Law&Crime Sidebar - Charlie Kirk Murder Case Showdown Comes to a Head!

Episode Date: September 2, 2026

Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused of killing conservative media star Charlie Kirk on a university campus last year, could soon be headed to trial. A judge heard arguments from prosecutors, who argued that evidence presented so far in court is enough to meet the probable cause standard, as well as Robinson's defense team, who tried to downplay some of the aggravating factors presented by the state. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber has the very latest developments.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial [phone] to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to www.askchapter.org/lawandcrime *Paid Partnership*HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Your Honor, on September 10th of 2025, the defendant, this man, Tyler James Robinson, shot and killed Charlie Kirk, because he disagreed with him. There is zero evidence that there was any action taken towards other people. Zero evidence. The prosecution and defense battled it out in a Utah courtroom today, arguing whether Charlie Kirk's accused killer Tyler Robinson should face trial, a trial in which he would face. an aggravated murder charge carrying the possibility of the death penalty. We are recapping all of the major moments, the arguments from a hearing that could decide the fate of this alleged shooter. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Is Tyler Robinson, the defendant, the man accused of murdering political activist Charlie Kirk, going to be ordered to stand trial for aggravated murder?

That is what happened in a Utah court today. The judge had to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to hold him over for trial. And as the court said today, there already was a multi-day preliminary hearing and briefing schedule. But now the court made time to hear the actual summations, the closing arguments, these oral closing arguments from both sides, before the decision would be made about whether or not Tyler Robinson is going to go to trial. And this is a big hearing. We're going to recap the major moments for you. There is a lot at stake for the 23-year-old with the death penalty looming. Now, prosecutors allege that Robinson shot Kirk in the neck back on September 10, 2025,

that this was during a rally at Utah Valley University, attended by thousands of people, including children. They claim they can prove their case through a combination of allegedly incriminating messages, DNA evidence, surveillance footage, interviews of recovered rifle at the scene. He is facing charges of aggravated murder. felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness, committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. And today, district judge Tony Graff Jr. heard the arguments regarding all of these charges, but really the one you have to pay attention to more than anyone, is the aggravated murder charge, right? That's significant. That carries the death penalty.

And this is all important because this would determine whether Robinson ultimately enters a plea in this case and an arraignment. And one of the big aggravating factors that you're going to hear about, okay, when we talk about the murder, is whether or not Robinson allegedly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk. That is going to be the key question about this alleged shooting. So let's get into what happened today. Actually, I'll tell you, while we were waiting for the hearing to go live, first we saw this report from CNN that Judge Graff held a sealed hearing regarding allowing cameras in the courtroom. Okay. When they came back into the courtroom, that took up a big part of the morning.

So the judge talked about media coverage, what can be seen, how the proceedings will be recorded, what will be recorded. And the court ended up denying a request from the defense to classify certain information in this case to keep it away from the public and the media. This is a question about balancing transparency versus the defendant's constitutional rights. And one of the things the judge even mentioned is how prominent the public profile of both the victim and the defendant are in this case. a lot of publicity, even mentioned how there were these allegations of polymarket, these bets, these trades happening on polymarket on whether or not Tyler Robinson would be convicted. Okay, so you put that to the side. Let's get into the substance.

Now, before we even get into the closing arguments here, I've got to let you know, this is a big case that we've been following here on sidebar. We cover a lot of big cases on sidebar. We're kind of limited in how much we can always show you on a, you know, 20, 30 minute episode. But we got the case file section on the long crime. Plus app. So what's that? This is basically us opening up the evidence fault so you can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes firsthand on all these big cases. Plus, by the way, you get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long

crime and court TV shows. And by the way, through September 7th, we got a special Labor Day offer for you. Use my promo code sidebar. You'll get your first 30 days of Long Crime Plus free. Yeah, the offer ends September 7th. So head on over to Long Crime Plus. Use code sidebar. bar. Okay, so here is deputy Utah County attorney Ryan McBride arguing why the evidence supports Robinson is the shooter. Attorney to count one starting with aggravated murder. We know that the defendant Tyler James Robinson is the shooter. There is a mountain of evidence that proves that he is the shooter. As I look at the evidence, I see four categories of evidence that prove that the defendant, Tyler Robinson is the man who shot Charlie Kirk.

