Defense attorneys for the man accused of assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk are fighting to take the death penalty off the table, arguing in a new 41-page court filing that prosecutors failed to prove the shooting endangered anyone beyond Kirk himself.
The filing, made public Tuesday night in Utah's Fourth District Court in Provo, marks the latest salvo from Tyler Robinson's legal team ahead of a September 1 hearing where Judge Tony Graf Jr. is expected to rule on whether there is probable cause to send the case to trial. Robinson, 23, stands accused of shooting Kirk, 31, in the neck with a single bullet from a rooftop perch on September 10, 2025, while Kirk addressed a crowd of more than 2,000 at Utah Valley University in Orem during a Turning Point USA "American Comeback Tour" event.
Robinson has not yet entered a plea. If the aggravating factor stands, that the shooting created a high probability of death to someone other than Kirk, and that Robinson knew it, he faces a potential death sentence under Utah law. His attorneys want that possibility eliminated before the case moves forward.
The core of the defense argument rests on trajectory. Robinson's four attorneys, Kathy Nester, Michael Burt, Richard Novak, and Staci Visser, contend that the single bullet fired from a.30-06 bolt-action Mauser rifle followed a downward path from the rooftop on the far side of the packed courtyard, striking Kirk and no one else. No other individual was hit.
The defense brief states plainly:
"The only evidence presented supports that the bullet travelled above, not through, the crowd."
That distinction matters. Under Utah's capital-punishment framework, prosecutors must show that the killing created a great risk of death to a person other than the intended victim, and that the defendant knew it. Robinson's attorneys argue the state had more than ten months to build that case and came up short at the weeklong preliminary hearing in early July.
As the defense brief put it, the prosecution's presentation of evidence on the aggravating factor "wholly fails to carry its burden of proof."
Prosecutors see the same facts differently. AP News reported that the state argues Robinson loaded his rifle with four rounds, one spent casing was found in the chamber alongside three unfired cartridges when the weapon was recovered, which showed he knew he could miss Kirk and endanger bystanders. The defense counters that it is equally likely Robinson believed he would not miss.
Prosecutors have described their overall evidence against Robinson as "overwhelming," citing DNA tests tying him to the suspected murder weapon and what they call apparent confessions.
Communications between Robinson and his roommate and reported romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, sit at the center of both sides' arguments. Prosecutors introduced messages in which Robinson allegedly told Twiggs: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it."
The defense does not dispute the message. Instead, they lean into it, arguing it proves Robinson's sole target was Kirk and no one else.
"There is no mention of any threat or intended harm to any other individual(s)," the brief states.
Robinson also allegedly texted Twiggs that he "had enough of his hatred." Prosecutors contend that phrase, combined with Kirk's well-known conservative positions on homosexuality, transgenderism, and gay marriage, establishes that Robinson targeted Kirk for his political expression, a sentencing enhancement the state is pursuing. The Washington Examiner reported that prosecutors' own brief cited bullet casings found near the murder weapon engraved with phrases including "Hey fascist, catch," which they say supports the inference of politically motivated targeting.
Robinson's defense team pushes back hard on the political-expression enhancement. The brief argues that prosecutors are speculating about motive based on Robinson's relationship with Twiggs, whom the defense describes as "at least intermittently identifying as a female to his close friends." The attorneys wrote that "these circumstances are not sufficient to establish, even by probable cause which if any political expression of Mr. Kirk motivated Mr. Robinson to select Mr. Kirk for an act of violence."
A family member told investigators that Robinson had discussed Kirk's upcoming visit to Utah, focusing on "why they didn't like him and the viewpoints that he had," the Washington Free Beacon reported. Robinson had registered as a nonpartisan voter in Utah, according to public records. After the shooting, Utah Governor Spencer Cox said it was "very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology."
Beyond the death-penalty aggravating factor, Robinson's attorneys are asking Judge Graf to strike two lesser charges: witness tampering and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. On the witness-tampering count, the defense argues Robinson was merely advising Twiggs to exercise his constitutional rights. On the child-presence charge, they contend prosecutors failed to show Robinson knew children were present at the time of the shooting.
The defense also renewed a motion to throw out hearsay evidence from the preliminary hearing, a motion that failed when the same team raised similar objections in July. Fox News contributor Donna Rotunno, a Chicago-based criminal defense attorney, told Fox News Digital she sees the defense relitigating ground already lost.
Rotunno was blunt about the aggravating-factor argument as well:
"The evidence in the [preliminary hearing] has already proven that there were many people there. The evidence has shown where the shooter was vs. where Charlie was and where the shot was taken from, the amount of people who were in the line of fire. They can argue those facts from other pieces of evidence that they've introduced. They didn't need somebody specifically to get on the witness stand and say there were all these people in danger."
She added a pointed comparison: "If you drive a car into a crowd, that whole crowd is in danger. I don't think that argument is a stretch."
This is not the first time Robinson's defense has tried to eliminate capital punishment from the case. In June, the New York Post reported that Judge Graf denied an earlier defense motion to strike the death penalty, one that had been framed as a sanction after prosecutor Christopher Ballard was found in civil contempt for violating a gag order by speaking to media about the case. Graf called removing the death penalty "disproportionate to his conduct and legally prohibited."
Graf's ruling also noted that Robinson's own defense team had "initiated the media frenzy" through a misleading court filing that sparked online conspiracy theories about the bullet evidence. The judge ordered enhanced jury screening measures to address any prejudice from the publicity but kept capital punishment on the table. Breitbart reported that Graf stated civil contempt sanctions "must be remedial, tailored to cure the prejudice caused by the violation or designed for future compliance", not punitive enough to strip a sentencing option from the state.
Prosecutors now have until next week to file a reply brief answering the defense's latest arguments. After that, both sides will present closing arguments at the September 1 hearing, where Graf is expected to announce whether there is probable cause to send Robinson to trial.
Robinson's defense team is doing what defense attorneys do, testing every seam in the prosecution's case, challenging every element that could increase their client's exposure. Some of those arguments may have legal merit on narrow procedural grounds. But the broader picture remains unchanged: a man with a rifle climbed to a rooftop overlooking a crowd of more than 2,000 people and fired a shot that ended Charlie Kirk's life.
Whether that bullet passed above the crowd or through it is a question for ballistics experts and a judge. Whether firing into a packed venue from an elevated position "knowingly created a great risk of death" to bystanders is a question most Americans would answer without needing 41 pages.
Prosecutors called this case straightforward. "This isn't a close case," they wrote in their own filing. The defense clearly disagrees. Judge Graf will have the final word on September 1.
A man who allegedly confessed to targeting a public figure for his beliefs now wants the justice system to go easy on him. The system should do its job, thoroughly, fairly, and without flinching.
