Grabien Media Intelligence · Court Record

State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson — Preliminary Hearing Archive

A running, searchable record of testimony, exhibits, and rulings in the capital prosecution arising from the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University.

CASE 251403576 4TH DIST. COURT · PROVO JUDGE Tony F. Graf, Jr. CHARGE Aggravated murder (capital) +6 PRELIM Jul 6–10, 2026
About this record. Text is a cleaned rendering of Grabien's audio transcription of the open-court proceedings. Obvious speech-to-text errors have been corrected against the confirmed roster and case record; testimony wording is preserved, not paraphrased. Points where the source audio is genuinely ambiguous are marked [?]. This is a working newsroom transcript, not a certified court transcript — where a citation-grade quote is needed, verify against the official reporter's transcript (a certified Day 1 transcript is also available via Rev.com). Speaker attributions for the prosecutor who examined Agent Hull are rendered Mr. Sterk by inference from the confirmed prosecution roster; treat that specific attribution as provisional.

State of the Evidence

Where the case stands

Updated through Day 2 · Jul 7, 2026

The prosecution's probable-cause pillars, tracked across the hearing. State = what's been put on so far; Open question = the caveat, or the defense's strongest line against it. This is a probable-cause posture, not a verdict — a low bar the State is widely expected to clear.

Established Contested Circumstantial Not yet presented
IdentificationCircumstantial

Robinson placed on campus by video across four visits on Sept. 10 — onto the Losee roof, prone in line with the tent, the shot at 11:23:28, then off the northeast corner carrying a long object. In-court ID by Hull, "for this hearing only."

Open questionThe roof video alone shows no face or clothing; the name came only from the surrender, not the investigation; the object is never confirmed as a gun on video; the in-court ID drew a suggestiveness objection.

Bagley, Hull · Ex. 11.4 / 11.1

DNA / ForensicsContested

"Very strong support for inclusion" for Robinson on both the towel (~1.7 octillion×) and the screwdriver (~30 quintillion×).

Open questionRoommate Twiggs called a contributor on a likelihood ratio of 1 ("uninformative"); contributor count revised 3→2; towel found in a bush, not a home; same-length "isoallele" sequences unresolved; items 1–6 consumed with no DNA and no retest.

Faumuina, Baker · Ex. 30.1

The WeaponRecovered

Mauser Model 98, .30-06, bolt-action, towel-wrapped, recovered Sept. 10 in the wooded area Robinson entered; sent to the ATF lab.

Open questionNo ballistics match presented yet; a prior defense filing cited an "inconclusive" ATF bullet-fragment comparison to the rifle. Hull wasn't involved in the search or processing.

Faumuina, Hull

Confession / AdmissionsNot yet presented

Prosecutors have signaled a note left for the roommate and a recorded interview of roommate Lance Twiggs — neither introduced across Days 1–2.

Open questionThe alleged confession is the State's strongest card and is still offstage; expected later in the hearing. Its wording and foundation will matter.

— (pending)

Autopsy / Cause of DeathEstablished

Gunshot wound of the neck; manner homicide (Ex. 11 — admitted, not broadcast).

Open questionIn only through Hull secondhand — he wasn't present at the autopsy, and the medical examiner did not testify.

Hull · Ex. 11

Surrender / TimelineEstablished

Robinson surrendered voluntarily the evening of Sept. 11 via a family-connected intermediary (Nester: a former Boy Scout leader); walked into the Washington County SD with his parents.

Open questionCuts for the defense: Hull conceded that until the surrender, "we did not specifically know who the shooter was" — the ID followed the surrender, not the reverse.

Hull

Victim-Targeting Enhancement (capital aggravator)Contested

To make the shooting death-eligible, the State must show Robinson targeted Kirk over his political expression (Utah Code 76-3-203.14). The Engelhardt statement (Ex. 5.1) is provisionally admitted, unpublished.

Open questionThe defense says 5.1 says nothing about Robinson's state of mind and risks recasting a political-expression case as one "about religion" (Matthew 19, subsection (m) vs. (k)). The State still needs independent evidence of motive.

McBride / Novak · Ex. 5.1

Day 1 · Monday, July 6, 2026

What happened

The State opened its probable-cause case with two witnesses and roughly forty exhibits. Judge Graf set a three-tier framework for every exhibit — admission, then publication to the gallery, then publication in a form the courtroom camera can capture — and required the defense to object to each tier separately.

Former UVU officer Christopher Bagley laid the campus geography and testified to hearing a single shot at 11:23, seeing Kirk fall left, and — after a suspect was in custody within ~30 seconds — climbing to the roof of the Losee Center, where he found a screwdriver and a gravel disturbance he read as a prone "sniper" position. On cross, Nester drew out that there was no security briefing, six officers covered thousands of attendees, the pistol holster he saw was never collected, and his body camera died on the roof.

SBI/DPS agent David Hull, the lead case agent, testified to the identification effort: hundreds of hours of video, a series of witness videos authenticated via written "reliable hearsay" statements, the medical examiner's finding (gunshot wound of the neck; homicide), and — after Washington County relayed that Robinson wanted to surrender the evening of Sept. 11 — a records workup yielding a silver Dodge Challenger and four campus visits on Sept. 10. Graf sustained the defense objection to the State's edited (zoomed/blurred/circled) surveillance compilation; the State said it would return Day 2 with an unaltered version. Hull was held over on the stand.

Index

Witnesses

Order of appearance, Day 1. Expand for a topic map of each examination.

1 · Officer Christopher Bagley Former UVU PD (now Spanish Fork PD) · Direct: Grunander · Cross: Nester · Redirect: Grunander

Background

  • ~6 years an officer; ~5 years at UVU PD (prior: Utah County Sheriff, Springville PD, Tooele County). Prior SWAT, K-9, motors. Worked the Kirk event on an overtime shift; checked in ~11:00 a.m.

Direct — the shooting & the roof

  • Assigned to secure the south end of the Hall of Flags walkway above Kirk's tent.
  • Heard a single shot at 11:23; saw the right side of Kirk's body, then Kirk "went to the left." Estimated ~7,000 present.
  • A suspect was reported in custody within ~30 seconds, near Kirk in the courtyard.
  • Found an empty concealed pistol holster on the grass; realized the report sounded like a rifle, from the east — the Losee Center had a direct line of sight.
  • On the Losee roof (~11:44): found a red-and-black screwdriver (untouched) and a gravel disturbance he described as a prone "sniper pad" in line with Kirk's tent. Secured the roof and the NE drop-off (shoe impression in grass) with tape.

Cross (Nester)

  • No security briefing, tactical, or operational plan; ~15 UVU officers total, six assigned to the event, plus Kirk's private security.
  • Gun-free campus; saw no armed civilians except one of Kirk's security team. Drones arrived after the shooting (Sgt. Nilsson, Provo PD).
  • The pistol holster was never taken into custody or fingerprinted to his knowledge.
  • A plainclothes man with an apparent handgun accompanied him up to the Losee roof — agency unknown.
  • Never reviewed video for the gap between the rooftop figure leaving and his own arrival. Body cam (~27:35) died on the roof before he taped it off.
  • Report did not state a direction for the shot or name the Losee building; described the object in the shooter's hand as a long/rifle-like object, later associated with a towel-wrapped item — did not write "gun."
2 · Agent David Hull Utah SBI / DPS, Major Crimes — lead case agent (with Agent Brian Davis) · Direct: Sterk [?] · held over to Day 2

Background & role

  • ~7+ years SBI; ~40 homicide investigations. Dispatched to assist, then made co-lead with Agent Brian Davis. Assigned the team: Faumuina (crime lab / scenes), Sgt. Barker [?] (UVU surveillance), Sgt. Clark (area canvass), L. Shots (information flow).
  • Stated priority: identify the individual seen on the roof.

Video & witness statements

  • Hundreds of hours reviewed; personally ~20 hrs initially, later ~16 hrs of the person/vehicle he identifies as Robinson on UVU footage.
  • Authenticated third-party videos via written Rule 1102 statements: Amber Wright (E6/6.1), a minor, Phillips (E7/7.1, mother co-signed), Toe Farnsworth of Visual Impulse / TPUSA videographer (E8/8.1), Curtis Olsen of UVU (E9/11.3), and Mrs. Noble — Ring doorbell (E13, E11.2).

Autopsy

  • ME's office autopsied Kirk late Sept. 10 into Sept. 11. Cause of death: gunshot wound of the neck; manner: homicide. ME investigator identified as "Officer Bullock." (Report = Exhibit 11.)

Identifying Robinson

  • Evening of Sept. 11: Washington County relayed that an individual — Tyler Robinson — wanted to turn himself in. Records workup (CIAG): photo, address, DOB, and a silver Dodge Challenger registered to Robinson and his mother.
  • Tracked four campus visits on Sept. 10 (twice before the shooting, at the shooting, and after into early Sept. 11).
  • Ring doorbell at 680 W 925 S showed the vehicle parking ~00:30:08 on the morning of the 11th.
  • Made an in-court identification of Robinson (over objection; see Rulings).

