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.
Source recordings — full audio/video on Grabien

State of the Evidence

Where the case stands

Updated through Day 5 · Jul 10, 2026 · evidence closed · argument Sept 1

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. And a live, unfired .223 round — a different caliber — was recovered from the Computer Science building roof, which had no line of sight to Kirk's tent.

Faumuina, Hull

Confession / AdmissionsArriving · contested

Twiggs's recorded statement (Ex. 16) is now admitted in full for the court (two passages kept off-air); Mitchell's written statement (Ex. 14) is admitted, unpublished. The State says the note, the text messages, and the Discord thread — the statements it will call Robinson's confession — are coming.

Open questionWhether that confession material can be broadcast is itself contested: Novak invokes Estes v. Texas (14th Amendment) to bar televising a "confession" pretrial. A defense bench memo is due, and the fight lands Thursday. Content largely not yet public.

Davis · Ex. 14, 16

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, arriving at the Washington County SO ~9 p.m. with his parents and a family friend, Mike Mitchell (per the defense, a former Boy Scout leader), who helped facilitate it. Arrested early Sept. 12 after simultaneous family interviews; booked in Utah County ~8 a.m.

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, Davis · Ex. 15

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

recording · pt. 1   pt. 2

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

recording · pt. 1   pt. 2

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 (afternoon session)

recording

What happened

Day 3 was the surrender-and-statements day. After housekeeping — decorum, camera operators, and Graf's reminder that the hearing must finish Friday at 5:00 p.m. — the State laid out its close: finish through Agent Brian Davis and Sgt. Faumuina, after which the State rests; the defense signaled two remaining witnesses (Oliver and Carter [affiliation garbled — "the 80th"?]). McBride then argued a Rule 1104 framework: the court wears two hats — gatekeeper (admissibility) and fact-finder (magistrate) — may consider not-yet-admitted evidence in the first, is presumed to disregard the inadmissible in the second, and needn't announce which hat it's wearing.

Davis, the SBI co-case agent alongside Hull, narrated the surrender. About 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 11 he was sent to St. George on word that Robinson would turn himself in; he flew down and reached the Washington County Sheriff's Office near midnight. Robinson had arrived around 9 p.m. with his parents and a family friend, Mike Mitchell, who had helped facilitate the surrender. Investigators ran simultaneous interviews — the mother (Agent Folger [?] and Davis), the father (Hull, Green, Cox), and Mitchell (Terry, Smith). Robinson was formally arrested in the early hours of Sept. 12, transported to the Utah County jail, and booked around 8 a.m. with Davis as booking officer; under warrant, his clothing, buccal DNA swabs, and major-case prints were taken, and his phone had already been seized. Search warrants hit Robinson's residence (~8 a.m.) and his parents' (~4 p.m.) that same day. A short, audio-stripped clip of Robinson seated in the interview room (Ex. 15) was admitted and broadcast.

Then the statements. Roommate Lance Twiggs was interviewed twice — Sept. 12 at St. George PD, and again April 20, 2026 at the county attorney's office, where he testified under a grant of use immunity from both the state and federal prosecutors, in lieu of appearing live. Mitchell gave a second, written 1102 statement on March 31 (Ex. 14 — admitted, but by stipulation not published).

The afternoon's long fight was over admitting Twiggs's recorded April 20 statement (Ex. 16). Graf admitted it in full for the court's consideration — overruling the hearsay objection (he will weigh prosecutor McBride's on-camera narration only as context for Twiggs's answers) and, as magistrate, the Rule 403 objection — but reserved relevance as to pages 19–20 and, to shield the jury pool, barred two passages from being broadcast (roughly 6:56–20:27 and 34:55–35:48 [stamps ASR-approximate]). The deeper battle was constitutional: Novak invoked Estes v. Texas to argue that televising what the State will call a "confession" violates Robinson's 14th Amendment due-process rights — a fight that reaches full pitch Thursday, when the State moves to admit the text messages, the Discord thread, and "the note" (plus five phone screenshots through Davis) — the actual statements attributed to Robinson. Graf ordered a defense bench memo by 8 a.m. and adjourned to Thursday at 9:00. Media counsel and Erika Kirk's lawyer both pressed for full publication; the defense pressed for restraint. One factual wrinkle from Davis's testimony: a live, unfired .223 round was recovered from the Computer Science building roof — a different building, with no line of sight to Kirk's tent — while the murder weapon is a .30-06.

Index

Witnesses — Day 3

One witness across this excerpt: the State's co-case agent. First-name and agency spellings from audio are flagged [?].

3 · Agent Brian DavisUtah State Bureau of Investigation · co-case agent (with Hull) · Direct: State (Hunt [?] / McBride) · ongoing

Background & role

  • 27 years in law enforcement — 8 as a state trooper, 18 with SBI, 1 with Utah Transit Authority police; POST-certified since 1999. Task-force service (ATF guns/drugs, FBI Safe Streets gang, US Marshals fugitive apprehension), SWAT, major crimes (homicide, sex crimes, firearms, fraud), and public corruption; FARO-certified (3-D crime-scene laser imaging) and a certified forensic interviewer. 60-plus homicide investigations; consults on a cold-case unit.
  • Co-case agent with Agent Dave Hull — the two who "direct the case," make assignments, and ultimately screen it to the county attorney. SBI is the primary investigating agency; dozens of agencies assisted (FBI, ATF, UVU PD, Utah and Washington County sheriffs, St. George PD).

The surrender (Sept. 11–12)

  • ~8:30 p.m. Sept. 11: called to travel to St. George on information a person would turn himself in over the campus shooting. Flew down on a fixed-wing aircraft with an FBI agent, prosecutor McBride, a county-attorney representative, and two pilots; reached the Washington County SO close to midnight.
  • Robinson had arrived ~9 p.m. with his parents and family friend Mike Mitchell. Davis observed him on the interview-room A/V monitor and obtained his name and date of birth.
  • Simultaneous interviews: the mother — Agent Folger [?] (FBI) and Davis; the father — Agents Hull, Green, Cox; family friend Mitchell — Agents Terry and Smith.

Arrest & processing

  • Phone seized at the Washington County SO. Formally arrested after the interviews, early Sept. 12; transported to the Utah County jail (~7 a.m.), booked ~8 a.m. with Davis as booking officer. Under a search warrant: clothing recovered, buccal DNA swabs, and major-case prints (fingerprints + palm prints).
  • Search warrants (Sept. 12): Robinson's residence — team led by an FBI supervisor with the Utah State Crime Lab, ~8 a.m.; his parents' residence — the FBI Evidence Response Team, ~4 p.m. Davis was not present at either. Robinson lived with a roommate (Twiggs).

Mike Mitchell (family friend) — Ex. 14

  • Helped facilitate the surrender. Interviewed early Sept. 12 (Agents Terry, Smith). A second, written 1102 statement was taken March 31, 2026 at the St. George courthouse — present: McBride, Grunander, Kimberly [?] (county attorney), and Agent Chris Terry (FBI). Admonished by McBride (false statements = class A misdemeanor), Mitchell wrote it alone over ~1 hour → Ex. 14.

The roof round

  • A live, unfired .223 round was recovered from the roof of the Computer Science building (far east side) — documented by Agent Snyder [?] (FBI). Primer undented, projectile intact. That roof had no line of sight to Kirk's tent. Davis relayed this secondhand. Note the caliber: the murder weapon is a .30-06; this round is .223.

Lance Twiggs (roommate) — Ex. 16

  • Interviewed twice: Sept. 12 at St. George PD (FBI Agents Larson [?] and another), phone provided voluntarily; and April 20, 2026 at the county attorney's office with his attorney present, under use immunity from both the Utah County and U.S. Attorney's offices. Given the 1102 admonition by McBride, and told the April 20 session was in lieu of testifying at the hearing. Both interviews recorded.

Ledger

Exhibit Log — Day 3

Chips as before. "OFFERED" marks an exhibit whose admission was still being argued at the break.

Ex.ItemObjection → RulingStatus
15Interview-room video of Robinson seated/waiting — Washington County SOStipulated to a shorter clip with no audio (State had proposed a longer version with audio)Standing objection (electronic-media coverage, not 1102) → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
14Mike Mitchell's written 1102 statement (March 31, 2026)Admitted with stipulated redactionsStanding 1102 objection noted → Admitted; not published per stipulationADMITTEDNOT PUBLISHED
16Twiggs's recorded 1102 statement (April 20, 2026, under use immunity)~21-pp. transcript; two passages barred from broadcast: ~6:56–20:27 and ~34:55–35:48 [stamps ASR-approx.]Hearsay overruled (McBride's narration = context only); relevance reserved (pp. 19–20); 403 overruled for admissibility → Admitted in full for the court; two passages withheld from publication under 403 (jury-pool caution)ADMITTEDCOURT2 PASSAGES NOT BROADCAST

Anticipated Thursday (not yet offered): the text-message thread and the Discord group chat (referenced as 16.1 / 16.2), five screenshots of Twiggs's phone (through Davis), and "the note" — the statements the State will characterize as Robinson's confession, and the subject of the Estes publication fight.

Bench

Rulings — Day 3

The court's two hats — Rule 1104 (gatekeeper vs. fact-finder)

McBride framed the second half: at a preliminary hearing the court is both gatekeeper (deciding admissibility, not bound by the rules of evidence except privilege) and fact-finder (the magistrate weighing probable cause). In the gatekeeper role it may consider evidence whose admissibility isn't yet settled — including foundational reliable hearsay — and in the fact-finding role it is presumed to consider only admissible evidence and disregard the rest, so it need not announce which hat it is wearing. Because the hearing is presumptively public, the State said it would lay foundation and argue admission in open court. Burt agreed on the framework, reserving the right to raise fair-trial concerns.

Utah R. Evid. 1104, 1102 · State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶33 · State v. Adams, 2011 UT App 163 · (later, on Ex. 16) State v. Feather, 781 P.2d 424 [?]; State v. Hannigan, 2014 UT App 165 [?]; State v. Rosecrans, 2024 UT App 128

Ex. 15 admitted and broadcast; Ex. 14 admitted but not published

The audio-stripped interview-room clip of Robinson (Ex. 15), stipulated to by both sides, was admitted and published to the gallery and the cameras over the standing media-coverage objection. Mitchell's written 1102 statement (Ex. 14), with stipulated redactions, was admitted but — per the parties' agreement — withheld from both the gallery and the cameras.

