Just to remind you where we are in this case, the defense has been slow-walking this trial using every trick in the book and Tyler Robinson has yet to even enter a plea. However, last month we did have a preliminary hearing where both sides made their case, presenting evidence in court (and before TV cameras).
After that hearing, prosecutors submitted a written argument saying there was more than enough evidence to move to a trial, including the fact that he confessed in writing 11 times.
The defense responded a few weeks later arguing not so much that Robinson was innocent as that there were no grounds for the special enhancements that would result in him facing the death penalty. Specifically they argued that prosecutors had not proved that the shooter created a great risk of death to another individual. Instead they claimed the shooter fired one shot, hit the intended target and stopped firing with no injuries to anyone else. The defense also argued there was no proof Charlie Kirk was targeted for his political views.
Today, prosecutors have responded to those claims from the defense in a rebuttal brief.
Accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson allegedly "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target completely" when taking practice shots with the suspected murder weapon, according to Utah prosecutors, who opposed the defense team's attempt to have the potential death penalty taken off the table before trial.
They are attempting to illustrate that the defendant knowingly put other people at great risk of death if he took a shot at Kirk from a rooftop, toward a crowd of thousands. Kirk, who was taking questions from the audience at a small stage in the campus courtyard, was struck in the neck.
Prosecutors argued that at this stage of the proceedings, the judge was required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. In other words, unless a claim is objectively unreasonable, the judge should side with them.
Defendant’s challenge to the aggravating circumstance for Count 1—that he knowingly created a great risk of death to another—is based on his misrepresentation of both the evidentiary standard at a preliminary hearing and the test for establishing the aggravating circumstance. As for the evidentiary standard, Defendant erroneously asserts that a magistrate engages in speculation when he chooses between a reasonable inference that supports guilt and a competing innocent inference. The Utah Supreme Court has rejected that logic, a fact the Utah Court of Appeals has repeatedly recognized. Defendant’s counsel ignore this controlling caselaw and have therefore violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, these cases establish that when a factfinder chooses between reasonable inferences at a trial, it is properly fulfilling its factfinding role, not speculating. Thus, even at a trial, a factfinder is free to choose between reasonable inferences.
This is a preliminary hearing where this Court does not sit as a factfinder. Instead, this Court is duty-bound to draw all reasonable inferences in the State’s favor. It is therefore even more apparent that in this proceeding there is nothing speculative about viewing all reasonable inferences in the State’s favor.
As for the practical argument, the prosecution argued there were many other people who could have been hit.
Here, there were several people close to Mr. Kirk when Defendant shot him dead. Most significantly, the questioner was directly between Defendant and Mr. Kirk, and within a few feet of Mr. Kirk. State’s Ex. 8. There were also several people who were near the questioner. Id. There were also those with Mr. Kirk who were under or near his tent. State’s Exs. 7 & 8. All these people were visible in the clear line of sight between Defendant’s perch and Mr. Kirk’s seat. Indeed, from a distance of 410 feet from Mr. Kirk, Tr. Day 4 at 91:12–92:10, basic mathematics dictates that an angular shift of even one-eighth of an inch would result in a substantial miss of the intended target (either above, below, or to the right or left, depending on the direction of the shift) placing many others in danger...
Common sense also dictates that firing a gun, especially a high-powered rifle, towards others puts them at great risk of death. That is precisely why gun ranges prohibit shooters from even handling a firearm when others are downrange beyond the firing line...
The targets found in Defendant’s apartment and the four engraved cartridges loaded in the rifle likewise support the reasonable inference that Defendant knew he might miss. Defendant’s argument that the targets might be completely unrelated to the murder is undermined by their continued presence in his apartment and the discovery of a cartridge in his apartment that he had engraved with the words “test shot.” State’s Exs. 23, 25. And whether those targets are related to the murder or not, their presence in Defendant’s apartment supports a reasonable inference that they record his shots. The targets show that he seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target altogether.
As for Robinson's motives, prosecutors argued that the engraved bullets demonstrated a hostility to Kirk's politics.
Prosecutors in Charlie Kirk’s killing pointed Tuesday to an engraved bullet, arguing that the inscription “Hey Facist! CATCH!” demonstrates that Kirk was targeted for how the defendant perceived his politics...
In a document filed late Tuesday, prosecutors argued the engraved bullet found in the suspected murder weapon was an “overt political reference.” They also noted that Robinson allegedly wrote in a text message about Kirk: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
So that's all for now. The next step in this process is for Judge Graf to decide, based on the preliminary hearing and the briefs, whether this case will proceed to trial. Before he decides, both sides will get one more chance to argue their case on September 1, which is the next scheduled hearing.
I continue to believe that Robinson will either be found guilty or accept a plea to plead guilty. I don't think the defense is going to spare him the death penalty because the evidence is so overwhelming against him, but you never know with a jury. It only takes one Candace Owens fan to throw the result into doubt.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member