Ledger

Exhibit Log — Day 1

Every exhibit offered Day 1, with the defense's objection basis and the court's disposition. Status chips: ADMITTEDNOT ADMITTEDPUBLISHED · COURTPUBLISHED · MEDIAPLAYED · SCREENS ONLYNOT BROADCAST

Ex.ItemObjection → RulingStatus
1Photo of courtyard/amphitheater, facing NE (via Bagley)Hall of Flags, Sorenson, Woodbury, Fulton, Losee visibleFoundation (who/when took it) → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT
2Photo from east side looking west across campusStanding obj. + foundation/time → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT
3Drone photo of courtyard looking eastwardFoundation → Overruled State v. Purcell, 711 P.2d 243ADMITTEDCOURT
35Aerial view of campus + NE neighborhood (street grid, "horseshoe")Timing/foundation → Overruled State v. Weger, 372 P.3d 91ADMITTEDCOURT
3.1Red-and-black screwdriver on Losee rooftopFoundation → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT
3.2Top of Losee looking west (evidence tag #2 present)Foundation / tag not present when observed → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT
4Nighttime photo, gravel disturbance, w/ markersTaken by Melissa Richards, forensic lead — not presentHearsay (Richards absent) → Overruled Rule 1102; hearsay OK to lay foundationADMITTEDCOURT
5Nighttime side profile, measuring tape + markers, facing south (Richards)Same as E4 → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT
6.1Rule 1102 written statement — Amber Wright (cellphone video)Hearsay + Confrontation + UCJA 4-202.02 → Overruled redacted; Rule 1102, Art. I §11ADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
6Amber Wright cellphone videoCrowd + start of Kirk's remarks; does NOT show the shootingAuthentication + victim-privacy → Admitted; played in court but not broadcast (minor faces not all obscured)ADMITTEDCOURTNOT BROADCAST
7.1Rule 1102 statement — Phillips (minor; mother co-signed)Hearsay + minor/victim protection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
7Phillips video — graphic; depicts the moment Kirk was shotAuthentication + more prejudicial than probative → Admitted; not publishedADMITTEDSCREENS ONLYNOT BROADCAST
8.1Rule 1102 statement — Toe Farnsworth, Visual Impulse (TPUSA videographer)Hearsay + authentication (clips edited by unknown) → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
8Visual Impulse video — from stage into crowd; graphic; moment of shooting; Kirk tossing hatsAuthentication → Admitted; not published Art. I §28 (victim dignity)ADMITTEDSCREENS ONLYNOT BROADCAST
11.3Rule 1102 statement — Curtis Olsen, UVU (dir. of infrastructure / surveillance system)Hearsay → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
9Hall of Flags "breezeway" video (~3 min)Behind stage; shows Kirk carried away / "hasty transport"Graphic/sensitive → Admitted; not published Art. I §28ADMITTEDSCREENS ONLYNOT BROADCAST
11Medical Examiner autopsy report (9 pp.), Dr. [name] [?]Cause: gunshot wound of the neck · Manner: homicideHearsay + best-evidence + Confrontation → Overruled Rule 1102(b)(5) medical/autopsy records; Art. I §11. Best-evidence obj. sustained as to State's "murder" mischaracterization — corrected to "homicide."ADMITTEDNOT BROADCAST
13Rule 1102 statement — Mrs. Noble (Ring doorbell, 680 W 925 S)Hearsay + dual-author foundation → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
11.1Surveillance compilation — Robinson's campus movementsProduced by County Attorney's office WITH zooms, blurs, red circlesAuthentication — altered by non-testifying person; prejudice → SUSTAINED. State to bring an unaltered version Day 2.NOT ADMITTED
11.2Ring doorbell compilation — 4 clips (vehicle arrives/parks; person exits; returns; drives off), ~00:30:08Authentication (compilation) → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA

Note on numbering: the State used a parent/child scheme (e.g., 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3) grouping a source's video, sub-clips, and 1102 statement. "35" appears out of sequence in the source audio and may be a mis-hearing of a sub-numbered exhibit; flagged for verification against the official exhibit list.

Bench

Rulings & Legal Framework — Day 1

The load-bearing rulings, with the authority Graf relied on. These recur across the week, so they anchor the whole record.

Reliable hearsay is admissible at the preliminary hearing

Graf's throughline: at a probable-cause hearing the State may rely on reliable hearsay, so written witness statements and third-party media come in without the declarant present. This carried every 1102 statement (E6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 11.3, 13) and the autopsy report.

Utah Const. art. I §11 · Utah R. Evid. 1101(c), 1102 (incl. (b)(3), (b)(5) medical/autopsy, (b)(8))

Three-tier publication framework

Graf required objections to specify which tier they targeted: (1) admission of the exhibit; (2) publication to the gallery; (3) publication in a form the courtroom camera could capture. Absent a specific objection to a tier, he presumed none. Graphic exhibits (E7, E8, E9, E11) were admitted and shown to the court on protected screens but not broadcast, citing victim dignity.

Utah Const. art. I §28(1)(a) — victims' right to fairness, respect, dignity

Photo authentication without the photographer

A competent witness with personal knowledge of the scene may authenticate a photograph as a fair and accurate depiction; the person who took it need not testify. Applied to overrule the defense's foundation objections to the campus/scene photos.

State v. Purcell, 711 P.2d 243, 245 · State v. Weger, 372 P.3d 91 · State v. Griffin, 384 P.3d 186

Altered surveillance compilation excluded (E11.1)

Graf sustained the defense objection: the compilation had been zoomed, blurred, and circled by an unidentified person in the County Attorney's office who was not present and not covered by any 1102 statement. He held that alterations by a non-testifying person fall outside the reliable-hearsay foundation, even if "minor," and left it to the State to reoffer an unaltered version.

Best-evidence correction on the autopsy (E11)

When the State's witness characterized the manner of death as "murder," the defense's best-evidence objection was sustained; on reviewing page one, the witness corrected it to the report's actual term, homicide, with cause "gunshot wound of the neck."

In-court identification of Robinson — allowed "for purposes of this hearing only"

The defense objected that asking Hull to identify the only man seated at the defense table was unduly suggestive and a 14th Amendment due-process violation that could taint later identifications. After a bench conference, Graf found the identification made for the preliminary hearing only; late in the day Hull described Robinson in a gray suit jacket for the record.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV (due process)

UCJA 4-202.02 distinguished (records vs. in-court exhibits)

The defense repeatedly invoked the judicial-administration rule classifying certain victim images as private court records. Media counsel David Reymann argued — and Graf effectively accepted — that the rule governs classification of records in the court file, not exhibits the court relies on in open court, where the public has a qualified right of access to see what the judge sees.

Procedural

Media's motion to use portable electronic devices: denied for media generally, granted for media counsel. Exclusionary rule invoked by the defense; agents Davis and Hull permitted to remain by stipulation. Hull kept under the rule (no discussing testimony) while held over to Day 2.

Record

Cleaned Transcript — Day 1

Expand all  ·  Collapse all  — repetitive exhibit-admission colloquies are captured in the Exhibit Log and marked inline.

