Tyler Robinson: 'Hit intended target', no death penalty
Lawyers for Tyler Robinson, accused of killing Charlie Kirk, argue that he shouldn't face the death penalty because the bullet didn't endanger others, in a case that tests Utah's handling of alleged political killings
Tyler Robinson, the 23-year-old accused of killing Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, should not face the death penalty, his lawyers argue. They claim that Robinson hit his intended target and did not put anyone else in danger, as the bullet traveled above the crowd.
Robinson is charged with aggravated murder and could face the death penalty. However, his defense attorneys argue that the prosecution has not proven that he knew others who attended Kirk's event were in danger. The lawyers point out that the evidence presented supports that the bullet traveled above, not through, the crowd.
Prosecutors allege that Robinson targeted Kirk over his political views, citing a statement where Robinson said he 'had enough of his hatred'. However, the defense disputes this claim, saying that searches of Robinson's apartment, computers, and telephone failed to produce anything beyond that one statement.
A hearing is scheduled for September 1, where a judge will decide if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Prosecutors have until August 18 to respond to the defense arguments. Charlie Kirk, 31, was killed as he spoke to a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University.
## Why it matters The case is a closely watched test of how Utah treats alleged political killings. In Utah, aggravated murder must involve at least one 'statutory aggravating factor', such as the defendant holding previous violent crime convictions or in cases of the killing of a minor. Prosecutors accused Robinson of posing 'a great risk of death' to others, an eligible statutory factor, during Kirk's killing. However, the defense argues that the evidence does not support this claim.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for how Utah handles similar cases in the future. The defense's argument that Robinson should not face the death penalty because he hit his intended target and did not endanger others raises questions about the application of the death penalty in cases where the defendant's actions may not have put others at risk.
## What happens next The hearing on September 1 will be crucial in determining the next steps in the case. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial, Robinson will face a jury and potentially the death penalty. However, if the judge rules in favor of the defense, the death penalty may be taken off the table. The prosecution's response to the defense arguments, due on August 18, will also be closely watched as it will provide further insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