Standing objections preserved (dockets 631 / 678) · publication by stipulation

Twiggs's recorded statement (Ex. 16) — admitted in full; two passages withheld from broadcast

After reviewing the video and the defense's highlighted redactions over a recess, Graf ruled: the hearsay objection is overruled — prosecutor McBride's statements on the recording will be considered only for context and their effect on Twiggs, not for their truth. On relevance, he found the transcript a true and accurate representation but reserved whether to consider pages 19–20 until he hears the rest of the State's evidence. On Rule 403, as magistrate he is not subject to a jury's prejudice concerns, so for admissibility the objection is overruled and Ex. 16 is admitted in its entirety for the court's consideration. But to protect the potential jury pool, he ordered two passages not published in the courtroom or on camera (audio and video): roughly 6:56–20:27 (largely the text messages — also cumulative under 403, revisitable if the texts aren't separately admitted) and 34:55–35:48 on p. 19. [Timestamps as rendered by ASR — approximate.] The redactions are for publication only; the court considers the whole exhibit.

Utah R. Evid. 1102, 1104, 401, 403, 801(d) (party-opponent) · use-immunity grant (Utah County + U.S. Attorney) · UCJA 4-202.02(J)

The Estes question — may a "confession" be broadcast? Bench memo ordered

Novak raised a constitutional objection beyond the rules of evidence: statements Twiggs attributes to Robinson (and the forthcoming texts, Discord thread, and note) are what the State will call a confession, and televising a confession pretrial violates Robinson's 14th Amendment due-process rights — citing Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (and the rule drawn from Rideau v. Louisiana), which he read to bar it without any prejudice showing. Graf pressed whether that language rested on a Rideau dissent and asked for briefing. Media counsel and counsel for Erika Kirk both urged full publication (transparency; much is already public in the charging Information; fair-trial risks curable by expanded voir dire). Graf ordered a defense bench memo by 8:00 a.m. Thursday so the issue can be resolved before the text messages, Discord thread, note, and five phone screenshots are offered. Merits of the Estes publication question undecided — set for Thursday.

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 · Rideau v. Louisiana · U.S. Const. amend. XIV · State v. Archuleta (access to documents the court relies on) · Allgier (voir dire / questionnaires)

Record

Cleaned Transcript — Day 3

Expand all  ·  Collapse all  — repetitive publication colloquies routed to the Day 3 Exhibit Log. Pre-session ambient chatter picked up by the microphones is omitted as non-record.