Opening — protocol, appearances, camera, publication framework08:26 →
The Court (Graf)Please be seated. Court is now in session. Calling case 251403576, State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Counsel, will you enter your appearances.
Mr. Grunander (State)Chad Grunander, Ryan McBride, David Sterk for the State. Jeff Gray, the County Attorney, and Chris Ballard are also present. Good morning.
Ms. Nester (Defense)Good morning, Your Honor. Kathy Nester, Michael Burt, Richard Novak, and Stacy Visser here on behalf of Mr. Robinson, who is seated to my right.
The CourtGood morning, Mr. Robinson. For the record, the court also recognizes the presence of Ms. Erika Kirk. Ms. Kirk, good morning. First, as to courtroom protocol: any individual who exits during proceedings will not be permitted to reenter until the recess. All counsel are expected to safeguard confidential communication — screen protections, care to avoid inadvertent capture of privileged discussions. The microphones at your tables have been turned off to minimize the possibility of communications being captured; if you are speaking, please come to the lectern.
The court questions the camera operator (John Wilson) and confirms compliance with the standing decorum order. On the media's amended motion to use portable electronic devices: denied as to news-media representatives; granted as to media counsel, held to the same decorum standard.
The CourtThe court reminds all in attendance: portable electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. Spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly — no audible comments, no shaking or nodding of the head, no gestures. And given the status of this case as a capital offense, no pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person.
The CourtTurning to counsel — over these past ten months I have observed each of you to be competent, prepared, and to care deeply about this case. As to objections: when one is made, all parties pause; speaking objections are not permitted. If extended argument is necessary, request to approach the bench. We begin each morning at 9:00 — except Wednesday, at 1:00 p.m. — with 15-minute morning and afternoon breaks, an hour for lunch at noon, and recess at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. NesterThe defense invokes the exclusionary rule.
Mr. GrunanderWe anticipated that. We have two case agents, David Hull and Brian Davis. The defense has consented that both may remain — Agent Davis is seated at my table; Agent Hull is just outside the bar. Both will testify.
The CourtSo stipulated. Agents Davis and Hull may remain for the duration.
On publication of exhibits, the court sets its framework: it will place the gallery monitor against the wall to reduce accidental broadcast, and rule exhibit by exhibit on what is (a) admitted, (b) published to the gallery, and (c) published in a form the camera can capture. The State previews its witnesses — Bagley, Hull, Davis, and Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina — and 40–50 exhibits. Brief recess to place the monitor.
Bagley — Direct (Grunander): campus geography & the exhibits09:30 → · Ex. 1, 2, 3, 35, 3.1
Discovery update by Mr. McBride: as of June 18, ~100% of material in the State's possession has been provided; additional FBI materials received for this hearing will be provided once the hearing concludes. Officer Bagley is sworn.
BagleyChristopher Bagley — B-A-G-L-E-Y. Spanish Fork Police Department, senior officer, about five months. Six years an officer total. Utah POST academy — police officer standard training — certified, including physical fitness and testing. In September 2025 I was at Utah Valley University police department, where I worked five years as a senior officer.
QMr. GrunanderDescribe your general duties at UVU.
ABagleyPatrol the campus, investigations, community and school-resource work. Full time. I had access to the campus video surveillance system — desktops and a wall of camera feeds in dispatch — and used it every day; I even built maps for dispatch. I became very familiar with the buildings, walkways, entrances and exits, parking structures, and the neighborhoods to the north and east.
QUtah Valley University is located in which city?
AOrem, Utah. The courtyard — the outdoor amphitheater — is central, surrounded by buildings: grass tiers, seating, bushes, a waterfall and pond. The Hall of Flags is directly west, a walkway between two buildings displaying flags from around the world. The Fulton building is to the south of the courtyard; the Woodbury business building southeast; the Sorenson Center to the northeast; the Losee Center to the east.
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 35 (campus and drone/aerial photos) and 3.1 (screwdriver on the Losee roof) are offered through Bagley. Defense objects each on foundation/timing and its standing objection; the court overrules each and admits, citing Purcell and Weger. Bagley walks the court through building locations, the courtyard, and the Losee rooftop on each. See Exhibit Log →
ABagley[On the Losee roof access] There is an outdoor public stairway to the south of the Losee building, up a breezeway between the Losee and the computer-science building. From there a person could hop a low guardrail — a couple of feet — onto the gravel roof, which is otherwise off limits.
Bagley — Direct: the shooting, the holster, the Losee roof· Ex. 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5
QTake you to September 10, 2025. You were working?
ABagleyYes — an overtime shift, checked in about 11:00 a.m. for a special event, a guest speaker: Charlie Kirk. My assignment was to secure the south end of the top of the Hall of Flags walkway. I saw Mr. Kirk arrive on the west side of the Hall of Flags, greet people, take photos, then go to his tent in the courtyard and take questions.
QFast-forward to about 11:20.
AI could see the right side of Charlie's body under the tent as he answered a question. I heard a shot fired — 11:23. He went to the left, further under the tent, and I could no longer see the right side of his body. There were, I'd estimate, several thousand people — jam-packed; I'd say up to seven thousand. Then everyone got up, screaming, running in all directions — a chaos situation.
QWhat did you do?
AI recognized gunfire and left my post, trying to get down the outside stairs between the Fulton and the Hall of Flags — jumping over people on the steps. By the time I reached the bottom I was told over the radio we had a shooter in custody. I thought that was fast for what sounded close range. So I began canvassing for injured — one young man near a wheelchair appeared to be seizing, but he told me he was fine.
AI started preserving the scene, pushing people off the grass. Near the top tier I saw an empty pistol holster on the grass. As things slowed, I realized the shot I'd heard was a rifle, not a pistol — the report is a longer, more violent bang. And I knew it came from the east. I looked up and saw the Losee building had a direct line of sight.
AI ran up four flights in the Sorenson, then up the outside stairway to the Losee roof — about 11:44. I hopped the guardrail and saw an object about 10–15 feet in, in the gravel, that looked out of place: a red-and-black screwdriver. I did not touch it.
Exhibits 3.1 (screwdriver), 3.2 (top of Losee looking west, evidence tag #2), 4 and 5 (nighttime photos of the gravel disturbance and markers, taken by forensic lead Melissa Richards) are admitted over hearsay/foundation objections, the court holding hearsay admissible to lay foundation under Rule 1102. See Exhibit Log →
ABagley[Describing E4/E5] On the southwest side of the Losee roof, in the line of sight of Kirk's tent, there was a distinct impression in the gravel — to me it looked like a sniper pad: a person laid out prone, with markings of elbows, knees, and feet. I secured the roof and the natural guardrail with crime-scene tape, then secured the northeast drop-off, where I saw a shoe impression pressed deep in the grass and scuff marks on the cement. I released the roof to a county deputy with instructions to keep everyone but investigators out.
Bagley — Cross (Nester): no briefing, the holster, the body cammorning → after lunch
QMs. NesterYou checked in around 11:00 that day. Did you attend any briefing to prepare for security at this event?
ABagleyI did not — when I arrived, people were already on top of the Hall of Flags, throwing things down at the tent, so officers were sent to secure that area. There was no debrief that I know of.
QHow many officers does UVU employ, and how many covered the event?
AAbout 15 employed; six of us worked it, plus the chief. We carried Glock pistols. No magnetometers were set up. No drones were flying above campus that day that I'm aware of.
QUtah campuses — gun-free zone?
AYes. I didn't see anyone armed that day other than law enforcement and one of Mr. Kirk's private security team, who was on the Hall of Flags near me before the shooting.
QYou prepared a report. In your training you were taught how important the report is — relied on later to reconstruct events. So accuracy matters. In your report, do you state the direction you heard the shot come from?
AI did not list a direction.
QAnd nothing about it coming from the Losee building?
ALater, when I saw the holster and realized the line of sight — but no, the report doesn't say that in those terms.
QThe holster — an empty concealed holster on the grass. Did you take custody of it? Tell anyone else to? Was it ever fingerprinted?
AIt was left on the grass. Not that I know of.
QDrones — someone had to bring one after the shooting, because UVU didn't have one?
ASgt. Nilsson, Provo PD. Correct.
QReviewing your body-camera footage, another individual in civilian clothing, who appeared to have a gun, went with you to the Losee building. Who was he, what agency?
AI don't know exactly — he had a badge, backed me up as I ran up the stairs. It looked like a handgun. I don't know his agency.
QWhen you reviewed the video later, did you ever check whether anyone else had been on the Losee roof between the person jumping off and you arriving?
ANo — once I taped it off, I reviewed the video from that moment on. I did not review that gap.
QYour body cam — about 27 minutes 35 seconds — starts at the Hall of Flags and ends while you're still on the roof, before you taped it. That's the only body cam you have that day?
AYes — I believe the battery died. It was too chaotic to go back for it.
QOn the video of the person on the roof — could you identify the face, clothing markings, weight, shoes, or what was on the head?
AI could tell height, and that he wasn't heavy — a skinny person. Not the face, shoes, or headwear.
QDid you see a gun?
AI saw a long black object in the left hand as he moved across the roof.
QIn your report, do you mention seeing a gun — or even that object?
AI did not mention it.
QWhen you left at 9 p.m. and returned the next morning — did you, or anyone on that campus to your knowledge, know who the shooter was?
ANot that I knew of.
Redirect (Grunander): Bagley re-marks on E1 the location of the pistol holster — top grass tier, middle, by the Fulton building, in line of sight. Witness excused subject to recall. The State calls David Hull.
Hull — Direct (Sterk [?]): role, the identification effort, witness videosafternoon · Ex. 6–9, 11.3
HullDavid Hull, Utah Department of Public Safety, State Bureau of Investigation — certified 2015. In September 2025 I was in Major Crimes. About seven-plus years with SBI, roughly forty homicide investigations. On September 10 I was asked to respond to UVU to assist; I understood there had been an event and someone had been shot — I later learned it was Charlie Kirk, whom I wasn't familiar with at the time.
HullMy assumption was that we were responding to help process a crime scene. After some discussion on scene, my lieutenant informed me that Agent Davis and I would take lead for the state investigation. There was a large multi-agency presence — FBI, DEA, ATF, marshals, state, county, and local. Being lead is an organizational role: directing the investigation, coordinating information. I assigned Sgt. Faumuina to the crime lab and scenes, Sgt. Barker [?] to the UVU surveillance footage, Sgt. Clark to the area canvass, and L. Shots to manage information flow.
QMr. Sterk [?]What was your first priority as lead?
AHullDetermining whether we could identify who was involved in the shooting. We were getting a large volume of tips, cellphone videos, and social-media posts — with three thousand-plus people, everyone had a phone. Analysts scrolled social sites; we collected and processed a great deal.
The State then introduces a series of witness videos, each authenticated by a written Rule 1102 statement gathered by Hull/Davis: Amber Wright (E6.1 statement, E6 video — crowd and start of remarks, not the shooting), a minor, Phillips (E7.1 statement co-signed by his mother, E7 video — graphic, the moment of the shooting), Toe Farnsworth of Visual Impulse / TPUSA's videographer (E8.1, E8 — from the stage into the crowd, graphic), and Curtis Olsen of UVU (E11.3, and Hall-of-Flags "breezeway" video E9). The court admits each under Rule 1102 and art. I §11; it publishes the 1102 statements (redacted) but, citing art. I §28 victim dignity, plays the graphic videos (E7, E8, E9) only on protected screens — not to the gallery or media. Full disposition in the Exhibit Log →
NoteMs. Nester[Recurring standing objection] These are reliable-hearsay determinations the court is being asked to make in a vacuum, without the declarants present to be cross-examined — hampering the reliability analysis — and, as to the victim videos, protected under the victims' provisions and Robinson's fair-trial rights.
On E9 (breezeway video), Hull testifies it shows Kirk being carried away by his own security detail — a "hasty transport" — administering first aid, then transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Hull learned this from ME investigator "Officer Bullock."
Hull — the autopsy report (Exhibit 11): "homicide," not "murder"~3:00 p.m. · Ex. 11
QMr. Sterk [?]Do you know whether Mr. Kirk was autopsied by the Utah medical examiner's office?
AHullYes — an autopsy was conducted late into the evening of September 10 or into the morning of the 11th, by the medical examiner's office. Agent Davis and I met personally with the doctor within a few days and had an in-depth discussion, and I subsequently received the report.
Obj.Ms. NesterIf this is not personal knowledge, we object — hearsay. This individual wasn't present at the autopsy.
Resp.Mr. Sterk [?]This is foundation for the report itself.
The 9-page report is marked Exhibit 11 for identification. The defense renews its standing/reliable-hearsay objection. The court overrules, citing art. I §11 and Rule 1102(b)(5) (medical and autopsy reports and records), admits Exhibit 11, and — citing art. I §28 (dignity) — declines to publish it in the courtroom or to the media.
QIn that report, what is the cause and manner of death?
AHullCause of death was stated as a gunshot wound to the neck; manner of death, a murder—
Obj.Ms. NesterIt is not stated as "murder." I believe it states "homicide," which is an important distinction. Best-evidence rule.
The CourtI need to see that section and draw my own conclusion. The objection as to the manner of death is sustained — it does not say "murder."
QLooking at the first page — would you relate what the doctor reports?
AHullI misspoke — it does say homicide, and the immediate cause of death, gunshot wound of the neck.
Hull — hundreds of hours of video; the surrender; the Challenger; four campus visits3:25 p.m. → · Ex. 11.1 (excluded)
QWhat else did you do on the 10th?
AHullThe primary focus was to identify the individual seen on the roof in the preliminary footage — reviewing hundreds of hours of video, predominantly from UVU, to follow that individual forward and backward from the time of the shooting. I personally watched maybe 10–20 hours that first day; a large team reviewed the rest, looking for people matching the original description.
QDid anything come along that helped identify who the shooter might be?
AOn the evening of the 11th, we received word from Washington County that an individual in that area had reached out to law enforcement, wanting to turn themselves in for the incident at UVU. We received a name — Tyler Robinson.
QWhat did you do with that name?
AIt went to our analysis group for a workup — driver's-license and DMV records for an address, photos, and associated vehicles. That produced a photo of Mr. Robinson, an address, a date of birth, and a vehicle: a silver Dodge Challenger, registered to Mr. Robinson and his mother. With a vehicle and an image, we could track that specific individual on the footage.
QHow many times did Mr. Robinson visit campus on the 10th?
AApproximately four times — twice before the shooting, at the time of the shooting, and after, into the early hours of the 11th. That is based on UVU surveillance video — about 16 hours of which include the person I believe to be Mr. Robinson or his vehicle.
Exhibit 11.1 — the County Attorney's edited compilation of Robinson's movements (with zooms, blurs, and red circles) — is offered. The defense objects: it was altered by a non-testifying person, cannot be authenticated by Hull or Olsen, and is prejudicial. The court sustains the objection and does not admit it, holding that alterations by an unidentified person fall outside the reliable-hearsay foundation. The State says it will prepare an unaltered version for Day 2. See Exhibit Log →
QWas other video collected?
AHullRing doorbell footage from the surrounding neighborhood, including a residence at 680 West, 925 South — in the "horseshoe," close to campus. It showed a vehicle consistent with Mr. Robinson's, with distinctive wheels, parking across the street at approximately 00:30:08 on the morning of the 11th. That footage was verified with the owner, Mrs. Noble, on a Rule 1102 statement (E13), and the clips make up Exhibit 11.2.
Hull — in-court identification; held over to Day 2→ 5:00 p.m. recess
QMr. Sterk [?]Would you recognize the person you've identified as Tyler Robinson if he were in the courtroom today? Would you point him out and describe something he's wearing?
Obj.Ms. NesterObjection — unduly suggestive in-court identification, and a 14th Amendment due-process violation. There is a long line of case law: asking a witness to identify the defendant when he is the only person seated at the defense table is unduly suggestive and taints any past or future identification.
Bench conference. The court finds — for purposes of this hearing only — that Agent Hull's in-court identification of Mr. Robinson has been made. Later in the day, over renewed objection (14th Amendment; lack of foundation on Hull's ability to interpret the surveillance video), Hull identifies Robinson again, describing him seated between counsel "wearing a gray suit jacket."
Mr. Sterk [?]We'd ask to break until tomorrow. Our intent is to prepare an unaltered version of the compilation — without the circles, blurring, or zooming — and introduce it tomorrow as a different exhibit.
Ms. NesterWe're happy to accommodate. And — Agent Hull is the case agent, but he is still on the stand. I'd ask that he be instructed not to discuss his testimony while excused for the night.
The CourtAgent Hull, from this moment until we return, you are instructed not to discuss your testimony with anyone; you remain on the stand for all intents and purposes. Court is in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
Full verbatim expansion of the ~10 exhibit-admission colloquies is available on request — say the word and I'll drop each one inline. Otherwise their substance is preserved in the Exhibit Log above.

