDPo

🚨Charlie Kirk’s Widow Just Got Caught In A New Scandal

https://youtu.be/fU7PacILdes?si=J-72zYUxzmVG8WO9

IS UTAH TRYING TO LOSE THE CHARLIE KIRK MURDER CASE? The Utah prosecutor just previewed the state’s case against Tyler Robinson on live TV—alleged confessions, motive, and all. It made for great television and terrible trial strategy. Dean Blundell Sep 17 September 17, 2025 YOU drive this Substack. SO, we’re giving you 50% OFF for unlimited access, for life. Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET) Imagine a high‑stakes murder trial where the prosecutor hands the defense a gift‑wrapped win on live TV—before a jury is even seated. That’s exactly what Utah County did in the Charlie Kirk killing. In a case already drowning in skepticism (those suspiciously polished messages that surfaced just in time to “seal” the story), County Attorney Jeff Gray stepped to a podium and read alleged confessions and text exchanges as if they were closed‑book truths after eulogizing Charlie Kirk for a solid ten minutes (possible bias): Is this mere sloppiness—or a calculated “overshare” that risks torpedoing the prosecution’s own case? Buckle up. We’re diving into how one press conference can blow up a capital murder prosecution before it properly starts. Could Utah be trying to lose this case, or is this a masterclass in constitutional self‑sabotage? Editor’s note: All facts in this piece reflect what was publicly presented by prosecutors or reported contemporaneously. Allegations remain allegations until proven in court. The defendant is presumed innocent. The Presser Breakdown — What Went Down Jeff Gray’s lengthy press conference laid out—point by point—the state’s narrative against Tyler Robinson, the 22‑year‑old charged with the aggravated murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. Gray read from charging documents and described what he characterized as a damning trove of alleged evidence: A handwritten note: purportedly left under a keyboard, pointing to intent and opportunity. A stream of (very convenient) text messages, allegedly sent to Robinson’s partner, includes statements that prosecutors interpret as admissions of planning (“I had the opportunity… planned for a bit over a week”) and remorse (“I am, I’m sorry”). An alleged motive in the messages: frustration with Kirk’s rhetoric framed as the animating reason (“I had enough of his hatred”), inserting Robinson’s alleged relationship with his (alleged gay/trans) roommate. Physical evidence: a rifle recovered near campus and forensic results prosecutors say tie Robinson to the weapon, including DNA. Digital breadcrumbs: a short confession‑style message on a chat platform (“It was me”), presented as coming from Robinson. Theatrics: engraved bullet casings with taunting phrases—details prosecutors highlighted to paint state of mind and a nod to Trump and Robinson’s dad. He then punctuated the narrative with sweeping rhetoric about national tragedy and political violence. The “too convenient” problem: The timing and packaging of this reveal coincided with the emergence of online skepticism about the authenticity and tone of the messages. The set pieces—confessional texts, a neat handwritten note, engraved casings—play like a movie. Prosecutors insist it’s straightforward evidence, and it may be. But by airing it all at once, and before any judge has vetted admissibility, the state risks looking like it’s trying to cement a story in the public mind rather than in a courtroom record. Every piece of questionable evidence fits Trump’s narrative, too. A basic evidentiary reality check: The text messages shown publicly lacked the usual forensics a court demands—full metadata, precise timestamps, export method, device of origin, and carrier corroboration. That doesn’t mean they’re fake. It means context and authentication will decide their fate, not a microphone discussing the information you claim to have without any verification of proof. Constitutional Carnage — Why This Is a Huge No‑No Let’s translate the legal risks—plainly and practically: Due Process & the Right to an Impartial Jury (Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments). Televising alleged confessions and curated snippets before voir dire risks poisoning the jury pool. Courts exist to test evidence under rules. Press conferences do not. Presumption of Innocence vs. “Facts” at a Podium. However many times a prosecutor says “alleged,” a televised walkthrough of supposed admissions sounds like adjudicated truth. That flips the burden in the court of public opinion. Trial‑Publicity Ethics. Prosecutors have special responsibilities. Most jurisdictions—including Utah—track the rule that lawyers must not make extrajudicial statements if they create a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a proceeding. Reading alleged confessions and motive language is the kind of content ethics committees flag. Fourth & Fifth Amendments—What They Actually Cover. Important nuance: Broadcasting messages isn’t itself a Fourth/Fifth Amendment violation. The Fourth is about how evidence was obtained (warrants, scope, consent). The Fifth guards against compelled self‑incrimination during custodial questioning. The presser turns those issues into pretrial battles about suppression and admissibility—but the immediate, concrete harm from the presser is pretrial prejudice, not a freestanding 4th/5th breach. You Can’t Unring the Bell. Once jurors have seen or heard a confession summary on TV, instructions to “ignore what you saw” are about as effective as telling someone not to picture a pink elephant. Relatable gut check: If this were your trial, would you want your texts splashed across national media before a judge reviews the chain of custody and completeness? Exactly. The Lame Cover‑Up — Disclaimers and Empty Promises Yes, Gray tacked on disclaimers about the presumption of innocence and the limits of what he could say. But after a 40‑plus‑minute parade of alleged admissions, motive, and colorful “state of mind” details, a one‑paragraph disclaimer lands like “sorry about the red wine on your white carpet.” The promise to “say nothing further during the trial” doesn’t un‑say what was already said, and it doesn’t un‑hear what the public just heard. Does this sound like confidence in strong evidence—or panic that a too‑perfect narrative might crumble under cross‑examination? And, doesn’t it look like there is a rush to create proof and motive instead of presenting it at trial? The Fallout Forecast — Motions, Mistrials, and Mayhem Expect the defense to move aggressively and early. Here’s the likely ladder: 4) Change of Venue / Continuance / Sequestration If the presser saturates the local community, the defense will ask to move the trial or delay it until publicity cools, and may seek to sequester jurors once selected. 