In any case, any one of those four categories of evidence would provide evidence, certainly probable cause, and possibly proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the man who shot Charlie Kirk. And in this case, we have all four categories of evidence. First, we know that the defendant is the shooter because we have video evidence. The defendant then returned at 11.54 a.m., this time, dressed to kill.

black shirt, long pants to obscure the rifle he had concealed down his pants, and he made his way through campus the same route of ingress into campus that he had taken during his second scouting mission, coming through the north parking lot, making his way through that tunnel, and then going up the stairs. We know that he then made his way, and he's recorded on camera, making his way up to the low sea center roof, where he comes to the railing, does a Fosbury flop over the railing,

and is out of the camera view for about five minutes. At that time period, he removes the rifle from his pants, uses the screwdriver that he left behind with his DNA on it to reassemble a portion of that rifle, and then he made his way to the edge of the Lose Center roof. There, he laid down in a prone position and he would have seen this mass of people, of 3,000-plus people there for the event.

Took aim, put his crosshairs on Charlie Kirk, and fired at 1223 and 28 seconds. We know that's the moment that he fired because several different cameras record the bullet striking Charlie Kirk at that moment. From the autopsy, we know that that bullet entered Charlie Kirk slightly at a downward angle, slightly left to right, consistent with the vantage point that the defendant had on the Losey Center rooftop. The bullet struck Charlie Kirk's spine and fragmented, killing him. as we know from the medical examiner's report. We know that the defendant is the shooter,

first, because of all the video evidence. Second, we know the defendant is the shooter because of the DNA evidence. The defendant's DNA was found all over that gun. It was on the scope, the grips, the stock, and even the trigger. It was on the cartridge cases found within the gun. And make no mistake, Your Honor,

this was the murder weapon. This was the rifle that killed Charlie Kirk. We know that because it was found in the woods, right to the area where that shooter ran after taking the shot and dropping off of the Lossi Center. We know it because that rifle contained four rounds in it. Only one had been spent. Only one had been fired, consistent with what we know happened at the amphitheater. A single shot was fired. In addition to the classic circumstantial evidence of motive means and opportunity, there's significant other evidence.

For example, the rifle had four rounds in it. Those rounds had some very weird etchings. Those etchings were consistent with another round that was found in the defendant's apartment, right? And that round, the evidence was, had an etching in it that said test shot. Police also found the very Dremel tool that they were able to determine through tool marks analysis that etched those rounds found in the gun.

And finally, when it comes to, circumstantial evidence after the images of the shooter had been published, the defendant turned himself in. Your Honor, as to identity, there is a mountain of evidence here. The evidence is overwhelming. Any one of these four categories I've talked about is adequate, certainly for probable cause and likely for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And when determining probable cause, the law is very clear on this. There are very few standards in the law that are more clear, frankly. you view all, you are required as the magistrate to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the state. This court is required to draw all inferences in the state's favor. I know you know that, Judge.

I know that you handle multiple preliminary hearings every single week. None of these standards is new to you. But I emphasize those because defense counsel has cited to an antiquated, old standard that has been explicitly overruled in the case law, which is that drawing inferences is no more than speculation. So that's really the crux of the main argument, timeline evidence. And remember the standard here. This is not about proving to the court at this time, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No, it's about is there sufficient evidence, sufficient probable cause to support the charges.

It is a much lower standard, much lower threshold. Okay, real quick, before we jump any further, this is so important. So the Medicare annual enrollment period is right around the corner. If you or someone you love is on Medicare, you really need to pay attention. Because, look, the truth is Medicare can be really frustrating and honestly, pretty confusing, right? Millions of seniors are on the wrong Medicare plan. They don't even know it. I constantly hear about people who are struggling to figure this out, who don't even know they can compare plans.

That's why I want to tell you about Chapter, because Chapter helps you understand your options and find the plan that best fits your needs. They have unbiased independent Medicare advisors who are salary-based. They're not paid on commission, so they're not trying to sell you something. something. There's no pressure to enroll in anything. The call is completely free. If you're already on the right plan, they're going to tell you. But if there's a better option for your situation, they'll help you switch. Most people, they can review their options in under 20 minutes. And historically, seniors who have worked with Chapter have saved an average of more than $1,100 a year. So don't guess when it comes to your Medicare coverage. Call Chapter today at 845-493-3791. Again,

that is 845-493-37-91. You're going to speak with a lot of. real person who can help you understand your options and the call is completely free. So that is about him allegedly being the shooter. But what about that aggravating factor, right? The one that I mentioned before, that Robinson allegedly created a great risk of death to another individual other than Charlie Kirk. That's going to be key here, okay? Listen to what the prosecutor said.

