Erika Kirk demands a speedy trial after defense proposes Tyler Robinson not face justice until 2029

There are thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence to go through, millions of messages and bits of data, and attorneys for both sides want ample time to go through them and to state their case. Defense attorneys have used that as a reason to ask for repeated delays, and now it is up to Graf to decide how long it will be until trial begins—will it be one year, or could it be even longer?

Kirk was killed over a year ago on the campus of Utah Valley University where he was speaking to students on a campus tour with Turning Point USA, the non-profit he founded. The wait for a trial has dragged on over this past year, with hearings and delays. In July, a preliminary hearing, what takes the place of a grand jury in Utah, was convened to establish probable cause to bind Robinson over for a trial.

That burden was met, and the trial is set to proceed. Erika Kirk has argued that a year is too long for the victim to wait, never mind two. Charlie Kirk's widow and mother of his two young children has advocated for a speedy, transparent trial throughout as is her right. Her motion, the "Victims Motion to Enforce the Right to a Speedy Disposition and Response to Proposed Trial Schedules," asks for her constitutional right to a speedy trial to be enforced.

"Erika Kirk, individually and on behalf of her minor children, through counsel, asks the Court to reject the defense's tentative third-quarter 2020 trial target, a timeline which is grossly out of line with comparable cases, and set trial for the earliest practicable date in 2027, no later than the government's proposed date of October 4, 2027.

"If the defense's request is granted, the trial would take place more than four years after the defendant's arrest, and more than three years following the week-long preliminary hearing and subsequent decision by the Court that the defendant would stand trial.

"Every additional day of delay carried the weight of all that Charlie's murder has taken from his family, especially his two young children who were just three and one years old when their father was murdered and would be seven and give years old by the time a verdict is handed down under the Defense's proposed schedule. What's worse, the defendant's core argument for delay is that there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence—a perverse position that has no legal basis. Utah law requires that the victims' interests receive actual weight in setting trial, and for the reasons laid out here, those interests include a judicial process that is fair, transparent, and without needless delay."