Opening — decorum, cameras, and the roadmap to FridayDay 3 · 1:00 p.m. →
Case called: State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson, No. 251403576. Appearances — State: Grunander, McBride [audio renders "Brian"; earlier days "Ryan"], and others; Defense: Nester, Novak, Burt, Visser, with Robinson present. Victim representative Erika Kirk present. Graf delivers the standing decorum admonitions (no re-entry mid-session, no personal electronics on the floor, spectators silent and neutral — no reactions, pins, or signs). Camera operator John Wilson [station unclear] and still photographer — Crowley (Deseret News) confirm they've reviewed the decorum order.
The Court (Graf)This preliminary hearing is scheduled to conclude this Friday at 5:00 p.m. That's a reminder for the parties, particularly now that we're at the week's midpoint. When this was set, the court allocated substantial time for both sides. The standard is probable cause; please remain mindful of the time and manage it appropriately. With that, I'd like a brief roadmap from each side.
Mr. Grunander (State)We anticipate presenting evidence through Agent Brian Davis this afternoon. Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina is also here and prepared to testify if we reach her; her testimony would likely carry into tomorrow. After her, the State rests.
Mr. Burt (Defense)We have two remaining witnesses — Ms. Oliver and Ms. Carter [affiliation garbled — "the 80th"?]. We anticipate concluding within the time.
Mr. BurtOne time-management issue: the State intends to proffer a video-recorded 1102 statement. We gave the State, about a day and a half ago, a transcript with proposed redactions — roughly twenty-two pages — because we believe portions aren't admissible even at a preliminary hearing. The accuracy of the transcript isn't in dispute; the admissibility of portions is. Reviewing our proposed redactions may be an inefficient use of hearing time, so the court may want to do it outside the 9-to-noon and 1-to-5 sessions.
The CourtI appreciate the heads-up. I'll address it as it comes, and I'm confident there's sufficient time.
Rule 1104 — the court's gatekeeper and fact-finder roles· McBride
Mr. McBride (State)As we enter the second half, an issue on admitting exhibits. Under Rule 1104 the court decides preliminary questions — whether a witness is qualified, whether a privilege exists, whether evidence is admissible — and in doing so is not bound by the rules of evidence except those on privilege. The court holds two roles at this stage: a gatekeeper role on admissibility, and the fact-finder role as magistrate. As gatekeeper it may consider evidence even before its admissibility is determined; that's especially relevant here, where foundational evidence is reliable hearsay under Rule 1102.
Mr. McBrideGriffin — 2016 UT 33 — holds the rules of evidence don't apply to evidence used to establish the foundation for admitting other evidence. And the appellate courts presume that in its fact-finding role the court considers only admissible evidence and disregards the inadmissible — as in a bench trial with prior-bad-acts evidence (Adams, 2011 UT App 163). So the fact-finder isn't tainted by the gatekeeper's consideration of potentially inadmissible material, and the court doesn't have to distinguish which hat it's wearing as we proceed.
Mr. McBrideBecause this hearing is presumptively open to the public — including admissibility questions — we intend to lay foundation and move the admission of evidence in open court. If the court were to close the hearing, that would change.
Mr. Burt (Defense)I agree with Mr. McBride on the 1104 framework, given the Supreme Court's ruling on public availability of preliminary-hearing exhibits. We'll continue to raise concerns about our client's right to a fair trial where appropriate, and the court will rule.
Graf reiterates his three-step exhibit procedure — admissibility, then publication in the courtroom, then publication on the screens — and, noting a screenshot showing a distorting camera angle on the display, has the monitors adjusted for a clean, transparent view before proceeding. A brief technical delay follows while the projection is restored. The exclusionary rule remains in effect.
Davis — background, role, and the primary agency· direct
Agent DavisI'm an agent with the Utah State Bureau of Investigation — 18 years there, 27 in law enforcement total, including 8 as a state trooper and a year with Utah Transit Authority police. POST-certified since 1999, no lapse. Over the years I've worked covert and narcotics operations and served on task forces — an ATF guns-and-drugs task force, an FBI Safe Streets gang task force, a US Marshals fugitive-apprehension team — plus SWAT, major crimes, and public corruption. I'm FARO-certified for 3-D laser crime-scene imaging and a certified forensic interviewer. I've had some involvement in sixty-plus homicides and consult on a cold-case unit.
QYour role in the Kirk investigation?
AI was assigned as a case agent, along with Agent Dave Hull. A case agent essentially directs the case — makes assignments, everything routes back through you in the form of reports and evidence — and ultimately screens the case to the county attorney. On a case this large, two case agents isn't unusual. The State Bureau of Investigation is the primary investigating agency; dozens of others assisted — FBI, ATF, UVU police, the Utah and Washington County sheriffs, St. George PD, and more.
Davis — the surrender in St. George· Sept. 11–12
QTurning to September 11. What happened that day?
ADavisI spent the day at the command post. About 8:30 that evening I got a call requesting I travel to St. George — we'd received information that an individual had turned himself in, or was going to, in regard to the shooting on the UVU campus.
DavisWe flew down on a fixed-wing aircraft — an FBI agent, Mr. McBride, myself, a representative from the Utah County Attorney's office, and two pilots. We landed about 11:00 to 11:30 and were driven to the Washington County Sheriff's Office, arriving close to midnight. Robinson had gotten there about 9:00 p.m., with his parents and a family friend.
DavisI observed him on a television monitor — he was seated in one of the soft interview rooms, which are equipped with audio-video recording. We obtained his name and date of birth: Tyler Robinson.
QWere the others who came with him interviewed?
AYes, simultaneously. The mother was interviewed by Agent Folger [?] of the FBI and myself. The father was interviewed by Agents Hull, Green, and Cox. The family friend, Mike Mitchell, was interviewed by Agents Terry and Smith.
DavisRobinson was detained, and after the interviews were completed he was formally arrested — in the early hours of September 12, at the Washington County Sheriff's Office.
The interview-room video (Ex. 15)· Ex. 15
The State offers Ex. 15 — the recording of Robinson seated and waiting in the interview room. Novak notes the parties agreed to a shorter clip without audio in place of the State's longer proposal. Admitted and published to the courtroom and the cameras, over the standing objection — which Burt clarifies is the electronic-media-coverage objection, not the 1102 issue. Overruled. See Day 3 Exhibit Log →
QWho are we seeing, and what is he wearing?
ADavisThat's Tyler Robinson. He's in a dark baseball cap with a light-colored symbol on the front, a burgundy short-sleeve shirt with no graphics, blue jeans, and white tennis shoes.
Davis confirms the room's standard A/V recording, that he reviewed the video, and that it fairly and accurately depicts Robinson at that time.
Davis — arrest, booking, and the search warrants· Sept. 12
DavisHis cellphone was seized at the Washington County office. He was transported to the Utah County jail — we arrived about 7:00 a.m. on the 12th and he was booked in around 8:00. I was the booking officer, which means I completed the paperwork with the jail: the personal identification, the charges, the probable-cause statement, signed and submitted.
DavisAt the jail, after a search warrant was granted, his clothing was recovered, along with buccal swabs for DNA and major-case prints — fingerprints and full palm prints.
QThe residence warrants?
ATwo — Robinson's residence and his parents' residence, both in southern Utah, both executed September 12. Robinson's residence was searched by a team led by an FBI supervisor with the Utah State Crime Lab, starting about 8:00 a.m.; his parents' residence by the FBI Evidence Response Team, starting about 4:00 p.m. I wasn't physically present at either. He did live with a roommate at that residence.
Davis — Mike Mitchell and the written 1102 (Ex. 14)· Ex. 14
DavisMike Mitchell is a close family friend. He helped facilitate working with Tyler's parents and the sheriff's department for Tyler to turn himself in. He was interviewed the early morning of September 12 by Agents Terry and Smith.
QWas a second statement collected from Mr. Mitchell?
AYes — March 31 of this year, at the St. George courthouse. Present were Mr. McBride, Chad Grunander, and Kimberly [?] from the county attorney's office, and Agent Chris Terry of the FBI. I wasn't present but spoke with Agent Terry and reviewed his report. Mitchell was given a handwritten 1102 statement form, went to a separate office by himself for about an hour, wrote his statement, and brought it back.
QWhat's on the 1102 form?
AAn admonition that the information you're giving is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, and that any false statement is punishable as a class A misdemeanor. Mr. McBride gave that admonition to Mr. Mitchell.
Asked whether anyone directed Mitchell what to say, a foundation objection was sustained; on more foundation, Davis said his review of Agent Terry's report reflected no such direction. Ex. 14 — Mitchell's written statement, with stipulated redactions — is admitted but, per the parties, not published to the gallery or the cameras.
Davis — the live .223 round on the Computer Science roof· scene
QYesterday there was testimony about a bullet found on a roof. Which roof?
ADavisThe Computer Science building, on the far east side of the roof. It was documented and collected by Agent Snyder [?] of the FBI. That building sits south and east of the Losee, and east of the area where Mr. Kirk's tent was.
QFrom that roof, was there a line of sight to Mr. Kirk's tent?
ANo — not according to Agent Snyder. There was no line of sight from there to the tent.
QAnd the round itself?
AA .223 caliber — a live round, meaning it had not been fired. The primer was not dented and the projectile was still intact and sealed. I'm relaying that from Agent Snyder; I didn't observe it personally.
Davis — Twiggs, use immunity, and the fight over Ex. 16· Ex. 16 · ends unresolved
DavisLance Twiggs is Robinson's roommate. He was interviewed twice — the first time the early morning of September 12 at the St. George Police Department, by FBI Agents Larson [?] and another. His phone was provided voluntarily. The second was April 20, 2026, at the Utah County Attorney's office, with his attorney present.
QWas Mr. Twiggs given use immunity?
AYes — by both the Utah County Attorney's office and the United States Attorney's office. Use immunity gives the individual immunity for statements made during the interview, but doesn't preclude prosecution on evidence found outside it. Before the April 20 interview, Mr. McBride gave the 1102 admonition; Twiggs said he understood, and was told the interview was being taken in lieu of testifying at the preliminary hearing. Both interviews were recorded, and I've reviewed them.
The State moves to admit Ex. 16 — the April 20 recording — and asks to address the defense's objections procedurally first.
Mr. Grunander (State)The defense created a transcript with significant proposed redactions — about eleven of twenty-one pages, appearing on sixteen of them — and sent it Monday about 4:00 p.m. Our objection is procedural: this is by surprise. They've had the recorded statement since April 28 and already briefed the 1102 issue as to Mr. Twiggs without raising these objections. Redacting a video is far more complicated than blocking out transcript text. And the remedy — redacting the video or presenting it as a transcript — is disproportionate: the court is fully capable of disregarding any statement it finds exceeds the proper scope.
Mr. GrunanderJudges aren't subject to the same concerns about prejudice as jurors — Adams, Feather [?], Hannigan [?], Rosecrans. So we'd move to admit and let the court use its discretion, rather than argue each statement line by line. If the court can rule on the procedural objections first, it may moot the substantive ones.
Mr. GrunanderOn publication: because Mr. Twiggs is shown certain exhibits in the video, we agree those shouldn't be captured or replicated by the cameras. We'd ask that the video play in the courtroom, with the audio — but not the video — transmitted to the media.
The Court (Graf)Is there any portion of the recorded statement, as being offered, that occurred before the 1102 warning was given to Mr. Twiggs?
ANot that we're presenting today.
The State moves to admit Ex. 16 and asks to take the defense's objections procedurally first. What follows is the afternoon's central fight.
Ex. 16 argued — best evidence, privacy, and the Estes "confession" problem· Novak / Hunt / media
Graf clarifies that his practice of not pre-reviewing logged exhibits doesn't bar a motion in limine, and asks Novak to specify his objections by category.
Mr. Novak (Defense)There's no surprise here. The State logged its exhibits weeks ago; the court reviewed and returned them, declining to rule until an exhibit is actually presented — so this is the first moment to object. We gave the State a proposed redacted transcript days ago, highlighted rather than blacked out, as a tool; the State has never claimed it's inaccurate. We're doing exactly what the court signaled: object when the exhibit is offered.
Mr. NovakMy categories. First, much of this video isn't Mr. Twiggs — it's Mr. McBride testifying, with Twiggs agreeing: "yeah, that's what it says." That's counsel testifying, and it's hearsay — his out-of-court statements about what other exhibits say. It also runs into the best-evidence rule: the best evidence of what an exhibit says is the exhibit. Two exhibits are plainly coming — text messages and a Discord group chat.
Mr. NovakThere are portions that aren't relevant, and portions that implicate Mr. Twiggs's privacy. And under Rule 403 — especially given how this hearing is being broadcast — the prejudice outweighs the probative value.
Mr. NovakBut the deeper problem is publication. Broadcasting what the State will call a "confession" violates Mr. Robinson's 14th Amendment due-process rights. In Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, the Supreme Court said televising a defendant in the act of confessing is inherently invalid under the Due Process Clause — no showing of prejudice required. Mr. Robinson's statements — through Twiggs, the texts, the Discord, the note — are what the State will call confessions. We ask for a brief closed hearing to argue the parts that would themselves reveal the content.
The State (Ms. Hunt) says its procedural objection may moot the substance, but agrees the court must now decide admissibility under Rule 1104 — and that arguing specifics may require a closed hearing, since she'd quote sections. Media counsel [ASR: "Michael Jed"; earlier sessions: David Reymann] objects: closing a courtroom is not a "sidebar," and any closure needs its own public hearing; the interview looks like a central pillar of the State's case, which counsels for access; Archuleta concerned protecting the physical integrity of evidence, not putting something on a screen; and fair-trial risks are curable by expanded voir dire and jury questionnaires. Graf takes a 15-minute recess to review Novak's highlighted redactions.
Ex. 16 — the ruling: admitted in full, two passages off-air· after recess
The Court (Graf)I've reviewed the video and Mr. Novak's proposed redactions in detail. On hearsay: Mr. McBride's statements are hearsay, but I will consider them only to provide context for what Lance Twiggs says and for their effect on him. On that basis the hearsay objection is overruled.
The CourtOn relevance, I agree in part and disagree in part. The transcript was a true and accurate representation, and helpful. Some portions' relevance isn't yet clear — pages 19 and 20 may contain irrelevant information — so I reserve whether to consider those until I've heard the rest of the State's evidence. As magistrate I can distinguish what bears on probable cause from what doesn't, and I will not consider the irrelevant.
The CourtOn Rule 403: as a magistrate I don't face a jury's risk of being swayed by undue prejudice, so for admissibility that objection is overruled, and Exhibit 16 is admitted in its entirety for the court's consideration. But out of caution, to keep potentially inadmissible material from the jury pool, I'm ordering two passages not be published in the courtroom or on camera — and by audio I mean audio and video. First, from page 19, roughly 34:55 to 35:48. Second, from 6:56 to 20:27 — largely the text messages, which are also cumulative under 403 if the State introduces them separately; I'll revisit that if it doesn't. [Timestamps as rendered by the ASR — approximate.]
The CourtTo be clear, the exhibit is the video, admitted in full — these are publication carve-outs only. The State may play everything else. Make the edits tonight, send the final cut to the defense to confirm it matches these timestamps, and play it tomorrow.
The Estes fight — the note, the texts, the Discord — and a bench memo· ends · adjourn to Thu 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Novak (Defense)Setting the 1102 issue aside — there are statements in this video that Twiggs attributes to Mr. Robinson, which the State will call a confession. Statements of a party opponent are admissible and aren't hearsay. But whether they may be published — not merely considered — without violating Mr. Robinson's 14th Amendment due-process rights is a different question, and our answer is no. In Estes the Court said televising what the prosecution calls a confession de facto violates due process, without any prejudice analysis. This court has authorized televising the proceeding; broadcasting these statements is exactly what Estes forbids.
The Court (Graf)Let me make sure I understand the case before I rule. My reading is that the rule you cite may trace to a dissent in Rideau, and that the Estes holding could be narrower. Can you cite the portion you're relying on?
AMr. NovakEstes says, "we constructed a rule." I understand the parenthetical referring to Rideau is a little confusing, but when the Supreme Court says it has a rule, we should take it at face value. It's a 5-4 opinion — Justice Clark, with Warren, Douglas, and Goldberg concurring; Stewart, Black, Brennan, and White dissenting — holding that televising what the prosecution calls a confession violates the defendant's due-process right, without a prejudice showing.
Ms. Hunt confirms the State will move to admit the text messages and the Discord thread, and that there is a note. Graf notes portions of the texts were already disclosed in the charging Information; media counsel argues much is therefore already public, and that withholding public material both breaks from transparency and implies hidden content, citing Archuleta on access to documents a court relies on.
Counsel for the Kirk family [Jeffrey —?]On behalf of Erika Kirk: the family believes strongly that the evidence admitted at this hearing should be public — for the world to see, without redactions. The court has tools at its disposal, expanded voir dire among them, to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial. To not be open, to not let the world see what happened, will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system.
Mr. NovakWe respect Ms. Kirk's position. But the State's earlier disclosure of what it will call a confession in charging papers doesn't license broadcasting it now; the Supreme Court has said some things the public waits for the jury trial to hear. The paramount concern is Mr. Robinson's right to a jury not exposed, before trial, to what the State will call a confession.
Disposition: the two passages (≈6:56–20:27 and ≈34:55–35:48) are admitted but not broadcast; the rest may be published after the State's overnight edit, shared with the defense to confirm. Graf asks Novak to submit a short bench memo by 8:00 a.m. Thursday on the Estes / 14th-Amendment publication question, so the court can weigh it before the text messages, the Discord thread, the note, and the five phone screenshots (offered through Agent Davis) come up. Court in recess until 9:00 a.m. Thursday.

Day 4 · Thursday, July 9, 2026 (full day · morning & afternoon)

recording · part 1   recording · part 2

Full-day entry. Both sessions — recording parts 1 and 2 — cleaned from Grabien’s same-day auto-transcript: speaker labels normalized, mechanical errors and proper nouns corrected against the court record, remaining uncertainties flagged [?]. Per the court’s rulings and the family’s request, everything admitted and read into open court is reproduced. The Ex. 16.1 text thread is conformed to the charging Information (the accurate public source); the court’s own redaction of the 16.1 phone-number/address page, and its gallery-only / courtroom-only publication tiers, are preserved as facts of the proceeding.

What happened

Day 4 was the publication fight the court had teed up on Wednesday: whether the State could show its most sensitive exhibits — Robinson’s text thread, the Discord messages, and the handwritten note — to the gallery and over the live camera feed. Erika Kirk was present; her representative had filed overnight pressing for the evidence to be displayed in the courtroom so the family could see it.

Graf announced a three-tier framework and applied it exhibit by exhibit: (1) admission to the court for the probable-cause determination, (2) display to the gallery, (3) broadcast beyond the courtroom through the camera. He stressed that admission does not equal publication, and that each exhibit gets its own weighing.