We know what that event looked like, what that venue looked like on that day. There were people everywhere. People on the railings, people in that amphitheater, people in front of Charlie. Charlie Kirk and people behind Charlie Kirk. As he approached that rooftop on the low sea center roof, as he approached the edge of that rooftop, he would have seen this mass of thousands of people. As he laid down and took up aim,

he would have seen all of those people. As he looked through that scope, his scope likely passed over the faces and heads and bodies of multiple people before it rested on Charlie Kirk. Not withstanding all of the people around Charlie Kirk, around Charlie Kirk, the defendant chose to fire. He knew, as anybody would know, that that creates a great risk of death, not only to Charlie Kirk, but the people around Charlie Kirk. And this is what

the scene looked like. There were people everywhere. There are people moving around behind Charlie Kirk. You see in the minutes leading up to the shooting, there are people moving behind Charlie Kirk, moving in front of the pop-up tent there from behind, from in front. and moving around freely. Just five seconds before the shot, there is a woman directly behind Charlie Kirk in the line of fire. And we know the defendant would have seen all these people,

and of course the people in front of Charlie Kirk, and especially that questioner who is only feet away, as well as the security detail immediately to Charlie Kirk's right. Looking at that image, probably two feet away. But the defendant chose to take that shot anyway. What do we know about the defendant's mental state? We all know people can miss, right?

Michael Jordan didn't hit every single three-pointer he took, right? Major league pitchers don't throw strikes every time. And the defendant knew he could miss too. Exhibit 25, I count 28 rounds that are fired through these targets. And only one, two, three, four of those 28 rounds hit the red. The defendant knew he could miss. Not only did he know he could miss, he planned for it. He planned for it because he came loaded with four rounds in that magazine, not just the round that he shot.

He knew he could miss, and the only reason he took other rounds is because he knew he could miss and he came prepared to shoot again. So this idea, you shoot into a crowd, very similar. They compared it to the Butler shooting of Donald Trump. Great risk to killing someone else. As to count two, the discharge of a firearm, prosecutors said it's basically the same argument they made. What about the other counts? Count three, obstruction of justice. This involves hiding the rifle.

We know that the defendant hid the rifle, one, because we see him after he jumps off the low sea center run into the woods. The rifle was found hidden under a bush, and the defendant admitted to his boyfriend that he had to leave it in a bush. Count four, deals with disposing of the clothing. In Exhibit 14, which is the written statement of Mike Mitchell, Mike Mitchell recounts his conversation with the defendant where the defendant stated he had disposed of the clothing. Count five, witness tampering.

This deals with the defendant telling Lance Twigs to delete the text messages after the defendant had admitted to killing Charlie Kirk. Count six, witness tampering. This is telling Twigs to stay silent. Now, defense counsel in their pleading states that, no, this is altruistic. This is not witness tampering because it's not telling Lance Twiggs to avoid giving information or testimony for the defendant's benefit. It's just telling him his rights, in essence. Well, that requires you to draw the inferences in the defendant's favor, which is improper at this stage. Moreover, it requires you to ignore the circumstances here.

You have to remember, the defendant had just shot and killed someone. He'd just hidden the rifle. He'd just gotten rid of his clothing. He just asked Lance Twiggs to delete the text messages and incriminating messages. And of course, so he told Lance Twigs also to avoid giving him up. Don't talk to police when they come to ask you questions. Furthermore, as it relates to the Fifth Amendment, Lance Twigs did not have a Fifth Amendment right against incriminating the defendant.

The Fifth Amendment right only applies to incriminating himself. And there's no evidence that Lance Twiggs would have incriminated himself by speaking with the police. Now, also attention has to be given to that last count, okay? This idea of violence in the presence of a child, this enhancement. Now, the prosecutor made the argument that the defendant knew children were present. How? That Orum, they're all about family, that this campus was no different. Children were around.