Day 2 · Tuesday, July 7, 2026

What happened

Two fights dominated Day 2: the surveillance video and the DNA. On the video, the State returned with an unaltered compilation (Ex. 11.4) to cure the exclusion of its zoomed/blurred/circled version (Ex. 11.1). Graf admitted 11.4 and — over a fair-trial objection — allowed it broadcast, distinguishing it from the graphic exhibits: it merely shows the defendant walking the campus. Playing it, Hull narrated Robinson's four visits on Sept. 10, culminating in the figure rolling onto the Losee roof, going prone, the shot at 11:23:28, and the jump off the northeast corner carrying a long object. 11.1 (enhanced) was then admitted but not published — Rule 403, cumulative.

On cross, Nester pressed Hull hard: the roof video alone couldn't identify anyone; a person was in custody within seconds and later cleared; a handgun turned up in a backpack; an off-duty trooper (Gonzales) reported a gun in the holster; and — the throughline — until Robinson voluntarily surrendered the evening of Sept. 11, "we did not specifically know who the shooter was." A family-connected intermediary (Nester: a former Boy Scout leader) facilitated the surrender.

Then the forensics: Sgt. Faumuina traced the screwdriver and a Mauser .30-06 (towel-wrapped, in the woods) to the labs, and the FBI DNA report (Ex. 30.1) put Robinson and roommate Lance Twiggs as likely contributors on both. The defense then called FBI analyst Amanda Baker out of order and drew real blood on cross: the number of contributors on one sample had been revised from three to two; STRmix returned a likelihood ratio of exactly 1 ("uninformative") for Twiggs, yet Baker still called him a contributor via "assumed contributor"/elimination reasoning grounded in the investigators' belief the items came from Robinson's home — though the towel was found in a bush at UVU; her length-based test can't resolve same-length "isoallele" sequence differences at 5–6 loci; and several swabs were consumed outright (items 1–6 yielded no DNA and can't be retested; a stairwell sample was a >5-person mixture). On cross, McBride rehabilitated: accreditation, validation across 120+ labs, proficiency testing, and — for Robinson specifically — "very strong support for inclusion" on both items (~1.7 octillion and ~30 quintillion). Separately, Graf provisionally admitted the Engelhardt statement (Ex. 5.1) on the religion-vs-political-expression question, unpublished. Court adjourned to Wednesday at 1:00 p.m. (no morning session).

Index

Witnesses — Day 2

Hull continued from Day 1; Faumuina and Baker were taken partly out of order to accommodate scheduling.

2 · Agent David Hull (continued)SBI/DPS (left for Utah POST in March 2026) · Direct: Sterk [?] · Cross: Nester · Redirect: Sterk · excused

Direct — the unaltered compilation (Ex. 11.4) & the four visits

  • Visit 1 (~8:30 a.m.): silver Challenger into the parking structure; driver in a maroon/dark tee, shorts, exits on foot to the courtyard, contacts TPUSA reps, returns to the car ~9:25 a.m., drives off.
  • Visit 2 (~just after 10 a.m.): returns on foot from the NE neighborhood with a blue backpack; buys food at the Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson Center; crosses into the wooded area NE of campus drive; returns without the backpack; moves to the railing giving roof access to the Losee, then back down and off campus ~just before 11.
  • Visit 3: returns on foot, different clothing, walking with a limp; up the parking-structure stairs; south past the front of the Losee.
  • Visit 4 (~11:15): onto the Losee exterior staircase; rolls over the railing onto the roof; runs to the SW corner; crouches, crawls, goes prone in line with Kirk's tent. Shot at 11:23:28. Stands, moves north behind the atrium to the NE corner, jumps off onto the grass carrying an object (~11:24:42), crosses campus drive, drops into the woods.
  • Officer Goforth [?] (Spanish Fork PD, security detail) contacted the vehicle at campus drive/800 South, noted the partial plate on "cop intuition," later ran it — registered to Tyler and Amber Robinson — and recalled contact with a male he believed to be Robinson. Source date garbled (says "the 11th"); sequence places this ~11:30 a.m. Sept. 10.

Cross (Nester)

  • Arrived ~1:30 p.m. (≈1 hr after Kirk was removed); became lead ~2:30. A bullet on another building was accounted for as an officer's ejected round. A person was in custody early — later cleared; others detained and cleared. A handgun was found in a backpack; off-duty trooper Noah Gonzales reported a gun in the holster (Ex. Hull-13, Davis's report).
  • The roof video alone was not distinguishable — no face/clothing; only the stairwell/parking-garage images were released. Two young men gave video of a figure on the roof ~10 sec before the shot, describing it as "overwatch."
  • The object crossing campus drive was concealed/in a bag, long, "could be a firearm" — no gun visible; no passerby reported an armed man.
  • The surrender: word came from the Washington County Sheriff to the university control center the evening of Sept. 11. Until then, "we had identified a person of interest, but we did not specifically know who the shooter was." A family-connected intermediary (Nester: a former Boy Scout leader) facilitated it; Robinson went to the Washington County SD with his parents and walked in.
  • Not present at the autopsy; met the ME after. Ring-camera owners (the Nobles) had told him the driver was bald and there were three other people in the car (Ex. Hull-48) — not mentioned on direct. UVU later paved over the dirt under the tent.

Redirect (Sterk)

  • Rifles are carried "cruiser ready" (no round chambered); ejecting the magazine can drop a round — explaining the stray bullet. Hundreds, "if not a thousand," officers responded to clear the campus.
  • The object is first clearly in Robinson's hand on the white NE corner before the jump — black, long. The rifle was recovered Sept. 10 in the wooded area Robinson entered. On the roof he ran (no limp); the limp was on the earlier approach.
3 · Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina [?]Utah SBI/DPS — Evidence Response Team lead · Direct: McBride · cross reserved (recalled later)

Direct — chain of custody

  • Oversaw the crime scenes and physical evidence on Sept. 10. The screwdriver was collected by the state crime lab's response team, packaged, and turned over to the FBI for testing.
  • In the wooded area NE of campus: a long gun wrapped in a dark towel — a Mauser Model 98, .30-06, bolt-action rifle. Documented in place, rendered safe, packaged. Rifle → ATF lab; towel → FBI lab; screwdriver → FBI lab.
  • Sponsored Ex. 30.1, the FBI DNA report (analyst Amanda Baker): Item 7 = towel from the Mauser; Item 8 = screwdriver from the perch. Both put a two-person male mixture including roommate Lance Twiggs, with Robinson far more likely than an unknown as the second contributor (towel ~1.7 octillion×; screwdriver ~30 quintillion×). Buccal swabs were taken from Twiggs and Robinson.
4 · Amanda BakerFBI Laboratory, Quantico — forensic DNA examiner (10+ yrs) · Defense witness, out of order · Direct: Burt · ongoing at cutoff

Direct (Burt) — the limits of the DNA

  • Evidence first received Sept. 11, 2025; run as priority one (24/7). A Sept. 13 comm-log entry recorded Robinson as a "possible contributor" to the towel and screwdriver; report dated Sept. 15, conforming to DOJ uniform language (Ex. Baker-7, Baker-8).
  • FBI policy bars claims of absolute identification, "reasonable scientific certainty," or a zero error rate / infallibility — Baker confirmed she followed all three.
  • Activity level: she cannot opine how or when DNA was deposited — presence ≠ touch. DNA can persist "indefinitely" under ideal conditions.
  • Degradation: both items degraded — the screwdriver more ("ski-slope" peaks), the towel slightly. Item 7 (towel) = full profile; Item 8 (screwdriver) = partial (allele drop-out). Known samples (Twiggs, Robinson) = full.
  • Mixtures / low template: both samples were mixtures with minor contributors below 20% (towel 5%/95%; screwdriver 11%/89%). She used STRmix; running it repeatedly yields different likelihood ratios (within ~a factor of 10) — not exactly reproducible.
  • PCAST supports probabilistic genotyping for ≤3-person mixtures where the minor is ≥20%; Burt pressed that both samples fell below that. NIST (2024) flagged inconsistency in number-of-contributor (NOC) estimates across analysts.
  • The 3→2 revision (Item 7-C): Baker's original number of contributors was three (~Sept. 12), reviewed and approved by Terry Benson. On Sept. 13, after receiving a Twiggs elimination sample, she revised to two — everything unlike the major contributor matched Twiggs, leaving nothing for a third.
  • The Twiggs likelihood ratio = 1. STRmix returned an LR of exactly 1 ("uninformative") for Twiggs (a scale needs ≥2 for even "limited support," ≥1M for "very strong"). Baker did not rely on that number: she called Twiggs an "assumed contributor" via elimination-sample reasoning, based on investigators' belief the items came from Robinson's home. Burt: the towel was found in a bush at UVU, not a home.
  • Isoalleles / sequence: her length-based test cannot distinguish same-length alleles with different sequences (isoalleles) at 5–6 loci; the FBI uses next-generation sequencing only for mitochondrial, not nuclear, DNA (Baker-30-4, 30-5).
  • Consumed evidence: items 1–6 (Losee NE-corner swabs) were fully consumed and yielded no DNA — not retestable; item 55 (stairwell railing, two swabs combined) gave a complex mixture of >5 individuals — no conclusion. NRC (1996) and FBI policy 7.4 favor retaining a portion where possible.
  • Cross (McBride): BS biology (Salisbury); 11 yrs as examiner; ANAB-accredited lab; STRmix validated (developmental + internal) and used in 120+ labs; DOJ language limits her to reporting the number and one adjective — for Robinson, "very strong support for inclusion" on both items (~1.7 octillion; ~30 quintillion).
  • Redirect (Burt): PCAST (chaired by Eric Lander) held that experience and "good professional practices" can't substitute for empirical validity, and remained unpersuaded by industry validation of STRmix; a 2004 DOJ IG audit of the FBI DNA lab was referenced (Baker unaware). Baker excused; court adjourned to Wednesday 1:00 p.m.

Ledger

Exhibit Log — Day 2

New and revisited exhibits. Chips as before.

Ex.ItemObjection → RulingStatus
11.4Unaltered surveillance compilation — Robinson's four campus visitsPrepared overnight; no zooms/blurs/circles. Covers Sept. 10 into Sept. 11 [source says "11th & 12th"]Fair-trial / publication → Admitted & published. Distinguished from graphic exhibits; Kearns v. Tribune / Allgier "realistic likelihood of prejudice" not met for non-graphic footage.ADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
11.1Enhanced compilation (zooms, blurs, red circles) — re-offered after the unaltered version came inAuthenticity + fair-trial → Admitted, but not published/played — Rule 403, cumulative (same video, enhancements only). Court reviews on screens.ADMITTEDNOT BROADCAST
5.1Rule 1102 statement — David Engelhardt (TPUSA; Kirk's pastor)On TPUSA's mission, Kirk's political/religious views, Matthew 19 [source also says ch. 9]Relevance / opinion (701–702) / 403 / fair-trial → Provisionally admitted, unpublished, to be revisited on the state-of-mind question. Reading it verbatim in open court sustained; counsel may quote points.PROVISIONALNOT PUBLISHED
30.1FBI DNA report (analyst Amanda Baker)Item 7 towel ~1.7 octillion×; Item 8 screwdriver ~30 quintillion× — Robinson + Twiggs as likely contributorsStanding obj.; cumulative as to reading it → Overruled; brief overview allowed.ADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-7DOJ/FBI approved standards for forensic DNA testimony & reports (defense)Relevance → Overruled (defines limits of the opinion)ADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-8DOJ uniform language — probabilistic genotyping systems (defense)Relevance → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-4
p.3-65
Technical reviewer's notes on Item 7-COriginal NOC = 3, reviewer (Terry Benson) agreed; basis for 3→2 revisionRelevance → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-4
p.1-28
Electropherogram for Item 7Illustrates the 3-contributor call; ~150 RFU analytical thresholdRelevance → Overruled (Rule 1102(b)(4))ADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-38
p.39-44
STRmix report — Item 7-1 vs. Twiggs aloneAssume 2 contributors; likelihood ratio = 1 (uninformative) for TwiggsRelevance → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-30.4Chart of alleles found — Robinson, Twiggs, samples 7-1 & 8-1Relevance → Overruled, questioning time-limitedADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
Baker-30.5Same chart with isoalleles indicated (same length, different sequence)Relevance → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA

Also referenced (not separately offered here): Ex. Hull-1 (Hull's Sept. 14 report), Hull-13 (Davis report incl. Gonzales interview), Hull-48 (Noble interview), clip 49 (breezeway). Defense exhibits are numbered by witness (e.g., "Baker-7").

Bench

Rulings — Day 2

Standing objection preserved without repetition

On the State's request (McBride), Graf confirmed the defense's reliable-hearsay standing objection is preserved throughout without needing to be re-stated each exhibit — while allowing the defense to raise any objection not covered by it.