Then the marquee argument. The defense (Novak, joined by Burt) argued that broadcasting Robinson’s admissions through the court-ordered camera feed is itself state action creating presumptive prejudice — an “extreme case” of pretrial publicity under Estes, Rideau, and Skilling. The State (Ballard) answered that Rideau involved an orchestrated, televised custodial interrogation, nothing like Robinson’s voluntary texts to a partner and friends, and that any prejudice is curable through voir dire; transparency and the victim’s and public’s rights cut the other way. A media attorney urged a Utah Supreme Court access decision recognizing a presumptive right of access, especially where much of the material is already public.

Graf overruled the defense’s standing objection: publishing the written, voluntary communications is not the kind of inherent prejudice that requires categorical restriction; any risk is manageable through jury selection. He then set publication tiers exhibit by exhibit and recalled Agent Brian Davis (direct by Hunt) to sponsor Exhibit 16 — the Cellebrite extraction of Lance Twiggs’s phone — and played the redacted Ex. 16 video: Twiggs’s interview, given under a federal and state immunity grant, walking through the note, the text thread, the Discord server, and the FBI suspect images. The court also admitted and allowed publication of Exhibit 5.1 over a religion-vs-political-expression objection, then broke for lunch with Davis’s cross still pending.

Index

Witnesses — Day 4

Four figures across the day: Lance Twiggs, whose recorded immunized interview is Exhibit 16; Agent Davis, recalled to sponsor it; Sgt. Faumuina, recalled for the crime-scene and forensic-report walkthrough on which the State rested; and the defense’s ATF firearms examiner, whose inconclusive bullet comparison and PCAST cross opened the defense case.

Lance TwiggsRobinson’s roommate / partner · recorded interview (Ex. 16) · testifying under federal + state use immunity

Posture

  • Not live on the stand: his account reaches the court through the recorded interview played as Ex. 16 — a first interview on Sept 12, 2025 (St. George PD / FBI) and a second on April 20, 2026 (Utah County Attorney’s Office). Questioned in the video by McBride.
  • Sworn on-camera and given the false-statements admonition; confirmed federal and state agreements granting immunity for the materials discussed.

The account

  • Roommates in a St. George apartment who began dating a few months in; shared gaming (he named a pirate game and co-op titles), little politics — he said Robinson followed Trump-era policy talk on the radio but he’d never heard Robinson mention Charlie Kirk before.
  • Around a month before Sept 10, Robinson had mentioned engraving bullets ahead of a hunting trip; Twiggs told him not to set one off in the house.
  • Night of Sept 9–10 Robinson slept at the apartment and left very early — Twiggs estimated ~4–5 a.m. — saying he had a long drive to work.
  • ~11 p.m. Sept 10 he got the “look under my keyboard” text, found the note on Robinson’s desk, photographed it, and put it back.
  • Sept 11: saw Robinson at the apartment; Robinson was agitated, said what he’d written the night before was true, cried, and eventually said he would talk to his parents or turn himself in.
  • Identified the FBI suspect images as consistent with Robinson (shoes, sunglasses, jeans); identified Robinson’s Discord handle and phone number.
Agent Brian DavisUtah State Bureau of Investigation · co-case agent · recalled · Direct: Hunt · sponsoring Ex. 16

What he authenticated

  • Ex. 16 as the Cellebrite extraction of Twiggs’s phone; the on-screen images are photographs of Twiggs’s phone taken by FBI Agent Larson during the first interview, later confirmed by Twiggs in the second.
  • Chain: phone recovered after the first interview, transported to the RCFL (Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory) in Salt Lake City, extracted via Cellebrite, reviewed by an SIAC analyst who located the note image.
  • Phone identified by Twiggs via a distinctive cracked upper-left screen; the number Twiggs gave for Robinson matched law-enforcement records; the Discord thread recovered via subpoena to Discord.
  • First text in the thread: Sept 10, 11:00 p.m.; last: ~7:42 p.m. Sept 11 (before the surrender). Davis identified Robinson in the courtroom.
Sgt. Jennifer FaumuinaUtah Dept. of Public Safety · crime-scene & evidence supervisor · recalled · Direct: McBride / Cross: Burt [ASR renders “Molina”; corrected to Faumuina, consistent with her Day 2 testimony]

Role & the scenes

  • Assigned ~1:30 p.m. Sept 10 from DPS headquarters in Salt Lake; reached UVU’s south end amid multiple agencies and was sent to the incident command post in the Fulton building. Primary assignment: oversee the crime scenes and physical evidence once campus was secured.
  • Scenes processed: the courtyard/amphitheater (event site), the Losee Center rooftop and the ground below, the Fulton Library, and the wooded area across Campus Drive.

Rooftop & the drop

  • State crime-lab CSIs processed the roof: a screwdriver; the shooter’s “perch” (gravel disturbances visible at night under ALS/blue light); swipes and impressions on the northeast ledge; and, on the glass window below, latent fingerprints and a palm print. Shoe impressions collected.
  • Measured perch-to-tent: ~415 ft along the slope, ~410 ft horizontal, with a ~68 ft vertical drop.
  • By stipulation: FBI examiner Elisa Farmer [name per auto-transcript] found only three latents (11B, 11C, 11D) of comparable value and excluded Robinson as their source; the rest lacked value; subsequent FBI examination of the three was inconclusive.

The wooded area & the weapon

  • ~6 p.m. Sept 10, Washington County SO — searching on UVU security video of the suspect fleeing northeast off the roof and across Campus Drive — found a rifle wrapped in a dark towel in the bushes. Faumuina held the scene; she and the FBI Evidence Response Team (SA Michelle Mack) recovered it (Ex. 10, 10.1–10.3).
  • The rifle: a bolt-action .30-06 (a Mauser-pattern rifle). Made safe: one fired cartridge case in the chamber and three unfired cartridges, all engraved (Ex. 19–20.2).

St. George searches & the reports

  • Oversaw warrants at Robinson’s townhome and his parents’ home. Recovered: a Dremel-type rotary tool + bits, .30-06 ammunition and cartridge cases, long guns/a revolver, a burnt note (Ex. 20.4), clothing/shoes, shooting targets with perforations (Ex. 20.5), and — atop a safe in the spare bedroom next to Robinson’s — five .30-06 casings, one engraved “test shot” (Ex. 20.3). The parents’ Dodge Challenger was collected.
  • Sponsored the ATF forensic reports: DNA placing Robinson as a major contributor on the rifle and cartridges “at least one trillion times” more likely than not (Ex. 3, 30.3); firearm/toolmark reports tying the engraving cutter to the marks on the cartridges and the “test shot” casing, and identifying the fired case as fired in the recovered rifle (Ex. 30, 30.4); and the inconclusive bullet-jacket comparison (Ex. 30.2).
  • On cross (Burt): the compiled investigative report runs ~229 pages (Faumuina authored ~9 of its component reports); a NIBIN ballistics query returned no hit; items seized at the Fulton Library bus stops (a backpack, jacket, gloves) were sent to the FBI lab and later deemed unrelated; the towel/rifle was physically seized by SA Mack; jail-mail monitoring of Robinson is ongoing, with no result she was briefed on.
ATF firearms & toolmark examiner [ASR “Carter”/“Garner”; the defense’s two ATF witnesses were named Oliver and Carter, so likely Carter — verify]Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives · Forensic Science Laboratory · defense witness · Direct: Burt / Cross: McBride

Who she is

  • ATF firearm/toolmark examiner ~6½ years; prior latent-print technician and crime-scene investigator (Winston-Salem, NC, and a Maryland county). B.S. in forensic & investigative science (West Virginia University); graduate of the National Firearms Examiner Academy; her lab is ANAB-accredited.

Her opinion & the challenge to it

  • Authored the report (Ex. 30.2) on the bullet-jacket fragment (Ex. 6a) recovered from Kirk at autopsy: it could not be identified or excluded as fired from the recovered rifle — inconclusive, for lack of quality and quantity of individual marks. The lead fragments (6b–6e) were unsuitable for comparison.
  • Her conclusions follow the AFTE theory of identification and the DOJ’s Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports: no claim of uniqueness, individualization, zero error rate, or statistical certainty.
  • Burt’s cross went to reliability: the 2016 PCAST report finding firearms comparison fell short of foundational validity (a single appropriately designed study), the 2017 PCAST addendum reiterating the need for black-box studies, the 2009 NAS report, and the subjectivity of “sufficient agreement.” She acknowledged a discipline with a false-positive rate above 5% is unreliable, and that her one bullet-comparison proficiency test (~2023) carried high item error rates (~18–20%) where the ground truth was exclusion and she answered inconclusive. Graf repeatedly reined the cross back to the probable-cause standard.
  • On redirect (McBride): the science is routinely admitted across the country, her lab is accredited and audited, and AFTE takes PCAST’s recommendations seriously.

Ledger

Exhibit Log — Day 4

Chips: ADMITTED received by the court; COURT shown in the courtroom/gallery; MEDIA broadcast on the camera feed; RESTRICTED withheld from broadcast. Every exhibit here was admitted in full for probable cause; the fight was only over publication.