No one was hiding the children. It's reasonable to assume that the defendant saw them, make a reasonable inference that he saw them. The prosecutor even mentioned that when you do screenshots of the videos, you can see. babies, you can see children. So the inferences the defendant would have known that children are there. There is also a discussion about a victim targeting enhancement. This goes to the line of punishment, right, how severe the penalties would be, severe the alleged crime. The idea here, was this a killing done for political purposes, political motivation? Charlie Kirk was an outspoken critic of homosexuality and transgenderism and was an outspoken advocate.

for traditional conservative values, including traditional families and marriage. The defendant was living in a homosexual relationship with a man who is considering transgender or transitioning his gender and he went by the name of it's not difficult to understand the motive here. The defendant's views were repugnant to the positions that Charlie Kirk famously took. So there you go. That's Mr. McBride basically making the argument that the defendant should be bound over on all of these charges for trial. Now we heard from the defense, and we heard from several lawyers here, several defense lawyers. First up was Stacey Visser. And she

started out by stating that this is a constitutional issue at stake. She cites a number of different cases, but really focuses on that aggravator, right, did the defendant, if he's accused of what he's doing, if he really did it, did he create a situation that presented a great risk of death to another person other than Charlie Kirk. She made the argument it doesn't. There is one shot, there is one bullet, there is one victim. There is no temporal relationship for this court to evaluate. This factor is not met.

There were no actual threats by the assailant to the third party. There was no evidence that would suggest that anyone else was threatened. In the other cases, talking about threat, to the third party. We're looking at multiple gunshots. We're looking at verbal threats. We're looking at pointing a firearm at someone. We're looking at using a device that is more likely to cause injury to multiple people. For example, in Florida there was a case involving a sought-off shotgun. That was found to be more likely to cause injury to people in surrounding areas. Bombs. Those are the types of weapons that were would cause injury to more people than the actual victim. And I will acknowledge, we acknowledge, that the Sosa-Hurtado Court was careful to say that these are not a checklist, right? These are factors for this court to consider in deciding whether or not the conduct here falls within the statute. and the fact that maybe one of these factors is met, but the other two are not, should be something that this court weighs.

It's interesting in Sosa Hurtado when I was rereading it in preparation. They describe Johnson itself the Johnson case as like a single act. So she really hit on the idea that a great risk to death, has to be not just a possibility, okay? And she really focused on the distance, the spatial proximity, that the prosecution wasn't entirely clear about it. She made the argument that the prosecution didn't really provide evidence about how far Charlie Kirk was away from other people. And then you look at the videos, and the videos speak for themselves about where Charlie Kirk was positioned. And she made the argument that the prosecution's kind of cherry-picking certain videos,

and it's being a little bit misleading. And then she goes into this argument. about how the prosecution is kind of manipulating the value or the meaning or the context of the evidence. Take a look. I do want to briefly mention the issues in the evidence about the state speculating. The state asks the court to draw inferences from evidence that appear to have been admitted primarily for the purpose of establishing identity. but is now trying to construe it in such a way that it shows knowledge. For example, the screwdriver on the roof.

The screwdriver on the roof, according to the state's evidence, has a DNA that is similar to Mr. Robinson's. I would imagine that is intended to show that it was allegedly Mr. Robinson on the roof. now we're going to deal with that evidence in the future. We're going to have hearings about the DNA evidence for sure. But the state goes on to ask this court to infer that the rifle was taken apart and put back together with the screwdriver. The four bullets in the gun is an interesting argument that I think ultimately cuts against the state's position. Because we know this was a bolt action rifle. In order to reload it, the spent cartridge had to be removed, and it wasn't.

So it actually cuts against this idea that maybe other people were endangered, that there was an intent or knowledge that other people might be killed. There is zero evidence that there was any action taken towards other people. Zero evidence. I just want to focus one more time on her key argument here. Take a look. The facts at their core are that the shooter shot a high-powered rifle from a roof at a downward angle, hitting the victim in the left side of the neck at a distance of 415 feet.

