D.C. Firearms Expert Testifies About Bullet Fragments In Charlie Kirk Murder Case — ENTIRE TESTIMONY

Samantha Carter is a firearm and toolmark examiner at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Washington D.C. She testified in Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing today in his capital murder case. Robinson is accused of shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University. Carter was called as a witness by Robinson's lawyers. Veteran capital defense lawyer Michael Burt questioned her in direct-examination. This is all of it. At the state's request, Carter examined a firearm cartridge case, three cartridges, one bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments. She conducted test fires and compared them to the evidence. She said her examination was inconclusive due to insufficient agreement or disagreement of individual characteristics. 01:10 "At the request of the State of Utah, did you conduct certain examinations relevant to this case?" "I did, yes." 14:51 photo: "A bullet jacket fragment, and that is the view of the exterior. And then the photograph on the right is the exhibit six a bullet jacket fragment, and that's the view of the interior of it." 15:34 "I cleaned the bullet jacket fragment, and I also peeled the petals back. If you think of a banana and peeling the skin away from the interior. It's almost like doing that, as you can see from the photo, the petals have been crumpled in on themselves. So, in order for me to see the land and groove impressions, which holds those individual characteristics needed for a comparison, I have to do some maneuvering of those petals." 17:12 "when I do my initial examination of a bullet jacket fragment like this, I'm going to look at its class characteristics. Class characteristics are the least restrictive set of characteristics I use in my comparison process." 21:07 "Did you have some difficulty because of the damage to the bullet in exactly measuring it?" "The reason I provided a range was because of the damage and deformity to the base, so at times it wasn't a perfect circle. So it was important to me to give a range of what those diameter measurements were." 22:25 "There were several different 30 caliber class firearms that could have fired the bullet" 40:30 "It says currently the interpretation of individualization identification is subjective in nature, do you agree with that?" "Yes." 46:49 "You concluded here, did you not, that the exhibit six a bullet jacket fragment could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from the exhibit one, a based on an agreement of all discernible class characteristics, and neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement of individual characteristics. The result of the comparison was inconclusive." "Yes." 51:46 "So, do you see areas of agreement and areas of disagreement in these two bullets fired from the same rifle?" "I see sufficient agreement." 52:21 "you can see towards maybe the last third of the bullet or the land impression, that yes, right where your cursor was, below there, that's an area of agreement with that striation. It looks like it's going from the left to the right, so that mark is appearing on the test fire on the left and the test fire on the right" 54:08 "these are comparisons between test fires" 01:01:43 "did they conclude in 2009 that quote a fundamental problem with tool mark and firearm analysis is the lack of a precisely defined process, as noted above" 01:23:27 cross from prosecutor Ryan McBride 01:29:50 re-direct from Burt 01:35:36 "And in response to those additional studies, there have been continual criticisms of the methodologies of those studies. Isn't that fair?" "Yes." 01:40:45 McBride on re-cross "Your science has been accepted by courts across the country, correct?" "Correct."