Def. motion to exclude (denied) — docket 631 · Standing objection filed July 3 — docket 678

Unaltered compilation (11.4) admitted and broadcast; enhanced (11.1) admitted but not played

Graf admitted the clean version (11.4) and allowed it published to the gallery and broadcast, distinguishing it from the graphic exhibits (7/8/9) that implicated victim dignity — 11.4 "just shows the defendant walking around campus." He then admitted the enhanced version (11.1) into evidence but declined to play or broadcast it as needlessly cumulative under Rule 403, reviewing it only on the court's screens.

Utah R. Evid. 403 · UCJA 4-202.02(J) · Kearns v. Tribune Corp., 685 P.2d 515 · Allgier, 258 P.3d 589 · art. I §28 (distinguishing graphic exhibits)

Engelhardt statement (5.1) — provisionally admitted; no verbatim reading in open court

Novak argued the statement was irrelevant, improper opinion, and prejudicial — the enhancement charges Robinson targeted Kirk over political expression (subsection (k)), not religion (subsection (m)), and the statement's focus on Christian doctrine (Matthew 19) risked recasting the case as being about religion. Graf sustained the objection to McBride reading the statement aloud (counsel may quote points, as Novak did), found it relevant to the victim-targeting enhancement, and provisionally admitted it — unpublished — to be revisited if/when it bears on Robinson's state of mind. He declined to close the hearing.

Utah Code 76-3-203.14 (victim-targeting enhancement) · Utah R. Evid. 401, 701–702, 403 · Kearns v. Tribune · State v. Archuleta, 857 P.2d 234 (qualified access) · Waller v. Georgia

Scope of a preliminary hearing on DNA reliability

Through Baker's cross, Graf repeatedly reminded counsel of the probable-cause standard — the magistrate does not weigh competing inferences or make credibility findings — while allowing reliability questioning consistent with his earlier ruling that the magistrate determines the reliability of reliable hearsay. He sustained-in-part on the NIST-report line, permitting a final question before moving on.

State v. Ramirez, 2011 UT 59, ¶10 · Utah R. Evid. 1102 · Utah Const. art. I §11

Record

Cleaned Transcript — Day 2

Expand all  ·  Collapse all  — repetitive publication colloquies routed to the Day 2 Exhibit Log.

