Prosecutors said that Twiggs was given "use-immunity" for the statement he gave to attorneys on April 20.
Prosecutors said that Twiggs was given "use-immunity" for the statement he gave to attorneys on April 20. "On April 20, 2026, in preparation for the preliminary hearing, Mr. Twiggs gave a recorded statement under oath and after an admonition that any false statement would be punishable by law and could be charged as obstruction of justice. Mr. Twiggs was also given use-immunity by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Utah County Attorney’s Office—meaning that his statements at that April 20 meeting could not be used against him," the document stated.
Prosecutors said that Twiggs’ April 20 statement was "consistent with" a statement he gave to investigators on September 11, just after Robinson turned himself in. In the September 11 meeting with investigators, Twiggs allegedly "told investigators that Robinson had admitted via electronic messages to him and others that he had killed Charlie Kirk. Investigators photographed the messages from his phone."
Twiggs had described in the statement "several of Defendant’s statements to him: that Defendant killed Charlie Kirk (count 1, aggravated murder, and count 2, felony discharge of a firearm), that he hid the firearm (count 3, obstruction of justice), disposed of clothing (count 4, obstruction of justice), and that he told Mr. Twiggs not to speak to law enforcement (count 4, witness tampering)."
The prosecution noted that "Most of these statements were through electronic messages from Defendant and one came from a handwritten note."
The revelation came in a document opposing a motion from the defense that seeks for Twiggs to appear in person at the preliminary hearing. The prosecution said that Twiggs "is not a material witness for the preliminary hearing," and thus the application should be denied.
"Defendant has not made the required showing that Mr. Twigg’s cross-examination would be material to the preliminary hearing. Rather, Defendant merely declares, rather than demonstrates, that Mr. Twiggs’s cross-examination would be material," the court document stated. "Regardless, given the State’s limited burden of proof, Defendant has not shown that Mr. Twiggs’s cross-examination would be material under any applicable definition of that term."
This is a breaking story.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE FOR ATTENDANCE OF OUT-OF- STATE WITNESS by The Post Millennial
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments