BREAKING: Judge rules Tyler Robinson must stand trial for capital murder in Charlie Kirk’s assassination, eligible for death penalty

"Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence is sufficient at this stage to support a reasonable belief that defendant is the individual who shot and killed Charlie Kirk. Accordingly, the state has demonstrated probable cause as to the identity and homicide elements of count one," Graf said. Count one is aggravated murder and brings with it a death penalty if convicted.

As to count two, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, Graf ruled that probable cause had been established. On counts one, two, three, four, five, six, and seven, were all boundover for trial. Following the reading of the counts, Robinson pleaded not guilty to all counts.

Utah prosecutors asked that Robinson be tried for "count one, aggravated murder, a capital offense, together with the state's victim targeting notice. Count two, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, a first degree felony. Counts three and four obstruction of justice, second degree felonies. Counts five and six tampering with a witness, third degree felonies. And count seven violent offense committed in the presence of a child," Graf said.

Robinson was boundover for trial for each and every one of those counts.

Graf read out the events of September 10, 2025 on the Utah Valley University campus where Kirk was speaking with students during a TPUSA event. He tracked through the movements of Robinson on campus, which had been well-documented. In addition to that timeline, Graf walked through the electronic communications between Robinson and Lancy Twiggs, his roommate and boyfriend.

Prosecutor Ryan McBride delivered the closing arguments for the state. “Your honor, on September 10 of 2025, the defendant, this man, Tyler Robinson, shot and killed Charlie Kirk because he disagreed with him, and he did it by firing a high-powered rifle into a crowd of over 3,000 people, which created a great risk of death.”

He said there is a “mountain of evidence” that proves Robinson is the shooter, specifically four categories of evidence. He said these four categories “would provide evidence, certainly probable cause, and possibly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the man who shot Charlie Kirk.”

He said that the state knows Robinson first because of video evidence. He recounted surveillance video shown during the hearing that showed the person believed to be Robinson’s movements throughout campus leading up to, during, and after the shooting. He noted that Robinson was seen in some of the footage wearing the same clothing he later was seen wearing when he turned himself in.

He said the second category establishing Robinson as the shooter is DNA evidence. He said Robinson’s DNA was found “all over that gun,” on the scope, grips, stock, and trigger. “This was the rifle that killed Charlie Kirk. We know that because it was found in the woods,” in the area “where that shooter ran after taking the shot and dropping off of the Losee Center.” He said only one of the four rounds had been fired. He said that ballistic evidence showed that the round that was recovered from Kirk’s body “was consistent with having been fired from that gun.”

“The third reason we know that the defendant is the shooter is because he admitted to it,” McBride said. “That morning, before he left, he left a note for his boyfriend, stating that he left on a mission. He had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and then after he had shot and killed Charlie Kirk,the defendant texted that same boyfriend … and admitted to doing this.” He said that Robinson admitted to killing Kirk in text messages with Lance Twiggs, and also in a Discord group he was in.

The fourth factor establishing that Robinson was the killer is circumstantial evidence, “we have in this case the classic circumstantial evidence of motive, means, and opportunity, and then some.” Regarding motive, McBride said that Kirk “was an outspoken critic of homosexuality and transgenderism,” and that Robinson “was living in a homosexual relationship with a man who was considering transgender or transitioning his gender, and who went by the name Luna. It’s not difficult to understand the motive here.”

“The evidence is overwhelming. Any one of these four categories I’ve talked about is adequate, certainly for probable cause, and likely for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There can be no doubt that the defendant is the man who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, and the evidence clearly surpasses the hurdle of probable cause at this stage of the proceeding.”

Moving to aggravating factors in the case, McBride said, “you can’t shoot a rifle into a crowd of 3,000 people without knowing that you create a great risk of death to all those around your target.” Through the aggravating factor of great risk of death, the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

He said that testimony showed the shot was around 400 feet, “at that distance, a variance of simply one degree, if the defendant is one degree off, that’s a matter of millimeters for the barrel of his gun. That bullet would have struck seven feet away from his target.” He said Robinson could not only clearly see Kirk, but also the people surrounding his tent. “As he approached that rooftop on the Losee Center roof, as he approaches the edge of that rooftop, he would have seen this mass of thousands of people.”

He said that moments before the shot, a woman had passed behind Kirk in the line of fire, and noted the questioner that had been just feet away from Kirk at the front of the tent. He said that Robinson had also planned for the possibility of missing, bringing additional bullets with him.

McBride cited the example of the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, noting that Trump was able to escape being killed. One person was killed and others were injured in the assassination attempt. “You shoot at someone in a public assassination attempt, you have a great risk of killing someone else.” He later added, “what are the consequences of missing? Death.”

The defense spent a portion of its closing arguments making the case against the great risk of death aggravating factor. Attorney Staci Visser argued that “there’s nothing in this evidence showing that there was a great risk that someone else was going to be killed, let alone that the shooter would have knowledge of that risk. It’s not just the shot fired, it’s what happened around it.”

She said that factors establishing such an aggravating factor have not been established by the state. “There is no temporal relationship for this court to evaluate because there is one act, there is one shot, there is one bullet, there is one victim. There is no temporal relationship for this court to evaluate, this factor is not met. There were no actual threats by the assailant to the third party. There was no evidence that would suggest that anyone else was threatened.”

She argued that established case law has said that there must be a “knowing or puposeful state of mind” and that there “be a likelihood or high probability of great risk of death created, not just a mere possibility, and that there be at least one person within the zone of danger created by the defendant’s conduct.”

She said that if the court adopts the state’s idea that “presence alone is enough,” the court is “unconstitutionally expanding the aggravator.”

She also argued that the “four bullets in the gun” point from the state “ultimately cuts against the state’s position,” saying that the rifle was a bolt-action one, meaning the spent cartridge needs to be removed before its reloaded, “and it wasn’t.” She added, “So it actually cuts against this idea that maybe other people were endangered, that there was an intent or knowledge that other people might be killed. There is zero evidence that there was any action taken towards other people. Zero evidence.”