Ex.ItemObjection → RulingStatus
16Recorded Twiggs interview (video)Sept 12 2025 + April 20 2026; played with court-ordered time-stamped audio/video redactionsStanding objection (electronic-media coverage) → OverruledADMITTED
16.1Text thread Robinson ↔ TwiggsPhotos of Twiggs’s phone; ~5½ of 18 pages already reproduced in the InformationEstes/Rideau/Skilling objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
16.2Discord thread (Robinson’s friend server)Recovered via subpoena to DiscordSame standing objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTNO BROADCAST
16.3Handwritten note found under the keyboardSame standing objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTNO VIDEO
16.4FBI-released suspect images (Sept 11)Standing objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
5.1Victim-targeting-enhancement item [transcript reads both “4.1” and “5.1” — reconcile against clean record; cf. the Jan 27 objection to “Exhibit 4.1”]Provisionally admitted Day 3; foundation laid, now received in fullRelevance / religion-vs-political-expression → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
3 / 30.3ATF DNA reports — rifle, cartridges, Dremel & casingsRobinson a major contributor “at least one trillion times” more likely on the grips, bolt, trigger, barrel, a chambered cartridge, the Dremel bits, and the “test shot” casingStanding objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
30 / 30.2 / 30.4ATF firearm & toolmark reportsRifle operable; fired case identified as fired in the rifle; engraving cutter (Ex. 15a) tied to the marks on the cartridges & “test shot” casing; the Ex. 6a bullet-jacket fragment comparison inconclusiveStanding objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
10–10.3Photos — the towel-wrapped rifle in the bushes, boxed, and unwrappedStanding objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
19–20.2Photos — the fired case & three unfired engraved cartridges from the rifleHead stamp “Remington .30-06 Springfield”; engravings read into the record (several ASR-garbled) [?]Standing objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
20.3 / 20.5Photos — five .30-06 casings atop the safe (one engraved “test shot”); perforated shooting targets from the closetStanding objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
20.4Photo — the burnt note from the kitchen trashDisplayed side-by-side with the 16.3 note imageStanding objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTNO BROADCAST
11.4Surveillance video (non-zoomed)Played ~10 sec through Faumuina — suspect on the NE roof; later footage showed he did not touch the window on the dropRelevance → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTMEDIA
11.1Surveillance video (enhanced, ~8 min)To be played in the courtroom for the family at the close of defense evidence — not broadcastDefense continuing objection → OverruledADMITTEDCOURTNO BROADCAST
Def.Defense-marked exhibits through the ATF examinerHer 47-page case file, the AFTE range-of-conclusions, and the DOJ Uniform Language policy — exhibit numbers ASR-garbled [?]403 / authentication → OverruledADMITTEDCOURT

Bench

Rulings — Day 4

The tiered-publication framework

On the victim representative’s overnight motion, Graf held that Article I §28 of the Utah Constitution supports the family’s ability to observe the evidence, but that the manner of display stays within the court’s discretion. He set a three-tier approach applied exhibit by exhibit — (1) admitted to the court for probable cause, (2) displayed to the gallery, (3) broadcast beyond the courtroom — and declined any blanket rule.

Utah Const. art. I, §28

Publishing the admissions — no presumptive prejudice

The defense argued the camera feed is state action that, by broadcasting Robinson’s admissions, creates the kind of presumptive prejudice condemned in Rideau and flagged as an “extreme case” in Skilling. Graf disagreed: unlike the orchestrated, televised custodial confession in Rideau, these are written communications allegedly made outside police custody, offered in the ordinary course of a public proceeding. That distinction weighs against treating publication as presumptively unconstitutional, and any residual risk can be handled through voir dire and pretrial measures. The defense’s standing objection was overruled as to the preliminary hearing; the ruling does not decide admissibility at trial.

Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) · Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) · Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) · State v. Allgier, 2011 UT 47, 258 P.3d 589 (right of access to a sealed inmate letter)

Exhibit-by-exhibit publication

16.1 — published to gallery and broadcast, because the State had already publicly distributed it (~5½ of its 18 pages appear in the Information), with one page redacted for a phone number and address. 16.2 (Discord) — gallery only, not broadcast. 16.3 (the note) — courtroom only, not videoed. 16.4 (FBI images) — broadcast. Within the Ex. 16 video, Graf ordered several time-stamped audio/video redactions and, after independent review, added cuts of his own; counsel reconciled the edits on the record to within a second.

Exhibit 5.1 admitted and publishable

Over a defense objection that the material went to religion and was more prejudicial than probative, Graf found 5.1 [4.1/5.1] relevant to the victim-targeting enhancement — that Robinson selected Kirk because of Robinson’s belief or perception about Kirk’s political expression — admitted it, and allowed publication to the gallery and public. He noted he was not deciding how the enhancement applies, only that the item is relevant and admissible for the bind-over.

Utah Code §76-3-203.14(2) (victim-targeting enhancement)

The State rests — bind-over goes to briefing, argument Sept 1

After Sgt. Faumuina’s cross, the State confirmed every offered exhibit was admitted and rested its case-in-chief; it waived rebuttal. Over the defense’s request, and with Robinson waiving his speedy-trial right to allow it, Graf granted briefing on the bind-over rather than argue it Friday: the State (moving party) files by Jul 28, the defense responds by Aug 11, the State replies by Aug 18 (35 / 35 / 18 pages), with oral argument Sept 1 at 10:00 a.m. Erika Kirk’s counsel pressed for speed and took no position on briefing.

Graf, J. · one short defense witness remains for Friday

The family may view Ex. 11.1 in the courtroom

Renewing the reserved request, Graf ruled the enhanced ~8-minute surveillance video (Ex. 11.1) will be played in the courtroom for the Kirk family at the close of the defense’s evidence — not broadcast on the camera feed. The defense’s continuing objection was noted and overruled.

Graf, J. · Utah Const. art. I, §28

Reliability objections to the firearms evidence — overruled

During the defense examiner’s testimony Graf overruled the State’s Rule 403 objection to admitting her 47-page case file, and an authentication objection to the AFTE range-of-conclusions document, finding both relevant to the reports already admitted. He allowed the PCAST / reliability cross but repeatedly limited it, noting that whether the discipline is challenged is fair game while re-litigating the science is beyond a probable-cause hearing.

Graf, J. · Utah R. Evid. 403; Utah R. Crim. P. 1102

Record

Cleaned Transcript — Day 4

The full morning session, segmented and lightly cleaned from a rough same-day auto-transcript — nothing omitted. Speaker labels normalized; garbled names, acronyms, and citations flagged [?]. The Ex. 16.1 text thread is reproduced from the charging Information (accurate public source); its ellipses are the Information’s own. Afternoon session (Davis’s cross onward) not yet available.