The angle is 415 feet. It's not 410 feet. It had a telescopic scope on it. The shooter did not fire any more. shot and in fact did not even reload. The shooter is not alleged to have engaged with anyone else, is not alleged to have pointed the rifle at anyone else, threatened anyone else, or done anything other than shoot that gun and run away. There was no ricochet. The only other individual under the tent, excuse me, with Mr. Kirk, like I described, was on the

opposite side of him. This was an open-air environment. This was not an enclosed space. And contrary to the screenshots that the state pulled from Exhibit 9, no one was behind the tent when Mr. Kirk was shot. Even assuming that the shooter might have some knowledge about that, which I think is a real stretch because it's not like the tent was see-through. No one was behind Mr. Kirk when that shot was fired. And Mr. Kirk was seated in an elevated position. This is clearly visible in Exhibit 7. He is above those closest. So there's nothing in this evidence showing that there was a great risk that someone else was going to be killed, let alone that the shooter would acknowledge of that risk. It's not just the shot fired. It's what happened. It's what happened

around it. So she makes the argument striking the aggravator is the only conclusion under Utah law in the Constitution. Next up, you heard from defense attorney Michael Burke. Now, one of the things he did was focus on how the prosecution is overstating the significance of the forensic evidence. Give you a sense of what is probably going to be argued at trial. Take a look at this. Mr. McBride in his argument said the defendant's DNA was all over the weapon. But the was tested by Ms. Oliver from the ATF. And in her report, if you just look at the report and not her testimony, what the report says, and this is exhibit 30, her ultimate conclusion was, based on this calculation,

there is evidentiary support for the inclusion of Tyler Robinson as a possible contributor. And I want to end quote, and that's, it states as a bit 30, a possible contributor. And she, as well as Ms. Baker, from the FBI, went out of their way to explain to the court that based on the current state of the science, there is no basis to conclude that, based on the DNA testing that was done in this case, that a particular piece of DNA can be traced. back to a source. Now, later on, another defense attorney came to the podium, Richard Novak. He focused, among other things, on count six, right, this tampering with a witness. And he really disagreed with Prosecutor McBride's characterization that Robinson in that moment was trying to protect himself and not trying to protect Lance Twigs.

This is how he described it. What the court sees is somebody who the state alleges as Mr. Robinson. saying to Mr. Twiggs, quote, I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. And then the text message goes on. Why is that important? That is important because what this court knows

from the preliminary hearing testimony is that the person that the state says is Mr. Robinson had left Orham, had returned all the way to St. George, and the court knows this through Mr. Mitchell's 1102, had spoken with Mr. Robinson's father, and had arranged for Mr. Mitchell to help Mr. Robinson surrender to the Washington County Sheriff. That has already occurred,

when Mr. Robinson, according to Mr. Twiggs, is saying, if any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer, and stay silent. Just before that, he says, you are all I worry about love. So the case law which we present basically requires this court to determine whether Mr. Robinson's statements to Mr. Twiggs were intended to obstruct justice or were altruistic. What is more clear in terms of altruism than having already decided to surrender and saying, you are all I worry about love, if any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer, and stay silent. That is actually a demonstration of altruism. That is a demonstration of caring for another person. That is a demonstration of what Mr. Robinson said Mr. Twiggs.

You are all I worry about love. But he also tells him, make sure that the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff. Be polite and respectful, of course. So I don't see how the court can accept Mr. McBride's suggestion that this is an effort to observe. instruct an investigation. Okay, and now I just want to play you a little bit from the prosecution in their rebuttal, closing argument. The law does not protect or better reward an assassin who shoots into a crowd of people

and happens to hit his target. The question of whether the aggravating factor applies here is not whether a third party was actually injured. It's a question of risk. And firing a gun into a crowd creates. a zone of danger beyond that of a single intended target. Tyler Robinson doesn't get to hide behind the fact that on September 10th, 2025, he was true to his aim, not when he shot into a crowd of people and shot and killed Mr. Kirk

with a person immediately to his right within a couple of feet. The evidence speaks for itself, with people to his left, with people who are behind him, and certainly people in front of him, especially the questioner, a few feet away from Charlie Kirk, standing between Mr. Kirk and the assassin. And if Your Honor watches the videos that were submitted as part of evidence, you can see Mr. Kirk moving, others moving, shifting, turning, stepping forward, stepping back.

