Prosecutors cite Trump rally shooting in Tyler Robinson hearing
In a preliminary hearing on Tuesday, Utah prosecutors invoked the 2024 assassination attempt against President Donald Trump to argue that Tyler Robinson, 23, knowingly created a great risk of death when he allegedly shot conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah Valley University event on September 10, 2025.
Utah County Deputy Attorney Ryan McBride told Judge Tony Graf that Robinson fired a high-powered rifle from about 400 feet away into a crowd of more than 3,000 people, with Kirk surrounded by audience members. McBride argued that a one-degree change in the shot could have shifted the bullet's path by about seven feet, and that people were moving around Kirk in the seconds before the shooting.
McBride pointed to the shooting at Trump's Pennsylvania rally, where stray shots hit three people and killed one, as an example of the danger of firing a gun at a public gathering. He also argued that Robinson's alleged target-practice records showed he knew he could miss, and that Robinson brought additional rounds to the event.
According to McBride, the four rounds in Robinson's rifle demonstrated that the shooter was prepared to fire more rounds if the first missed, further endangering others. Prosecutors presented video footage that they said showed Robinson taking up a sniper position at Utah Valley University in Orem before the shooting, and displayed pictures they said showed that audience members were only feet away from Kirk at the time of the shooting, creating a "great risk of death" to others.
Charges and aggravating factors
Prosecutors asked Judge Graf to find probable cause that Robinson knowingly created a great risk of death—the aggravating factor that keeps the death penalty in play. McBride also urged the judge to bind over additional charges alleging Robinson hid the rifle, disposed of clothing, and told his roommate, Lance Twiggs, to delete messages and remain silent.
Robinson faces seven counts in connection with Kirk's killing.
Defense response
Defense lawyers argued against a trial and the death penalty, saying that prosecution evidence is insufficient to merit a trial and that the crime does not reach the standard of aggravated murder. Defense attorney Nathan Evershed, who is not part of the case, said the biggest question is whether prosecutors have shown probable cause for aggravated murder. He explained that murder means intentionally killing someone, but the aggravated charge depends on whether other people were also put at serious risk.