Opening — call to order and appearances· housekeeping
Case called: State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson, No. 251403576.
StateAppearances for the State: Chad Grunander, Ryan McBride, Lauren Hunt, David Sturgill, Christopher Ballard, and County Attorney Jeffrey Gray.
DefenseKathryn Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burt, and Staci Visser for Mr. Robinson, seated at counsel table.
GrafGood morning, Mr. Robinson. For the record, the court also recognizes the presence of Ms. Erika Kirk.
Decorum, devices, and the standing statement· housekeeping
GrafAs you’ve come to expect, I need to read the following as it relates to this preliminary hearing. The court is mindful of the safety and well-being of all parties, counsel, witnesses, court staff, and members of the public, and of its duty to protect the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and the public.
GrafPortable electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. That prohibition does not apply to legal counsel, counsel’s support staff, or media operating under the electronic-media-coverage order, and it includes counsel for the victim representative, Ms. Kirk. Counsel, please join me in silencing your ringers.
GrafEvery person in attendance will be afforded dignity and respect. Per the standing order, spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly — no distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, or threatening behavior; no audible comments; no shaking or nodding of heads or other gestures during the hearing; and no pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person related to this case or its status as a capital offense.
The victim representative’s overnight motion — argument· argument
GrafI took time this morning to review what was filed since we adjourned, including a motion filed last night by Ms. Kirk’s attorney. I recognize the parties may not have had a chance to respond, so I’ll hear from you first. To the State.
BallardWe’ve reviewed the filing. It fully accords with our position in this morning’s filing — publishing exhibits to the courtroom is entirely appropriate and honors the victim representative’s right to be present.
NovakEvery order to date complies with and respects the victim’s rights under the Utah Constitution. The issues before the court going forward — exhibits, and what is called the sixteen series — do not interfere with any enumerated right of a victim representative. I want to be mindful of timing; we have witnesses to get to, including a defense witness who is not available after tonight.
Media counsel [speaker inferred]The court has set a three-step process: admission, display in the courtroom, and coverage by cameras are three separate inquiries. The media will always urge maximum access, while recognizing fair-trial rights. Even where the court is not comfortable placing something on the video feed, letting those present in the courtroom view it is a meaningful step toward transparency.
Ruling on the victim-representative motion — the tiered method· bench ruling
GrafArticle I, section 28 of the Utah Constitution recognizes important rights of victims and victim representatives — to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, and to be present and heard at critical stages. The court acknowledges the transparency concerns raised, and it has an independent obligation to manage these proceedings to safeguard the rights of all parties, including Mr. Robinson’s right to a fair and impartial process.
GrafAfter careful consideration, not all exhibits will be visually displayed to the gallery. The court will use a tiered method: first, whether an exhibit is admitted to the court for the probable-cause consideration; second, whether it is displayed to the gallery; and third, whether it is published through the camera to the public. This does not diminish the victim representative’s rights; it reflects the court’s duty to regulate the presentation of evidence consistent with the fair-trial rights implicated. The court makes no blanket ruling — each exhibit is afforded its own weighing.
Reconciling the Ex. 16 redactions — time stamps· on the record
GrafBefore the State publishes Exhibit 16, I want to confirm the edits. As I understand it, the audio not to be played runs from roughly 6:57 to 20:29, and from 32:55 to 35:47. Does that reflect the parties’ understanding?
NovakThe State sent us a copy of the edited video with the audio reductions the court ordered, but the video that followed was inconsistent with those reductions. I raised that last night, and I believe the State forwarded a “version two” that removes the video that would otherwise have made the audio redaction ineffective.
BallardWe prepared the redacted video as ordered, then, after discussing with the defense, a second version that keeps the audio reductions but removes the video portions the defense flagged.
GrafThis is the court’s own independent finding after reviewing it last night: a video-only redaction between 20:29 and 25:23 [State’s stamp: 25:22 — parties agreed to within one second]. Any video showing anything other than McBride and Mr. Twiggs is to be redacted, except the surveillance screenshots and the FBI bulletin that were briefly displayed. Two further short cuts, audio and video, are not to be played at all: 27:18 to 27:25, and 28:11 to 28:18.
The two disputed passages (pages 10 and 19)· on the record
BallardTwo brief portions should not be redacted. First, the bottom of transcript page 10 beginning “was he” through timestamp 16:46 on page 11 — not cumulative of any exhibit and containing nothing that could be classified as an admission. Second, a small portion of page 19 beginning around 33:07 through 33:40 — again not cumulative and not an admission; it provides foundational, identifying information about Mr. Twiggs and is relevant to the charged enhancement.
NovakAs to the page 19 portion, this is neither relevant nor probative under Rule 403; its slight relevance is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. Mr. Twiggs has counsel, who may have a view as well.
BallardMr. Twiggs’s counsel knew the statement was being prepared for court and made no objection to this part of the interview. It provides important foundational and identifying information and is relevant to the enhancement.
GrafOn the first section — page 10 “was he” to 16:46 — applying the balancing test and taking a narrow approach to what is published, it is permissible and may be played and published through all mediums; the parties also agree. On the second section, from roughly 32:55 “okay” to 33:27, the court stands by its ruling: it shall not be transmitted, because of certain statements that do not serve the interests of justice for publication. From 33:27 “okay” up to 33:40 may be published to the gallery and the media.
The Estes / Rideau / Skilling argument — the State· argument
BallardThe defense relies on a single sentence in Estes that in turn cites the dissent in Rideau — a change-of-venue case — which is curious, because that dissent held the trial court properly refused a change of venue even though the confession had been televised. Estes offers no analysis of the point and has since been limited to its narrow facts.
BallardEven if it applied, Rideau is starkly different: there the police orchestrated and recorded a custodial interrogation and immediately released it to the press. Here we have voluntary statements Mr. Robinson made to a partner and close associates. Courts have easily distinguished Rideau — a Sixth Circuit case on publication of statements at a preliminary hearing, where an ultimately inadmissible confession had been publicized, found no violation of fundamental rights, curable through voir dire [“Leslie” — case name garbled]; and Ohio and Alabama decisions [“Burgess v. State” and an Ohio case — garbled] reaching the same result. There is no blanket ban on publishing a defendant’s voluntary admissions. Transparency is critical — a vacuum in the evidence only fuels speculation — and the victim’s right to attend is hollow if she is shielded from the evidence.
GrafAny questions? Not at this time.
The state-action parallel (Novak) and reply (Ballard)· argument
NovakThe parallel to Rideau is this: there, the confession was televised by an act of the State. This court has granted the media’s request to electronically publish this entire proceeding, and the State has supported that request over Mr. Robinson’s objection — that too is state action. If there were no cameras in this courtroom, we would not have a problem; Ms. Kirk’s counsel seeks only that people in the courtroom see the evidence, which has nothing to do with the cameras.
NovakIn Skilling, in 2010, the Supreme Court preserved the extreme case where prejudice is presumed. This court has already found, over the last nine months, that this is an extreme case given the quantum of pretrial publicity and the speed with which these proceedings are dissected and broadcast. It is our view that Exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 must be managed accordingly.
BallardMr. Novak misrepresents our position. We are not going beyond what the victim representative asked for. We ask that these exhibits, unredacted, be published in the courtroom — not electronically. It is not the camera that is the issue; it is the public’s right. This is a public hearing; the court has ruled it public, and Kearns-Tribune [cite per transcript] recognizes that preliminary hearings are public. The public present should be able to see the exhibits the court will rely on, and that is even more important to the victim representative’s right to observe.
The media’s Utah access argument, and the Kirk family· argument
Media counselI’d urge the court to look beyond the fifty- and sixty-year-old Rideau and Estes to the 2011 Utah Supreme Court decision in State v. Allgier, decided after Estes, unanimously upholding access in a case with striking parallels: a murder trial in which the court received a notarized letter from an inmate, provisionally sealed. The two-step analysis first asks whether there is a presumptive right of access — the answer was yes — then whether a balancing overcomes it. Notably, at paragraph 17, the court stressed that much of the information had already become public, and that sealing material already in the public sphere only creates the impression that information is being kept from the public.
Media counselThe same is true here. Under that decision the court should recognize a presumptive right of access and find the balancing not satisfied, and grant access — publication to the courtroom and, in our view, on the cameras. We recognize that if the court publishes to the courtroom but not the general feed, that middle step is itself a meaningful step toward transparency.
Kirk family counselOn behalf of the Kirk family — they have waited ten months. They have a right to be here and to hear and see the evidence. The Utah Constitution gives them the right to be present; being present without seeing the evidence defeats the point. At a minimum, this courtroom needs to be open for the evidence to be displayed openly.
Graf’s ruling — publishing 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3· bench ruling
GrafThis comes on the State’s request to publish Exhibits 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 during the preliminary hearing, over the defense’s objection. The exhibits are text messages between Mr. Robinson and a witness, Discord messages, and a written note attributed to Mr. Robinson. The defense argues publication under electronic-media coverage would create a substantial risk of prejudice to due process, relying on Rideau, Estes, and Skilling. The State argues these are written communications made outside custody, that prejudice can be managed through voir dire, and that the victim representative has an interest in following the proceeding.
GrafOn the present record, the court is not persuaded that publication of 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3 during this preliminary hearing creates the type of inherent or presumed prejudice that requires categorical restriction under Rideau, Estes, and Skilling. Unlike the broadcast custodial interrogation in Rideau, these are written communications allegedly made outside police custody, offered in the ordinary course of a judicial proceeding. Any potential prejudice may be addressed through appropriate trial procedures, including voir dire. This ruling is limited to publication during the preliminary hearing and does not determine admissibility at trial.
GrafThe objection is overruled as to this hearing. The State may publish 16.1, 16.2, and 16.3, with the exception of the third-to-last page of 16.1, which contains a phone number and address and must be redacted before courtroom publication. Because 16.1 was publicly distributed by the State, 16.1 in its entirety may be broadcast through electronic media.
Recesses and the edited-video handoff· procedural
The court took a fifteen-minute break so the State could show the final edited video to the defense; after computer/technology issues, a further short recess followed. On return, Ms. Hunt confirmed the defense had reviewed Exhibit 16 and that it comported with the court’s order, and moved to recall Agent Davis. The State noted that, where the edits leave large silent gaps, it would fast-forward; shorter gaps would simply play.
GrafAgent Davis, you remain under oath. Ms. Hunt, your witness.
Exhibit 16 played — Twiggs sworn, immunity· recorded interview
The court published Exhibit 16 from the monitors — the recorded interview of Lance Twiggs. Within the video, the interviewer places him under oath.
Interviewer (McBride)You do solemnly swear or affirm the evidence you give will be the truth. You’re notified that these statements may be presented to a magistrate in lieu of your sworn testimony at a preliminary examination, and that any false statement you do not believe to be true may subject you to criminal punishment — a class A misdemeanor, potentially higher as obstruction of justice. You have also been given a federal agreement and a state agreement granting you immunity from prosecution for the materials you discuss now.
TwiggsMy name is Lance Twiggs. Yes, I know Tyler Robinson, and I understand he’s been charged with shooting Charlie Kirk.
Twiggs (Ex. 16) — background, work, and the night of Sept 9–10· recorded interview
TwiggsI first met Tyler around 2023. When we first met he was just a new roommate — I knew he liked playing games. We started dating two or three months after we became roommates, and lived in an apartment complex in St. George, in separate bedrooms.
QWhat were you each doing for work in September 2025?
TwiggsI did bathtub and shower repair in new construction. Tyler was working for an electrician company and was also in trade school to become a higher-ranking electrician. His typical workday was around 7 a.m. to 3 or 4, and on certain days he’d go to school later.
QThe night of September 9th into the 10th — did he spend the night?
TwiggsYes. I heard him leave early; he said he had a long drive to work that day. I’d guess around 4 a.m., maybe 5 — I’m estimating [time uncertain in testimony]. I got up around noon to one; I didn’t have to work.
Twiggs (Ex. 16) — the note, the engraved bullets, and September 11· recorded interview
QWhen did you first hear from Tyler on September 10th?
TwiggsAround 11 p.m. He’d mentioned engraving bullets before — he said he was planning a hunting trip with family, maybe a month earlier, and wanted to engrave messages on bullets. I told him to make sure he didn’t set one off by accident in the house.
QThe note titled 16.3 — do you recognize it?
TwiggsThat’s the note under his keyboard the first text referred to. I found it on his desk under his computer keyboard, read it, took a picture, and put it back — around 11 p.m. on the 10th.
QSeptember 11th — when did you see him?
TwiggsWhen I woke up. I was doing laundry so he wouldn’t go to my parents’ house right then, because he said there were probably police outside. It was just him there. He was agitated, pacing. He didn’t go into detail; I asked in person whether what he said the night before was true, and he said it was. He started to cry a little and said he wishes he hadn’t done it [the Grabien auto-transcript dropped the negation and rendered this “he wishes he had done it” — the opposite meaning; corrected to “hadn’t” per multiple independent courtroom accounts (KSL, NewsNation, ABC4, all reporting remorse/“regretted it”); confirm against the Ex. 16 audio before quoting as citation-grade]. Eventually he said he’d talk to his parents or turn himself in, and that’s when I left for my parents’.
Twiggs (Ex. 16) — Discord, the images, gaming, politics, the gun· recorded interview
TwiggsBefore he came home I’d seen one Instagram link a friend sent in a group chat, but hadn’t looked into it. I saw the released suspect images the next day. I wouldn’t say with 100% certainty because of the camera quality, but the shoes, sunglasses, and jeans looked like him — the last two images especially.
TwiggsWe played games together — party games, co-op games, and one he really liked, a pirate game. On politics, he talked more than I did; he’d mention things he heard on the radio driving to work. I’d never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk specifically. On gender-identity or LGBTQ issues, not really — usually it was about Trump or current policies.
TwiggsI’m transgender; I go by Luna with some people [rendered per witness’s own testimony]. Tyler had a gun, and we kept tools and household items in a lower storage area; he told me about the bullets he mentioned engraving.
The State stopped the recording at this point for the Rule 1102 purposes and offered Exhibit 16.
Davis authenticates 16.1 — the photos, Cellebrite, the phone· direct (Hunt)
QWere you present at the interview shown in Exhibit 16, and is it fair and accurate?
Agent DavisYes, I was there, and aside from the court-ordered redactions it’s fair and accurate. Mr. Twiggs was shown the text messages between himself and Mr. Robinson, the Discord messages, the handwritten note, and the FBI press-release photos.
Agent Davis16.1 are photographs directly from Mr. Twiggs’s phone. In his first interview he showed the FBI agents the text messages; Agent Larson photographed the phone. The first interview was September 12, 2025; the second was April 20, 2026, at the Utah County Attorney’s Office, where the same thread was shown to him.
Agent DavisHe identified the phone as his by a large crack in the upper-left screen, and had his personal phone with him at the September 12 interview. Mr. Robinson is saved simply as “tyler.” Mr. Twiggs gave Mr. Robinson’s number, which I checked against law-enforcement records — it matched. A Cellebrite extraction was performed on the phone, which I reviewed; the first text was September 10 at 11 p.m.
The State moved to admit 16.1 and publish to the monitors. Novak: no objection beyond the standing objection. Overruled; 16.1 admitted and published to the gallery and electronically.
Exhibit 16.1 — the text thread, read into the record· conformed to the Information