Opening — standing objection preserved; camera operatorsDay 2 · 8:30 →
Mr. McBride (State)Before this hearing the defense moved to find art. I §11, Rule 7(b) and Rule 1102 unconstitutional as to reliable hearsay. The court denied that motion — docket 631 — and the defense filed a standing objection July 3, docket 678. Everyone knows the defense objects to reliable hearsay. At this point further objection is unnecessary to preserve the record and causes undue delay. We'd ask the court to acknowledge the standing objection is preserved and instruct that continuing objections on this ground are unnecessary.
Mr. Burt (Defense)No objection to that procedure, so long as the court rules the objections are preserved. There may be particular objections not covered by the standing objection; we ask to be allowed to make those as needed.
The Court (Graf)If both sides stipulate, I'll adopt the request — the standing objection as to Rule 1102 and art. I §11, with all authorities cited, is in place throughout. But if the defense feels the need to object to protect Mr. Robinson's rights, the court will not stand in its way.
Camera operators identified: Trent Nelson (Salt Lake Tribune), pool still photographer, and a KUTV video photographer; both confirm compliance with the decorum order. The exclusionary rule remains in effect. Agent Hull returns to the stand, still under oath.
Hull — Direct: the unaltered compilation (11.4) & the four visits· Ex. 11.4, 11.1
The State revisits Ex. 11.1 (enhanced) and reads from Olsen's 1102 statement (11.3): "I have reviewed State's Exhibit 11.1 and the recordings are true and accurate, including timestamps and camera labels. The only changes are some zooms and red highlights, which were not part of the original recording." The State then offers Ex. 11.4 — the same footage without circles, blurring, or zooming, prepared overnight and reviewed by Hull that morning.
Publication is contested. Media counsel David Reymann argues the gallery has a right to see what the judge relies on and there's no basis to withhold this non-graphic clip; Burt counters with UCJA 4-202.02(J), Kearns v. Tribune's "realistic likelihood of prejudice" standard, and the pretrial-publicity survey. The court admits 11.4 and rules it published in the courtroom and broadcastable — distinguishing the graphic exhibits 7, 8, 9. See Day 2 Exhibit Log → The video is then played and Hull narrates:
HullThis is a vehicle believed to belong to Mr. Robinson arriving in the parking garage, about 8:30 a.m. September 10. The shape — and particularly the wheels — are distinctive. The driver, in a maroon tee and shorts, exits on foot to the courtyard and makes contact with TPUSA representatives, then returns to the vehicle about 9:25 a.m. and drives off.
HullJust after 10 a.m. he returns on foot from the northeast neighborhood, same clothing, carrying a blue backpack. He buys food at the Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson Center, eats, then crosses campus drive into a wooded area on the northeast side. He returns onto campus no longer carrying the backpack, moves through the Fulton and computer-science buildings, then to the railing that gives access to the Losee roof — then back down the stairs and off campus, just before 11 a.m.
HullHe returns again on foot, the same way — but in different clothing, and walking with a gait or limp. He comes up the parking-structure stairs and moves south across the front of the Losee.
HullAbout 11:15 he appears on the exterior staircase to the Losee roof and rolls over the railing onto the roof. He runs to the southwest corner, crouches, crawls to the corner, and lies prone — in line with Kirk's tent. He stays until the reported shot at 11:23:28. He then stands, moves north behind the atrium to the northeast corner — the white triangles — and jumps off onto the grass, appearing to carry an object, about 11:24:42. He crosses campus drive and drops into the wooded area on the far side.
QMr. Sterk [?]And the vehicle at the intersection?
AHullAt campus drive and 800 South, a vehicle attempts to turn right and heads east. It made contact with Officer Goforth [?] of Spanish Fork PD, on security detail. On "cop intuition" he noted the partial plate; when a matching vehicle was later tied to the incident, he ran it — registered to Tyler Robinson and Amber Robinson — and recalled contact with a male he believed to be Tyler Robinson. [Source renders the time "~11:30 a.m." and the date inconsistently as the 11th; the sequence places this shortly after the shooting on the 10th.]
The State re-offers the enhanced version (11.1). Hull explains the enhancements: temporary red circles/highlights identifying persons of note; blurred faces in the parking-garage footage; and zooming on the Losee-rooftop portion "for clarity." The court admits 11.1 but declines to play or broadcast it as cumulative under Rule 403, reviewing only the zoomed portion (≈6:09–6:23) on counsel's and the court's monitors. Hull: on the zoomed version it is "apparent Mr. Robinson… is carrying an item," and the clothing is clearer. (Sterk's "isn't it easier to see" drew a sustained leading objection.)
Hull — Cross (Nester): the bullet, the holster, and the surrender· Ex. Hull-13, Hull-48, clip 49
QMs. NesterWhen did you leave the FBI?
AHullMarch of this year. I was involved September through March. My new position at POST is an investigative sergeant — I investigate potential wrongdoing by police officers.
QWhat time did you arrive on campus?
AShortly after 1:30 — about an hour after Mr. Kirk had already been removed. I became lead about an hour after that, roughly 2:30.
QThere was a bullet found on another building?
AMy recollection is it was accounted for — an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cleared his rifle. I don't recall the type or where it is now.
QWere there other guns confiscated that day?
AA firearm was found in a backpack — a handgun — and accounted for.
QDo you recall Noah Gonzales — an off-duty trooper — being interviewed, who was involved in recovering the holster?
AI know a trooper was interviewed; I don't recall the name specifically.
Nester pulls up Ex. Hull-13 (Davis's report, Gonzales interview). She reads that the trooper reported a gun found in a holster in the amphitheater area — which Hull had not mentioned. He acknowledges the report.
QAs of the moment Mr. Robinson voluntarily surrendered in Washington County — you all did not know who the shooter was, correct?
AWe had identified a person of interest, but we did not specifically know who the shooter was at that time.
QAnd how did you learn Mr. Robinson was surrendering?
AThat came originally from the Washington County Sheriff to the university control center, the evening of the 11th.
QNothing about the video of the individual on the roof — you couldn't see facial features or what they were wearing?
ACorrect — as to the roof video. The stairwell and parking-garage images were released to the press; the roof video, standing alone, was not distinguishable.
QTwo young men gave you video of someone on the roof about 10 seconds before the shooting. How did they describe that person?
AMy understanding is they believed it was some kind of "overwatch."
QThe moment crossing campus drive — you're submitting he was holding a gun?
AMy observation is he's carrying an object, concealed or in a bag, long, that could be a firearm based on my training. But I don't see a gun in the video. No driver reported a man with a gun.
Nester also establishes via clip 49 (breezeway) that no one stood directly behind the middle of the tent, and that area was not visible from the Losee. On the ring camera (Ex. Hull-48), the Nobles had told Hull the driver was bald and there were three other people in the car — not mentioned on direct.
QThe intermediary who facilitated the surrender — someone known to the family, connected to law enforcement? A former Boy Scout leader?
AI'm aware someone facilitated it and was known to the family; I don't recall the specific connection. Mr. Robinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's Office with his parents and, my understanding is, walked in voluntarily. That was the first time we had a name of an individual who had taken responsibility. I never met him.
Hull — Redirect (Sterk): the stray round, the object, the banner→ excused
Hull[On the stray round] Standard practice is to carry a rifle "cruiser ready" — no round chambered. Deploying, an officer chambers a round; to put the weapon away, he ejects the magazine and the round, and sometimes rounds drop or aren't accounted for. Hundreds — if not a thousand — officers responded to clear the campus in the active-shooter response; most carry a sidearm and a rifle platform.
Hull[On the object] The first time it's clearly in his hand, without a doubt, is on the white triangular northeast corner of the Losee, preparing to jump. After he drops down onto the grass he goes into a crouch, and when he comes up it's again clear there's an item — black, longer.
Hull[On Ex. 9's banner] It's the opaque white back of a roughly 20-by-20 gazebo — you can't see through it. Leading up to the shot, TPUSA and law-enforcement representatives move to and fro behind the area, some retrieving items from a vehicle, but no one directly behind the banner. Robinson entered the same wooded area on his second visit and on the incident visit; the rifle was recovered there Sept. 10. On the roof he ran — no visible limp; the limp was on the earlier approach.
Hull excused. Brief recess.
Faumuina — Direct (McBride): chain of custody & the FBI DNA report (30.1)· Ex. 30.1
Faumuina [?]Jennifer Faumuina, Utah DPS — sergeant, State Bureau of Investigation, and lead over our Evidence Response Team. On September 10 I oversaw the crime scenes and physical evidence.
QMr. McBrideThe screwdriver from the Losee rooftop — how was it handled?
ACollected by the state crime lab's response team, packaged, and — after discussion that evening — custody was transferred to the FBI and sent for testing.
QAnd the wooded area northeast of campus?
AA long gun wrapped in a dark towel — a Mauser Model 98 rifle, .30-06, bolt-action. Documented in place, rendered safe, packaged. The rifle went to the ATF lab; the towel and the screwdriver went to the FBI lab.
Ex. 30.1 (FBI DNA report, signed by analyst Amanda Baker) is admitted and published to the gallery and broadcast. A cumulative objection to reading it is overruled for a brief overview. Faumuina reads the results:
FaumuinaItem 7 is the towel from around the Mauser rifle; Item 8 is the screwdriver from the perch. For Item 7-1, male DNA from two individuals, one of whom is Twiggs — the results are about 1.7 octillion times more likely if Twiggs and Robinson are the contributors than if Twiggs and an unknown unrelated person are. For Item 8-1, the screwdriver handle, about 30 quintillion times more likely. "Twigs" is Lance Twiggs, Mr. Robinson's roommate; buccal swabs were taken from Twiggs and Robinson.
Cross reserved by Burt until Faumuina completes; she steps down (still under oath) and is excused to be recalled. The defense calls Amanda Baker out of order.
Baker — Direct (Burt): priority-one testing & the reporting standards· Ex. Baker-7, Baker-8
BakerAmanda Baker — forensic examiner, FBI Laboratory, Quantico, more than 10 years in DNA casework. Requested by Utah in September 2025; evidence first received September 11, 2025. Normal turnaround is 90–200 days; this case was priority one — 24/7 until complete — with testing beginning as evidence was still being inventoried.
QMr. BurtYour September 13 communication-log entry?
AI spoke with an FBI special agent [?] and Utah's David Hull, and gave technically-reviewed results that Robinson was included as a possible contributor to the DNA from the towel and the screwdriver; we agreed no additional immediate comparisons were needed.
QYour report, dated September 15, conforms to the DOJ uniform language for forensic DNA. That standard bars certain statements — absolute identification, "reasonable scientific certainty," and any claim of a zero error rate or infallibility. You followed all of those?
AYes — I said "possible match," not an absolute identification; I used no reasonable-certainty language; and I did not state a zero error rate or that the test is infallible.
Defense Ex. Baker-7 (the DOJ/FBI standards) and later Baker-8 (probabilistic-genotyping uniform language) are admitted and published/broadcast over relevance objections.
QForensic activity level — can you give an opinion on how DNA got onto an item?
ANo. DNA can be left many ways, so presence doesn't mean a person touched or used an item. And I can't give an exact time of deposit. Under ideal conditions DNA can persist almost indefinitely — we've recovered it from 48-year-old items.
Baker — Direct (Burt): mixtures, low template, STRmix, PCAST & NIST· Baker-4
QMr. BurtWere items 7 and 8 degraded?
ABakerBoth to an extent. Item 8, the screwdriver, showed more — a "ski-slope" effect in the peaks. Item 7, the towel, slightly. Item 7 gave a full profile; Item 8 a partial profile, with drop-out. The known samples — Twiggs and Robinson — were full profiles.
QBoth were mixtures with minor contributors below 20%?
AYes — the towel about 5%/95%, the screwdriver about 11%/89%. I used STRmix. Because of how it uses math and distributions, you won't get exactly the same likelihood ratio twice — but within about a factor of 10.
QThe PCAST report supports probabilistic genotyping for mixtures of three or fewer where the minor contributor is at least 20% — and both your samples fell below that?
APCAST raised concerns about low-level samples and mixtures of three or more with a minor contributor of 20% or less. Its authors were not practitioners or laboratory personnel.
QNumber of contributors — that's your determination, input into STRmix, and NIST flagged inconsistency across analysts. On the Item 7-C sample, your original assessment was three contributors, reviewed by a technical reviewer reading the same electropherogram?
AYes — that is one of the samples; my original assessment was three contributors.
Ex. Baker-4 (p.3-65), the technical reviewer's notes on Item 7-C, is admitted over relevance and published. Baker explains her original 3-contributor call and the revision that follows.
Baker — Direct: the 3→2 revision & the Twiggs "elimination" sample· Baker-4 (p.1-28)
Baker[On Baker-4, p.3-65] These are my technical reviewer's notes, made after I'd drawn my own conclusions. The notation reflects that she would have called two contributors; I called three; we discussed it and she agreed with three. Approved by Terry Benson.
Ex. Baker-4 (p.1-28), the electropherogram, is admitted (Rule 1102(b)(4)) and published. Baker walks the court through it.
BakerEach rectangle at the top is a locus; each peak has a number — the allele. Our analytical threshold is about 150 RFU: the software calls peaks at or above 150, and won't label peaks below it, even if a true allele. To call the number of contributors I count labeled peaks — three squares at a locus means at least two individuals — then look at the uncalled peaks below threshold to see whether a third person could be included. That's how I reached three, around September 12.
QMr. BurtAnd when did you change it?
ABakerSeptember 13. I was submitted an elimination sample from Mr. Twiggs — a sample from someone whose DNA we expect to be present. When I compared him, everything unlike the major contributor matched Twiggs, so there were only two individuals; the small peaks had nothing left for a third.
QYour report calls Twiggs a contributor — not a "possible contributor" as you did for Robinson.
AWith an elimination sample the language is different. Based on the investigators, Twiggs was Robinson's roommate and the items were thought to potentially come from Robinson's home, so I assumed him and confirmed his DNA was present.
QDid anyone tell you the towel was not from Robinson's home, but found in a bush at the university?
AI was aware of that. But based on speaking with the investigators, they had information to suspect the towel came from his home, and that I should use Twiggs as an elimination sample.
Baker — Direct: the STRmix likelihood ratio of 1 for Twiggs· Baker-38
Ex. Baker-38 (pp.39-44), the STRmix report comparing Item 7-1 to Twiggs alone, is admitted and published. It assumes two contributors; the known sample under the prosecution hypothesis (Hp) is Twiggs; the defense hypothesis (Hd) is an unknown unrelated individual.
QMr. Burt[Referencing the scale in Ex. 30.1] A likelihood ratio needs to reach 2 for even limited support for inclusion, and 1 million for "very strong." When you ran Twiggs against the sample, what was the likelihood ratio?
ABakerOn this chart, the likelihood ratio is 1.
QThat doesn't rise even to limited inclusion — it's "uninformative." Yet you concluded Twiggs was a contributor to both items.
AI didn't use that calculation to determine he was a contributor. I used him as an assumed contributor — visually, his DNA aligned with the major contributor's peaks. When there's an elimination sample I don't need a threshold number of peaks; I assumed him and saw his DNA present. I then used Twiggs as an elimination when I calculated the statistic for Mr. Robinson.
QSo STRmix — which you relied on to include Robinson — returned no support for including Twiggs, and you included him anyway.
AI did not ignore it. Given the type of sample — an elimination sample — I compared his profile and determined I could use him as one.
Burt presses single-locus mismatches (e.g., at D16, Twiggs is 9,11 but the screwdriver sample shows only an 11) and the Butler-textbook exclusion rule. Baker: for a single-source profile a one-locus difference is an exclusion, but in a mixture with drop-out it is not automatic.
Baker — Direct: consumed evidence, the stairwell mixture & isoalleles· Baker-30.4, 30.5
QMr. BurtYou requested destructive testing — consuming the samples?
ABakerYes, per protocol. We don't know how a swab was used or how much DNA is on it, so consuming the whole swab is our best chance. We return the remaining liquid extract, but the swab is consumed. Items 1–6 — swabs from the northeast corner of the Losee — were consumed and yielded no DNA; nothing to compare. About 3 microliters of extract remained, but I'd used 10 to get nothing, so the remainder wouldn't help.
QThe NRC report and your own policy 7.4 say to retain a portion where possible, so a wrongly accused person can have testing repeated.
AWe return the remaining extract; the swab itself we consume.
QItem 55 — two swabs of the stairwell railing where the suspect touched — you combined them into one sample?
AThey were labeled from the same stairwell and packaged together, so per policy we combine and consume. The result was a complex mixture — DNA from more than five individuals — so I could provide no conclusion.
On Baker-30.4 and 30.5 (admitted, published, over relevance objections and with time limits), Burt develops the isoallele point:
QDifferent alleles can have the same length but different sequences — "isoalleles." At D3, Robinson is a 17, and sample 7-1 shows a 17 — but there are 17a, 17b, 17c with different sequences your length-based test can't distinguish, at five or six loci?
ACorrect — I use length differences. The FBI lab does not use sequence-based (next-generation sequencing) for nuclear DNA — only for mitochondrial — and I'm not qualified in it.
Baker — Cross (McBride): credentials, validation, and "very strong support"· Ex. 30.1, Baker-8
BakerBS in biology, Salisbury University (2003–2007). FBI lab contractor (federal convicted-offender program) ~1.5 years, then biologist in the DNA casework unit ~6 years, and forensic examiner since 2015 — about 11 years.
QMr. McBrideYour lab's accreditation?
AAccredited by ANAB — the ANSI National Accreditation Board. We're audited to strict standards; every case undergoes technical and administrative review. STRmix is validated developmentally (peer-reviewed) and internally, and is used in over 120 laboratories worldwide.
QUnder the DOJ uniform language (Baker-8), you report the number and let the reader assign meaning — with a single permitted adjective. For Robinson, on Item 7-1 (~1.7 octillion) and Item 8-1 (~30 quintillion), what is that adjective?
AVery strong support for inclusion — for both.
QThe mixture proportions — which contributor is which?
AOn the towel, Twiggs aligns with the 5% contributor and Robinson with the 95%. On the screwdriver, Twiggs with the 11% and Robinson with the 89%. Degradation is normal — all DNA degrades — and it did not affect my conclusions here.
Baker — Redirect (Burt) & re-cross: PCAST, STRmix validation, the 2004 audit→ excused · adjourn
QMr. BurtPCAST: experience and judgment can't establish the scientific validity of a feature-comparison method, and examiners "cannot accurately know how often they erroneously declare matches." Agree?
ABakerPartly — we never know the true answer in casework — but my experience with validation data does help me reach a conclusion.
QAnd PCAST: professional societies, certification, accreditation, peer review, proficiency testing, and ethics codes "cannot substitute for actual evidence of scientific validity."
AI don't agree — the science is heavily validated and tested, and I follow validated protocols and am proficiency-tested.
QPCAST was chaired by Eric Lander — one of the foremost experts in the field.
AThat name doesn't ring a bell.
QYou said STRmix is validated — but PCAST's point is it was validated by its sellers, and independent validation is needed. And you didn't rely on STRmix for the Twiggs conclusion — the software returned no support, and you decided otherwise.
AThirty-one labs supplied internal-validation data in response to PCAST. And I didn't ignore the software for Twiggs — given an elimination sample, I compared him and concluded I could use him as one.
Burt raises a 2004 DOJ Inspector General audit, "The FBI DNA Laboratory: A Review of Protocol and Practice Vulnerabilities." McBride objects (22 years old); the court allows a single question. Baker is unaware of the study. On re-cross, McBride establishes that validation studies are ground-truth tests (where the true answer is known), unlike casework. Baker excused.
The Court (Graf)We'll be adjourned until tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. — no morning session for this proceeding. Court is in recess.
Verbatim expansion of the Day 2 publication colloquies is available on request; their substance is in the Day 2 Exhibit Log.

