Utah prosecutors argue that Tyler Robinson's poor marksmanship during practice sessions with the suspected murder weapon proves he knowingly endangered thousands of bystanders when he fired the shot that killed Charlie Kirk, a claim central to their push for the death penalty.
In a reply brief made public Tuesday, prosecutors fighting to keep the death penalty on the table revealed that Robinson "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target completely" when practicing with the firearm authorities believe he used to assassinate the Turning Point USA founder. The filing, submitted in Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, directly challenged a defense motion to strip the capital punishment aggravating factor from the case before trial, Fox News reported.
The prosecution's argument is straightforward: a man who could barely hit a stationary target chose to fire from a rooftop into a crowd of thousands. That decision, prosecutors contend, created a grave risk of death to people other than Kirk, the legal threshold Utah must meet to pursue a death sentence.
Robinson's attorneys have pushed back with a narrower reading of the evidence. In an earlier filing, the defense argued the fatal shot came from above the crowd and did not travel through it. Only one round was fired, it struck the intended target, and no bystander was hit. On that basis, the defense moved to have the death penalty aggravator stricken before the case ever reaches a jury.
Prosecutors dismissed that reasoning and went further, accusing Robinson's legal team of having "violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court" by ignoring basic case law governing how evidence should be weighed at the preliminary hearing stage. Under Utah procedure, the presiding magistrate "must" draw all reasonable inferences in the state's favor, a standard prosecutors say the defense conveniently sidestepped.
Judge Tony Graf Jr., who oversaw a week-long preliminary hearing in early July, has said he will issue a final decision on September 1 on whether enough probable cause exists to send the case to trial. Robinson has not yet entered a plea.
Charlie Kirk was speaking at his "American Comeback Tour" event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on September 10, 2025, when he was struck in the neck and killed. He had been taking questions from the audience at a small stage in the campus courtyard. Thousands of attendees were present.
Prosecutors allege Robinson drove from his home in southern Utah to Orem, positioned himself on a rooftop, and fired the shot. After the killing, Robinson allegedly confessed to several people before surrendering to authorities in his hometown. His father, Matthew Robinson, turned him over to police, accompanied by a former law enforcement family friend, the New York Post reported.
The confessions were not limited to a single moment of guilt. Robinson's roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, described three separate confessions, in person, in a handwritten letter, and through a Discord message. In one recorded statement played during the July 9 preliminary hearing, Twiggs said Robinson "started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it." Twiggs was granted immunity by prosecutors in exchange for his cooperation and has not been charged, Just The News reported.
A letter Robinson allegedly left at his home stated plainly: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it." In text messages, he wrote, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out," according to evidence compiled by prosecutors and detailed by National Review.
The ideological dimension of the case has grown sharper with each filing. Utah County prosecutors argued that Robinson targeted Kirk because of Kirk's conservative political and religious opposition to homosexuality and transgenderism, views that conflicted with Robinson's own lifestyle and his relationship with Twiggs.
Bullet casings found alongside the alleged murder weapon were engraved with mocking phrases, including "Hey fascist, catch," suggesting both premeditation and ideological motivation. Prosecutors called the evidence overwhelming, writing in a filing that the case is "as straight-forward a bindover decision as this Court will ever see."
Evidence presented during the hearing also included video footage placing Robinson on the Utah Valley University campus, along with his DNA on the murder weapon. Donald Trump Jr., who attended the hearing, described the evidence as stronger than he had anticipated.
Robinson's defense is publicly funded. His lawyers have already requested an additional $2 million in state funding, and the total cost to Utah taxpayers, including potential years of appeals, could exceed $10 million, the New York Post reported. In Robinson's small hometown, the strain is palpable. Rich Hentosh, a former high school teacher of Robinson's, told the Post the community reaction has been one of exhaustion.
"The community is just done," Hentosh said. He recalled the spectacle of the arrest: "It was quite dramatic. All the news media, you try to take it all in. It's tough to see one of your students in this kind of a situation, whether they're guilty or innocent."
Kirk's assassination sent shockwaves well beyond Utah. In the months since his death, public figures who continued his advocacy work faced hostility, including confrontations and mockery of Kirk's killing, a grim reminder of the climate that surrounded the case from the start.
Judge Graf's September 1 decision will resolve a threshold question: whether the state has shown enough probable cause to send Robinson to trial. If the judge rules in the prosecution's favor, the death penalty aggravator, the claim that Robinson knowingly endangered bystanders, will remain on the table for a jury to weigh.
The prosecution's marksmanship argument sharpens the stakes. Robinson's defense wants the court to look at the outcome: one shot, one target hit, no bystanders struck. Prosecutors want the court to look at the risk: a man who could barely hit a practice target fired from a rooftop into a crowd of thousands. Both sides now wait for Judge Graf to decide which lens the law requires.
A man who struggled to hit a stationary bullseye chose to aim over the heads of thousands of Americans gathered to hear a political speech. The question is no longer whether he did it, it is whether the law will hold him accountable for every life he endangered when he pulled the trigger.