Agent Davis read portions of 16.1 aloud (pages 1–9, 15, and later 17). The exchange below is conformed to the charging Information; ellipses are the Information’s own. The note (16.3) read first: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.
Robinsondrop what you are doing, look under my keyboard.
TwiggsWhat?????????????? You’re joking, right????
RobinsonI am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.
Twiggsyou weren’t the one who did it right????
RobinsonI am, I’m sorry
TwiggsI thought they caught the person?
Robinsonno, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.
TwiggsWhy?
RobinsonWhy did I do it?
TwiggsYeah
RobinsonI had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.
TwiggsHow long have you been planning this?
Robinsona bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it
RobinsonI’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits … only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel … remember how I was engraving bullets? The fuckin messages are mostly a big meme, if I see “notices bulge uwu” on fox new I might have a stroke … judging from today I’d say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope ;-;
Robinsondelete this exchange
Robinsonmy dad wants photos of the rifle … the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.
Robinsonsince trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.
RobinsonIm gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.
Robinsonyou are all I worry about love
TwiggsI’m much more worried about you
Per Davis, the last text was ~7:42 p.m. on September 11, before the surrender.
Exhibit 16.2 — the Discord thread· direct (Hunt)
Agent Davis16.2 are more photos of Mr. Twiggs’s phone — the Discord messages. In the first FBI interview the phone is shown and photographed by Agent Larson, and in a second interview Mr. Twiggs confirms these are the messages. He states he was part of the thread and identifies Mr. Robinson’s handle as “tyler / I com” [handle garbled]. Law enforcement subpoenaed Discord and recovered the messages, which I reviewed. The first message from Mr. Robinson is at 7:57 p.m. — September 11.
The State moved to admit and publish 16.2. Standing objection overruled. 16.2 admitted; published to the gallery only, not for electronic distribution.
Exhibit 16.3 — the note (RCFL / Cellebrite / SIAC)· direct (Hunt)
Agent DavisThis is the handwritten note. In his first FBI interview Mr. Twiggs describes the note he found under Mr. Robinson’s keyboard, per the 11 p.m. text on September 10. His phone was recovered after that interview and taken as evidence; the FBI transported it to the RCFL — the Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory in Salt Lake City — where it was downloaded via Cellebrite. The download went to an SIAC analyst, who located this image of the note.
Agent DavisCellebrite is downloading software commonly used by law enforcement to recover data from devices; SIAC is a fusion center within the Department of Public Safety that assists with intelligence for investigations. I spoke with the analyst who found this image.
Standing objection overruled. 16.3 admitted; published in the courtroom only — not to be shown or videoed.
Exhibit 16.4 — the FBI suspect images· direct (Hunt)
Agent DavisThese are the images the FBI released to the public, on September 11, of the suspected shooter. I viewed the FBI website and recall these being released that day. 16.4 is a fair and accurate representation.
The State moved to admit and publish per the court’s order. Standing objection overruled. 16.4 admitted; published in the courtroom and broadcast.
Exhibit 5.1 — foundation, the enhancement, and the ruling· bench ruling
GrafExhibit 5.1 [transcript: “5.1”; cf. the Jan 27 objection to “Exhibit 4.1” — reconcile] was provisionally admitted earlier, contingent on additional foundation. The court notes that foundation and testimony have now been laid, and it is received for full consideration.
GrafOn publication, and noting the defense’s standing objection, the court understands the defense argument that this goes toward religion. Reading from the Information: the victim-targeting enhancement, Utah Code §76-3-203.14(2) — that Mr. Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Mr. Robinson’s belief or perception regarding Kirk’s political expression — is also noted as an enhancement to Counts 2 and 7. The court is not going to weigh how the enhancement applies as it looks at the bind-over, but it finds the exhibit relevant, admissible, and publishable to the gallery and the public. The State may publish 5.1.
The last message, the in-court ID, and the lunch recess· direct (Hunt)
QAgent Davis, back to 16.1, page 17 — the last message. Please read it.
Agent Davisif any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent. my lawyer should be[name garbled — “dog Terry”]I’ll see if he can reach out to you, to make sure the police follow” — the message directing Mr. Twiggs to stay silent and seek counsel.
QYou flew to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and observed Tyler Robinson, got his name there, and assisted transporting him to the Utah County jail as the booking officer. Do you recognize him in the courtroom today?
Agent DavisYes — seated at the defense table, center chair, in a green tie.
GrafThe record will reflect that Agent Davis has identified Mr. Robinson in court, for the purposes of this hearing only. We’ll break for lunch until 12:30 and resume with the defense’s cross-examination of Agent Davis. Does either party need the record before the break? No. The court is in recess.
The court broke for lunch until 12:30, expecting the defense’s cross of Agent Davis on return. On return the defense waived cross and Agent Davis was excused; the State moved to its next witness. The afternoon follows.
Sgt. Faumuina recalled — the scenes, the perch, the rifle in the towel· direct (McBride)
On return from lunch the defense waived cross of Agent Davis, who was excused. The State recalled Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina of Utah DPS — the crime-scene and evidence supervisor — still under oath from her Day 2 testimony. [The auto-transcript renders the name “Molina” throughout; corrected to Faumuina to match her earlier appearance.]
Sgt. FaumuinaI was assigned about 1:30 p.m. on September 10th from our headquarters office in Salt Lake and went directly to campus, arriving near the south end amid police from various agencies. I was sent to the incident command post in the Fulton building. My primary assignment was to oversee the crime scenes and the physical evidence — but the campus first had to be secured and cleared of any active shooter.
Sgt. FaumuinaSeveral areas were processed: the courtyard, or amphitheater, where the event took place; the Losee Center rooftop and the ground below; the Fulton Library; and a wooded area. Our state crime lab processed the rooftop — documentation, sketching, photographs, marking and packaging evidence.
Sgt. FaumuinaOn the roof they found a screwdriver and what we believe was the shooter’s perch — at night, under blue/ALS lighting, we could see disturbances in the gravel. On the northeast edge there were swipes — hand marks or marks left by some disturbance — and below, on a glass window of the Losee Center, latent prints. Shoe impressions were collected as well.
QDistance from the perch to Mr. Kirk’s tent?
Sgt. FaumuinaApproximately 415 feet along the slope; about 410 feet straight horizontal, with an elevation drop of roughly 68 feet.
The parties read a stipulation into the record: investigators observed latent fingerprints and a palm print on a glass window near where the individual landed after jumping from the Losee Center roof. FBI examiner Elisa Farmer [name per auto-transcript] found only three latents — 11B, 11C, 11D — of comparable value and excluded Tyler Robinson as the source of all three; other prints lacked adequate value; subsequent FBI examinations of the three were inconclusive.
Sgt. FaumuinaThe wooded area is northeast of the Losee Center, across Campus Drive. About 6 p.m. I got a call from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office — they’d been searching there based on UVU security footage showing the suspect run from the roof’s northeast corner, jump down, and cross Campus Drive into that area. They found a gun. I asked them to hold the scene, and the FBI Evidence Response Team, with special agent Michelle Mack, and I responded.
Sgt. FaumuinaWhat we saw was a rifle wrapped in a dark towel in the bushes (Ex. 10, 10.1). It was photographed, then agent Mack removed it and we placed it on a cardboard box — still wrapped — to document how it was found (10.2), then removed the towel and rendered it safe (10.3).
Sgt. FaumuinaIt’s a bolt-action .30-06 rifle. To make it safe we worked the bolt back: in the chamber was one fired cartridge case, and we found three unfired cartridges — all with engravings on them.
The engraved rounds and the head stamp· direct (McBride) · Ex. 19–20.2
Ex. 19, 20, 20.1 and 20.2 — photographs of the fired case and the three unfired cartridges — were admitted over the standing objection and published at all levels. Faumuina read the markings into the record. Several are garbled in the auto-transcript and are flagged; the head stamp reads “Remington .30-06 Springfield.”
QReading the engravings, please.
Sgt. FaumuinaEx. 19 (the fired case): “notices bulge” · “OwO once[?] · a third line [garbled]. Ex. 20: “hey fascist” with arrow symbols — up, right, down, down, down. Ex. 20.1: “O bella ciao” · “bitch[?]. Ex. 20.2: further lines the auto-transcript could not resolve [garbled — verify against the exhibit] · “LML.”
These are the engravings as read from the exhibits in open court; the auto-transcript mangles several. They should be conformed to the exhibit images / the charging Information before any are quoted as citation-grade.
The St. George searches — the Dremel, the casings, the targets, the burnt note· direct (McBride) · Ex. 20.3–20.5
Sgt. FaumuinaAfter the campus scenes I went to St. George and oversaw the search warrants — Mr. Robinson’s residence and his parents’ residence. He was arrested; his clothing was collected, and buccal DNA and major-case prints were taken later at the jail.
Sgt. FaumuinaFrom the townhome: a Dremel-type rotary tool and a bits container, boxes of .30-06 ammunition and some .30-06 cartridge cases, long guns and a revolver, a burnt paper, and clothing and shoes — two pairs, a grey pair with white laces about size 10½, and grey Converse with different laces and size.
Sgt. FaumuinaIn the spare bedroom next to Tyler’s — identified as connected to him by mail and school documents — on top of a safe were five .30-06 casings, one engraved “test shot” (Ex. 20.3). In the closet, shooting targets with perforations consistent with bullet holes (Ex. 20.5) and a Dremel tool with bits. In the kitchen trash, a burnt note (Ex. 20.4), photographed and sent to the FBI. The parents’ grey Dodge Challenger was collected.
Ex. 20.3 and 20.5 were admitted and published at all levels; a foundation objection to characterizing the target holes as “perforations” was sustained, then cured. Ex. 20.4 (the burnt note) was admitted; the court allowed it to be shown side-by-side with the 16.3 note image in the courtroom only, not broadcast.
The forensic reports — DNA and toolmarks· direct (McBride) · Ex. 3, 30, 30.2, 30.3, 30.4
Through Faumuina the State moved in the ATF laboratory reports. Each keys its findings to exhibit numbers listed on its first page. All were admitted over the standing objection; publication levels as noted.
Sgt. FaumuinaEx. 3 — DNA on the rifle and cartridges. For swab after swab — the grips and bolt, the butt plate, the trigger and guard, the forend, the barrel, and a chambered .30-06 cartridge — the report reads that the profiles are “at least one trillion times more likely” to have originated from Tyler Robinson (as a major contributor) than from unrelated unknown individuals.
Sgt. FaumuinaEx. 30 — the firearm report: the rifle was test-fired and found operable; the fired cartridge case was identified as having been fired in the rifle; the cartridge cases and cartridges bore toolmarks consistent with engraving / rotary-cutting tips of a handheld rotary tool. Ex. 30.2 — the bullet-jacket fragment recovered from Mr. Kirk at autopsy: the comparison to the rifle was inconclusive; the lead fragments were unsuitable.
Sgt. FaumuinaEx. 30.3 — DNA on the Dremel, its bits, and the home casings: again Robinson a major contributor “at least one trillion times” more likely, including on the “test shot” casing. Ex. 30.4 — toolmarks: the engraving cutter (Ex. 15a) was identified as having made the marks on the fired case, the three cartridges, and the “test shot” casing; and the home casings were identified as fired in the rifle.
The State briefly published Ex. 11.4 (the non-zoomed surveillance video) through the witness: Faumuina testified that clearer footage obtained directly from UVU let investigators determine the suspect did not touch the glass window on the drop.
Faumuina — cross, and the State rests· cross (Burt) · recording part 2
QYou were the manager of the whole operation, coordinating multiple agencies beyond the FBI; the compiled report runs about 229 pages, and you authored roughly nine of its component reports?
Sgt. FaumuinaYes — I consult with the case agents, and I authored several of the reports within the larger body.
QYour September 24th report requested a NIBIN search — the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, run by ATF. Nothing of value came of it?
Sgt. FaumuinaCorrect.
QItems at the Fulton Library bus stops — a backpack, a jacket, gloves — were seized as suspicious and sent to the FBI lab, and later determined not connected to this case?
Sgt. FaumuinaThat’s right — some lab reports list those items, but they were ultimately determined not related.
QWhen you said “we seized the towel,” the person who reached into the bushes and pulled it out was FBI special agent Michelle Mack — you were present, communicating, but she recovered it?
Sgt. FaumuinaYes. The rifle stayed wrapped in the towel until we documented it on the box, then the towel was removed.
QThe screwdriver on the roof was seized by the state crime-lab CSI team, not you; and the agency has been monitoring Mr. Robinson’s jail mail and communications — you’re not abreast of whether anything of value came of it?
Sgt. FaumuinaCorrect on both.
On redirect the sergeant was excused. The State confirmed with the clerk that all of its offered exhibits had been admitted, then — “the State rests its case-in-chief” — rested. Burt asked the court to reconsider showing the family the enhanced video (Ex. 11.1) in the courtroom; Graf reserved it, noting a time-limited defense witness had to be taken first.
Defense case — the ATF examiner: an inconclusive bullet, and PCAST· direct/cross · Burt & McBride
The defense called an ATF firearms & toolmark examiner from the bureau’s Forensic Science Laboratory [name ASR-garbled — “Carter” / “Garner”], the author of the inconclusive bullet report (Ex. 30.2). Burt’s examination was a reliability attack; McBride objected repeatedly and the court held the line at probable cause.
ATF examinerFor this submission I received a fired cartridge case, three cartridges, one bullet-jacket fragment, and four lead fragments. I test-fired the rifle and compared the case and the jacket fragment. My conclusion on the Ex. 6a jacket fragment: it cannot be identified or excluded as fired from the rifle — there was neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement of individual characteristics. The result was inconclusive. The four lead fragments were unsuitable for comparison.
ATF examinerMy work follows the AFTE theory of identification and the DOJ’s Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports — I do not assert uniqueness, individualization, a zero error rate, or a numerical probability. “Sufficient agreement” is, as the theory states, a subjective judgment, though I’d expect a competent examiner to reach the same conclusion.
QYou’re aware of the criticism — the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report, and the 2016 PCAST report finding that firearms analysis fell short of foundational validity because there was only a single appropriately designed study?
ATF examinerI’m aware of it, and of the recommendations to improve the discipline.
Mr. McBrideObjection — relevance to a probable-cause hearing; this is Rule 702 territory.
The Court (Graf)I’ll allow that this science is challenged — that point is received — but I have to hold to probable cause; I’m not going to re-litigate the field. Ask your question and move on.
QAnd in 2017 PCAST issued an addendum, reaffirming that the black-box studies were still needed and that the field had not met foundational validity?
ATF examinerYes — the 2017 addendum reiterated their view that properly designed black-box studies are the way to test the science.
QYou’ve taken one bullet-comparison proficiency test, in about 2023, with a high error rate — item error rates around 18 to 20 percent — where the ground truth was exclusion and you answered inconclusive?
ATF examinerYes. Given the lack of quality and quantity of individual marks, inconclusive was the appropriate answer; anything else would not have been.
QYou agree a forensic discipline with a false-positive rate above five percent is scientifically unreliable for source conclusions?
ATF examinerI’d agree with that statement as to false-positive rate; I don’t treat proficiency tests as validation studies.
On redirect, McBride drew out that the science is routinely admitted in courts across the country, her laboratory is ANAB-accredited and audited, she is AFTE-trained and proficiency-tested, and that AFTE has taken PCAST’s recommendations seriously. A defense question implying the peer-review process “works in secret” — the lab won’t release the verifier’s work product or CV — was sustained as argumentative. The witness was excused.
End of day — bind-over briefing, the family’s viewing, adjournment· scheduling · adjourn to Fri 9:00 a.m.
Ms. NesterWe have just one more witness — fairly short. I anticipate we’ll be done tomorrow, probably by lunch.
StateWe don’t anticipate rebuttal, and we’d be prepared to argue bind-over tomorrow.
Ms. NesterWe’d ask to brief the bind-over — there are complex, multi-count legal issues — and Mr. Robinson will waive his speedy-trial right so we can do it properly.
The Court (Graf)I’ll grant briefing. The State is the moving party. With a transcript expected Monday, the State files by July 28; the defense responds by August 11; the State replies by August 18 — 35, 35, and 18 pages. Oral argument is set for September 1 at 10:00 a.m., in person.
Kirk family counsel (Gray)The family has waited ten months and wants swift justice — as soon as the matter is bound over, set it for trial. We take no position on briefing.
The Court (Graf)On the reserved request: at the close of the defense’s evidence, the enhanced video — Exhibit 11.1, roughly eight minutes — will be played in the courtroom for the family, not broadcast on the camera. The defense’s continuing objection is noted and overruled. We’re in recess until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Day 5 · Friday, July 10, 2026 (final day)

