What evidence is cited in the charging documents against Tyler Boyer?
Executive summary
The charging material publicly available for a New Hampshire defendant named Tyler Boyer centers not on forensic exhibits but on his arrest for violating a bail condition — the “evidence seized” in the underlying proceeding was described by the court as the defendant himself — and the state prosecuted him for indirect criminal contempt based on that violation [1] [2]. Reporting that uses similar names (for example, Tyler Bowyer tied to 2025 “fake electors” coverage) appears to concern different people and different allegations; the sources do not establish they are the same individual [3] [4].
1. The core allegation in the New Hampshire files: violation of bail order and indirect criminal contempt
The New Hampshire appellate opinion and related court docket make clear the operative charge was “indirect criminal contempt” arising from a breach of a bail condition, not a traditional property-based seizure or complex evidence list; the court’s description explicitly states the officers entered an apartment, found and arrested the defendant, and thus “the ‘evidence seized’ was the defendant himself” [1] [2].
2. What the charging record actually cites as proof
The judicial opinion reviews procedural facts: police entered an apartment after a co-tenant (identified in the opinion as A.N.) granted permission, discovered the defendant inside and arrested him, and the State based the contempt charge on the defendant’s alleged violation of a bail condition — the factual basis cited in the materials is the defendant’s presence despite the bail order [1] [2].
3. Legal framing and what that means for “evidence”
Because the charge is indirect criminal contempt for a bail term violation, the factual predicate is a courtroom or clerk’s bail restriction plus the defendant’s alleged noncompliance; courts in this matter treated the defendant’s physical presence and arrest as the primary evidentiary fact, rather than a collection of seized documents, digital files, or forensic exhibits commonly described in other charging documents [1] [2].
4. Limits of available public documents and reporting gaps
Available sources are appellate opinions and docket listings, not the original charging affidavit or probable cause statement, so they summarize the procedural posture and the court’s reasoning rather than cataloguing a full evidentiary inventory; therefore, the record accessible in these sources does not supply, for example, witness statements, surveillance, or digital-forensics exhibits that might have accompanied an initial arrest report [1] [5].
5. Distinguishing similarly named individuals in later political prosecutions
Contemporary news reports about a “Tyler Bowyer/Bowyer” tied to the 2024–25 “fake electors” scheme concern different allegations — fraud, forgery, conspiracy — and different charging structures; those stories name different defendants and list multiple felony counts, but the court materials about the New Hampshire Tyler Boyer do not connect him to those 2025 electors prosecutions and the sources do not show they are the same person [3] [4].
6. Competing narratives and what to watch for in further records
Defense challenges in the New Hampshire matter focused on suppression and standing — classic procedural attacks to exclude evidence obtained without a warrant — and the appellate summaries foregrounded constitutional search-and-seizure concerns, which means any fuller picture of evidentiary specifics (police reports, witness affidavits, body-camera footage) would be found in trial-level charging papers and suppression motions rather than the appellate synopsis available in these sources [1] [2].