This was a fluid target, and that adds to the danger, the great risk of death here. The risk of a stray or ricocheting bullet. firing a weapon from an elevated rooftop into a courtyard full of people filled with concrete. There was a lot of concrete there as well in the steps in the amphitheater, as well as temporary metal fencing. It's incredibly dangerous.

If the bullet fired from the defendant's gun had struck a hard surface, it's reasonable to infer that it would have changed directions and or broken into unpredictable fragments of dangerous, even lethal shrapnel. And it's very important to look carefully at the language of Sosa-Urtado and look at what the court found there.

Because the Utah Supreme Court, the controlling court here, found that the defendant there, quote, perpetrated two separate acts that created a great risk of death to Isabel, who was the survivor. The first shot was actually directed at Isabel, but missed him,

shattering some glass, throwing some glass and wood into his life. leg. And the second shot when the defendant, quote, fired a shot at Stephen, which hit Stephen's hand when Isabel was only a few feet away, close quote. The court found that, quote, a reasonable jury could conclude that both of these acts created a great risk of death to Isabel, close quote. So in other words, our high court here in the state of Utah has held that even one shot can create, that one shot that kill someone, that injure someone, intended for a target, can create a great risk of death to a third party.

And that's exactly what we have here. Mr. McBride talked about common sense. Common sense is incredibly important. Like he said, we ask our juries to not check their common sense at the door when they come into a trial and ultimately when they deliberate. The record clearly establishes, especially for probable cause purposes, that Tyler Robinson knew that his actions were creating a great risk of death to others. First, when Mr. Robinson was crawling towards and settling into his shooter's perch that day on top of the low sea building,

and then set his sights on Charlie Kirk, he was looking down into a crowd of people, thousands of people. He not only could see the crowd, but also the people standing within a short distance to Mr. Kirk. He was looking at Mr. Kirk through a scope. that magnified the area. He could see Mr. Kirk and he could see those standing right next to him. That's the reasonable inference. It is more than fair to infer that Robinson knew

and that he knew he was shooting into a crowd and that his margin of error that I've talked about was very tight, very tight. This was a very purposeful act on his part. He knew what he was walking into. he had scoped his place out that day. He knew that Charlie Kirk was going to be speaking to a group of people that were going to be assembling right around him,

and that's exactly what he saw when he got up onto that shooter's perch. He nonetheless purposefully pulled out that weapon and fired it killing Mr. Kirk. The defendant thought he had committed an almost perfect murder. But Judge, nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence and the clues the defendant left behind that day and his actions over the next day or so amount to overwhelming and devastating proof of his guilt. And after all that, later on, this was the decision from Judge Graff. It is hereby ordered that the defendant Tyler James Rowndt Robinson is bound over for trial in the fourth judicial district court on the following counts in sentencing allegations.

Count one, aggravated murder, a capital felony in violation of Utah Code annotated, 76-5-202, including the capital aggravating circumstance under Section 76-5-202 to a triple I. Count two, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, a first-degree felony in violation of Utah Code annotated, 76-11-210 sub 2 and sub 3C, including the victim targeting allegation under 76-3-203.10101.14 sub-2, subject to the sentencing treatment described in 76-3-203.143B, and the presence of a child aggravating factor under 76-3-203.9. Count three. Obstruction of justice is second-degree felony.

in violation of Utah Code annotated 76-8-306 sub 2. Count 4. Obstruction of Justice, a second-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code annotated, 76-8-306 sub-2. Count 5, tampering with a witness at third-degree felony in violation of Utah Code annotated 76-8-508. Count 6, tampering with a witness at third-degree felony in violation of Utah Code annotated 76-8-508. Count 7, violent offense committed in the presence of a child,

a Class A misdemeanor under Utah Code annotated 76-3-20-20, reclassified as a Class A misdemeanor under Section 76-3-203.14 sub 3AWI based on the victim targeting allegation under 76-3-2-203.14 sub-2. All evidentiary determinations in this order are limited to the preliminary hearing and do not determine admissibility or the ultimate weight of evidence at trial. Nothing in this order constitutes a final determination of defendant's guilt or witness credibility. defendant remains presumed innocent, and the state bears the burden at trial of proving each charge offense beyond a reasonable doubt. So there you go.

Tyler Robinson is going to be headed to trial. We're going to continue to see what happens next in the Tyler Robinson case. That's all we have for right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, exit Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.