Day 3 · Wednesday, July 8, 2026 (starts 1:00 p.m.)

Pending

Day 2 is complete. Send Day 3 (afternoon session, 1:00 p.m. start) and I'll continue the build in this same structure.

Reference · Case No. 251403576

Filings & Orders

The pretrial paper trail behind the hearing — the charging document and the motions/orders the transcript keeps referencing (hearsay, cameras, the ATF ballistics fight, contempt). Utah state filings aren't on any federal system, and both XChange and DocumentCloud are access-walled, so full text is hard to harvest programmatically. Where a document is hosted here the PDF travels with this archive; otherwise the link points to the best public reporting, and the full filing can be pulled from XChange or DocumentCloud. Summaries are paraphrased; this layer is a finding aid, not a substitute for the filings themselves.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Information (charging document)
StateOperative charges

Seven counts. Count 1 — Aggravated Murder, capital (§76-5-202); Count 2 — Felony Discharge of a Firearm Causing Serious Bodily Injury, 1st-degree (§76-11-210); Counts 3–4 — Obstruction of Justice, 2nd-degree (hiding the rifle; discarding the clothing); Counts 5–6 — Tampering with a Witness, 3rd-degree (directing the roommate to delete texts, then to stay silent); Count 7 — Violent Offense in the Presence of a Child, class A misdemeanor. The victim-targeting enhancement (§76-3-203.14(2), "political expression") attaches to Counts 1, 2, and 7. Probable-cause statement by SBI Agent Brian Davis. Note: some outlets reported 9–10 counts; the operative Information charges seven.

Jan 9 2026Defense
Motion re forensic testing of evidence ("with exhibits")
DefenseSealing mostly denied

A motion tied to forensic testing that the defense asked the court to keep private, arguing exposure could taint the jury pool. Graf later found most of it did not qualify as "private" and ordered a redacted substitute — the material now surfacing as the DNA testimony in Day 2.

Jan 16 2026Defense
Motion to exclude cameras & electronic media
DefenseMedia opposedDenied

Argued that broadcast coverage threatens Robinson's due-process and fair-jury rights, backed by ~200 pages of publicity exhibits. Media organizations (via David Reymann) and the State opposed; Graf allowed cameras. This is the ruling behind Reymann's recurring appearances over publication of exhibits.

Early 2026Defense
Motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office
DefenseDenied

Sought to remove the prosecuting office because a daughter of the chief deputy county attorney was among the roughly 3,000 people in the audience when Kirk was shot. Graf denied the motion.

Mar 2026Defense
Motion to postpone the preliminary hearing (ATF / ballistics)
DefenseGranted → Jul 6–10

The motion noted an ATF report that could not identify the bullet fragment recovered at autopsy to the recovered rifle. An ATF appendix explains "inconclusive" as insufficient individual characteristics to either identify or exclude; the fragment was too damaged, though the spent casing matched by caliber. This filing is the soft spot in the Weapon pillar and the seed of the later contempt fight.

Mar 13 2026Court
Order on sealing (four defense motions)
CourtMostly public

Graf ruled the majority of the challenged filings do not qualify as "private," finding the defense hadn't shown release would create a substantial risk to a fair trial, and gave the defense until Mar 30 to file redacted substitutes.

May 2026Defense
Utah Supreme Court interlocutory appeal + motion to stay (cameras)
DefenseNot stayed

The defense asked the Utah Supreme Court to review Graf's cameras ruling and to pause all proceedings pending that review. The Utah Attorney General's Office opposed the stay as unwarranted extraordinary relief; the high court did not halt the hearing, which proceeded July 6.

Jun 2 2026Court
Order to show cause — publicity / gag order
CourtGranted (hearing Jun 12)

On the defense's motion, Graf ordered prosecutors to answer allegations that Jeff Gray and Chris Ballard breached the Rule 3.6 publicity order via comments to TMZ, USA Today, Fox, and PolitiFact. He stressed this was not itself a contempt finding, and declined to compel discovery of the office's internal communications.

Jun 12 2026Defense
Application for Certificate to Secure Out-of-State Witness
DefenseSealed

Filed under seal for the preliminary hearing. In court the defense would not name the witness — only that it is not the victim representative — and said the witness's attorney had declined to accept service of the subpoena.

Jun 22 2026Court
Ruling on the reliable-hearsay motion (docket 631)
CourtDenied

Graf denied the defense motion challenging the use of reliable hearsay / the constitutionality of Rule 1102 at a preliminary hearing. This is the ruling underlying every hearsay objection in the transcript, and the reason the "standing objection" recurs.

Jun 26 2026Court
Civil-contempt ruling (prosecutor Ballard)
CourtContempt yes · death penalty kept

Graf held prosecutor Christopher Ballard in civil contempt for telling national outlets the State had "ample evidence" to prove the murder — finding a prosecutor's assertion of the case's strength carries governmental weight and risks the jury pool. He rejected striking the death penalty as "grossly disproportionate," instead ordering jury-pool expansion, adjusted questionnaires, and defense fees.

Jul 3 2026Defense
Standing objection (docket 678)
DefenseFiled

The blanket standing objection the defense invokes throughout the hearing to preserve its hearsay and reliability challenges for appeal — referenced alongside docket 631 whenever counsel says the objection is "continuing."

To host more filings inside the archive, drop their PDFs into the /filings folder beside this file and I'll wire each into the docket with a hosted here link. Upload any you can pull and I'll fold them in.