A preliminary hearing, the prosecution notes, is simply to determine probable cause.
minute read
The Utah County Attorney's Office has responded to defendant Tyler Robinson's ask for a delay in the scheduled May preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case. In their response to the defendant's motion, they note that as the preliminary hearing is simply meant to determine probable cause, there is simply no reason to push it off.
The defense had said they had not yet received all the evidence to which they are entitled, that they wanted to call witnesses, and that more ballistics were needed on the bullet fragment recovered from murder victim Charlie Kirk. The prosecution debunked their claims as to the receipt of evidence, saying that all the evidence they had was delivered to the defense months ago.
They noted that while the defense has said that "expert discovery, including digital forensics, biological forensics, and ballistics are incomplete" and that "the FBI has not completed 'a second comparative bullet analysis,'" that is because the defendant has "objected to it." The FBI has not been able to proceed due to that objection, states the prosecution.
The motion from the defense stated that Robinson "has the right at a preliminary hearing to present evidence, to call his own witnesses, and to have a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the state's witnesses through the effective assistance of counsel." They also stated that they have not yet received all necessary evidence from the prosecution and that, once they do receive it, they need time to review it.
They state that this evidence is expected to include forensic DNA and ballistic reports as well as testimony from witnesses. Further, the defense stated that "the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson."
The prosecution dealt with each one of these issues, stating, "To date, the State’s prosecutors have disclosed all evidence 'that is presently and reasonably available' to them, as required under Rule 16. Utah R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). To be more precise, as of April 1, 2026, counsel for the State had provided approximately 100% of discoverable material in its possession to the defense. In other words, the defense has what the State has. And much of this discovery was presented long ago."
"With the exception of a photograph of a burnt note (provided on January 9, 2026), doorbell surveillance from a single property (provided January 21, 2026), a DNA report regarding items found in Defendant’s apartment (provided January 21, 2026), and a toolmarks report (provided March 12, 2026)," the prosecution details, "each of the witnesses and exhibits have been known to the defense for at least six months before the preliminary hearing."
"Most of the evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing, including the DNA report regarding the rifle found at the scene, was provided to the defense in October of 2025. The State does not intend to offer evidence obtained through forensic extractions of electronics seized in this case. It does, however, intend to offer two exhibits which used cameras to record the contents of text messages. These recordings were provided to the defense on October 24, 2025."
Further, the prosecutors note that "The extent to which discovery and due process rights apply at the preliminary hearing must be viewed in light of this very narrow purpose... In this case, Defendant has not shown that a continuance will have any effect on the probable cause determination, and he has made no effort to do so. Instead, he has made a procedural argument that expansive due process rights attach to the very narrow hearing. But the law is clear—complete discovery is not required before the preliminary hearing. Further, the preliminary hearing is not the time to challenge expert testimony."
The defense had said they had not yet received all the evidence to which they are entitled, that they wanted to call witnesses, and that more ballistics were needed on the bullet fragment recovered from murder victim Charlie Kirk. The prosecution debunked their claims as to the receipt of evidence, saying that all the evidence they had was delivered to the defense months ago.
They noted that while the defense has said that "expert discovery, including digital forensics, biological forensics, and ballistics are incomplete" and that "the FBI has not completed 'a second comparative bullet analysis,'" that is because the defendant has "objected to it." The FBI has not been able to proceed due to that objection, states the prosecution.
The motion from the defense stated that Robinson "has the right at a preliminary hearing to present evidence, to call his own witnesses, and to have a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the state's witnesses through the effective assistance of counsel." They also stated that they have not yet received all necessary evidence from the prosecution and that, once they do receive it, they need time to review it.
They state that this evidence is expected to include forensic DNA and ballistic reports as well as testimony from witnesses. Further, the defense stated that "the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson."
The prosecution dealt with each one of these issues, stating, "To date, the State’s prosecutors have disclosed all evidence 'that is presently and reasonably available' to them, as required under Rule 16. Utah R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). To be more precise, as of April 1, 2026, counsel for the State had provided approximately 100% of discoverable material in its possession to the defense. In other words, the defense has what the State has. And much of this discovery was presented long ago."
"With the exception of a photograph of a burnt note (provided on January 9, 2026), doorbell surveillance from a single property (provided January 21, 2026), a DNA report regarding items found in Defendant’s apartment (provided January 21, 2026), and a toolmarks report (provided March 12, 2026)," the prosecution details, "each of the witnesses and exhibits have been known to the defense for at least six months before the preliminary hearing."
"Most of the evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing, including the DNA report regarding the rifle found at the scene, was provided to the defense in October of 2025. The State does not intend to offer evidence obtained through forensic extractions of electronics seized in this case. It does, however, intend to offer two exhibits which used cameras to record the contents of text messages. These recordings were provided to the defense on October 24, 2025."
Further, the prosecutors note that "The extent to which discovery and due process rights apply at the preliminary hearing must be viewed in light of this very narrow purpose... In this case, Defendant has not shown that a continuance will have any effect on the probable cause determination, and he has made no effort to do so. Instead, he has made a procedural argument that expansive due process rights attach to the very narrow hearing. But the law is clear—complete discovery is not required before the preliminary hearing. Further, the preliminary hearing is not the time to challenge expert testimony."
Utah County Prosecutors opposition to Tyler Robinson's motion to delay preliminary hearing by The Post Millennial
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
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