3) Gag Orders on Participants Courts can restrict what lawyers and agents say (not the press) to prevent further contamination. The standard balances fair‑trial rights against speech—restrictions aimed at trial participants have a much better chance than prior restraints on media. 2) Evidentiary Knife Fights Authentication (Rule 901). Who pulled the texts? From what device? Forensic image or screenshot? What are the hash values? Is there carrier‑level confirmation? Completeness (Rule 106). Are we seeing curated snippets or full conversations with timestamps and context? Hearsay / Non‑Hearsay. Admissions by a party opponent are generally admissible; but the other statements in the threads? Defense will force granular rulings. Chain of Custody. From seizure to lab to courtroom—every handoff documented, or the defense will argue contamination or tampering. 1) Appellate Tripwire If the trial court shrugs at the publicity problem and a conviction follows, expect reversible‑error arguments on appeal (pretrial publicity, failure to cure prejudice). Translation: this presser could become Exhibit A in undoing the verdict. The “convenience” angle: If the messages were already suspect to skeptics, this media roll‑out conveniently opens extra doors to challenge them. Coincidence—or design? Supreme Precedent — History Isn’t on Utah’s Side A quick tour of the cases every judge keeps in their back pocket: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966): The media circus case. Conviction reversed because the court didn’t shield the trial from prejudicial publicity. The takeaway is that judges must take “strong measures” to ensure an impartial jury, including a change of venue, continuances, sequestration, warnings to participants, and tight control of the courtroom. If Utah was looking for a fair trial, they just tipped the scales in favor of ‘not.” Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976): Prior restraints on the press are almost never permissible. Courts should use less restrictive alternatives to protect fair‑trial rights (think: move the trial, expand voir dire, sequester, admonish jurors, rein in participants’ speech). Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada (1991): Lawyers can be disciplined for public statements that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice. The state’s interest in a fair trial justifies tighter reins on lawyers’ speech than on the public or press. Irvin v. Dowd (1961), Rideau v. Louisiana (1963), Estes v. Texas (1965): When pretrial publicity or broadcast confessions swamp a community, prejudice may be presumed; convictions can’t stand. Skilling v. United States (2010): Not every high‑profile case needs a venue change—if the court employs rigorous voir dire and the publicity isn’t so pervasive and inflammatory that prejudice must be presumed. The lesson: process and posture matter. Modern twist: Multiply Sheppard by social media. Viral clips, podcasts, and 24/7 feeds mean prejudice travels faster, sticks longer, and is harder to cleanse. If anything, judges today must be more—not less—proactive. How Digital Evidence Really Gets In (and Falls Apart) An educational pit stop for readers who want to understand the sausage‑making: 1) Acquisition Forensic imaging of devices (full physical or logical) with write‑blocking and hash verification (e.g., SHA‑256). Provider records (subpoena/warrant to carriers or platforms) for timestamps and message logs. Cloud backups with access credentials or lawful process. 2) Authentication (Rule 901) Hash values match from seizure to courtroom. Custodian testimony (for business records) or expert examiner testimony (for device extractions). Corroborating artifacts: geolocation, IP logs, contact lists, message headers, EXIF, system logs. 3) Admissibility & Hearsay Party‑opponent admissions by the defendant are non‑hearsay. Statements by others in the thread may require exceptions (e.g., present sense impression) or redaction. Rule 403 balancing: probative value vs. unfair prejudice (those flamboyant engravings may invite a 403 fight). 4) Completeness (Rule 106) If the state offers a snippet, the defense can demand the rest of the conversation for context. That includes timestamps, earlier drafts, and deleted segments, if recoverable. 5) Common Defense Attacks Spoofing/account compromise claims (necessitating device‑level proof). Editing/fabrication arguments (challenging export method, chain of custody). Misattribution (shared devices, shared accounts, SIM swaps). Bottom line: a press conference preview proves nothing. Courts decide what’s real and what the jury gets to see. Conclusion: Justice—or Just Theater? This press conference wasn’t just risky; it was predictably risky. The public has a right to know, but there’s a right way to inform the community without teaching the prosecution’s case to the internet—complete with alleged confessions, curated texts, and meme‑ready details—before a judge weighs in. If Robinson walks, don’t point at the jury. Point at the podium. Your turn: Do you buy the official story, or does some of it feel too convenient? Drop your take in the comments—and subscribe for the motions, rulings, and voir dire fireworks to come. Subscribe and don’t miss a post: Get 50% OFF for unlimited access. Monthly, Annual, and Founding plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends September 30, 2025 (11:59 pm ET). Don’t miss the next deep dive as better America wrestles this mess into daylight. Subscribe to get the receipts, not the spin.