Mark Geragos is calling it not a conspiracy theory, but bad lawyering.
His core point: this was a hearsay-heavy preliminary hearing that ran a full week, when 999 out of 1,000 prelims wrap in a few hours.
When a prosecutor stretches a hearing that long and lets in evidence that can't be cross-examined (like a recorded statement instead of live testimony) Geragos says it invites exactly the scrutiny it was trying to avoid.
Two details stood out to him specifically.
DNA on the rifle reportedly tied to several different individuals. And ring camera footage, testified to by the lead detective himself, allegedly showing the suspect's car with additional unidentified people inside.
Geragos's point isn't that this proves anything. It's that evidence admitted this loosely is, by definition, open to more than one reasonable interpretation, which is the textbook standard for reasonable doubt.
He draws a direct line to how these high-profile cases tend to unfold. Prosecutors show grainy footage and narrate a conclusion the footage doesn't actually support, expecting jurors to fill the gap.
When the defense gets real cross-examination, which he says happened just this week in an unrelated high-profile case, the tidy version often falls apart fast.
Geragos is careful to separate two different questions: motive isn't an element of the crime, and neither is having an accomplice.
But he says the pattern across major cases, Robinson, Luigi Mangione, Bryan Kohberger's now-contested guilty plea, keeps rhyming: multiple people involved is historically the more common outcome than the lone-actor narrative, even when officials present it as settled.
If the preliminary hearing already created this much doubt, what happens once a jury pool gets asked to unanimously believe there's no reasonable doubt left?
@markgeragos