recording · part 1   recording · part 2

Final-day entry. The short closing session, cleaned from Grabien’s same-day auto-transcript; both recording parts cover the same Friday session and are reconciled here. Remaining uncertainties are flagged [?]. Note: the part-2 recording keeps running after the court adjourns, into post-hearing reaction commentary that is not part of the proceeding; that material is omitted from this record.

What happened

The last day opened not with evidence but with a sanctions fight. Novak told the court that Exhibit 16 — the handwritten note (“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it”), which Graf had admitted but ordered not broadcast — had appeared on the livestream the previous afternoon, when it was placed on-screen beside the broadcastable burnt-note photo (Ex. 20.4). The defense called it the second violation of the court’s camera orders and renewed its motion (Docket 305) to bar all electronic media coverage, both for the rest of the hearing and for the Sept 1 argument. “I’m a baseball fan,” Novak said, “and I just don’t think the court needs to wait for the third strike.”

After reviewing the livestream, Graf made findings: Ex. 16, inverted, appeared on all monitors and on the feed for roughly three and a half seconds before the camera operator caught it and panned away; the court then stopped it. He noted the note’s full text was already public — read into open court, partly quoted in the Information, and released in full in a March search warrant. The remedy: he denied reversing the camera authorization, but as a sanction barred the media from capturing or broadcasting any exhibit for the remainder of Friday, reserving the Sept 1 question for a future motion.

Grunander then urged the court to keep the defense’s last witness inside the probable-cause lane, reciting the Utah standard — evidence viewed most favorably to the State, the magistrate barred from weighing credibility or choosing between competing inferences (Schmidt, Hester, Virgin, Lopez) — and flagging a possible standing objection. Burt answered that the State had already waived any standing objection at the pre-hearing conference, and that his aim was narrow: the State had put its DNA reports in through a non-expert and read only selected paragraphs, leaving a misleading impression, so he had brought the report’s author to show its limits.

That witness was Caitlin Oliver, the ATF DNA section chief who authored the reports. On cross she conceded the reach of the science: her lab reports likelihood ratios, not a verbal “strong support” scale, and never asserts source attribution, uniqueness, infallibility, a zero error rate, or reasonable scientific certainty; the “one trillion times” figure is a reporting cap, not the true number; DNA cannot say when or how it was deposited, or by what activity; and degraded, multi-person mixtures (four to five contributors) are harder to resolve. Her sharpest concession for the defense: the elimination samples put Matthew Robinson’s DNA on the rifle and Lance Twiggs’s DNA on the Dremel — consistent with people who lived in or were associated with the home, not with any particular act. She also acknowledged the D3S1358 allele-17 sub-variants that only sequencing (NGS) can distinguish — testing she did not perform — though Graf sustained the State’s relevance objections there as beyond probable cause.

On redirect, McBride restored the counterweight: the lab is accredited (ISO 17025 plus FBI standards), the methodology validated and accepted by courts nationwide, and the reports place Robinson as a major contributor “at least one trillion times” more likely on the rifle’s grips, bolt, trigger, barrel, and cartridges.

With that, the defense rested. The State offered no rebuttal. On counsel’s advice, Robinson declined to testify, nodding his assent for the record. Graf then let the family view the enhanced ~8-minute surveillance video (Ex. 11.1) in the courtroom — livestream cut to audio-only during it, no still capture — the least-restrictive way to honor the victim representative’s access without broadcasting the exhibit. The evidence closed. No probable-cause ruling issued. The bind-over goes to briefing (State July 28, defense Aug 11, reply Aug 18) and oral argument on September 1 at 10 a.m., up to four hours total, with Robinson present. The court adjourned.

Index

Witnesses — Day 5

One witness closed the evidence: the defense’s ATF DNA section chief, called to put limits around the DNA reports the State had introduced through a non-expert.

Caitlin Oliver [first name per auto-transcript]ATF Forensic Science Laboratory · DNA section chief · defense witness · Cross: Burt / Redirect: McBride

Who she is

  • DNA section chief at the ATF laboratory since January; ~9 years with ATF; previously a forensic biologist at the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (New Orleans). Author of the case’s ATF DNA / forensic-biology reports.

The limits of the reports (cross)

  • Her lab reports a likelihood ratio — a number that stands on its own — and does not use a verbal scale (“strong support”), because adding subjective words to “support” is not, in the lab’s view, scientific. Per the DOJ Uniform Language policy, she asserts no source attribution, no uniqueness, no infallibility, no zero error rate, and no “reasonable scientific certainty.”
  • The “one trillion times” value is a reporting cap — the true ratio could be far higher (quintillions, octillions) — chosen because a trillion is meaningful to people. Reading a likelihood-ratio paragraph and then headlining “Robinson’s DNA was found on X” would be a source attribution and, she agreed, not scientifically defensible.
  • DNA cannot speak to activity — not how, when, or by what act it was deposited. Citing the NIST human-factors report, she agreed a profile can appear even where the contributor never touched the item (secondary transfer), and that “major” vs “minor” contributor reflects quantity of DNA, not conduct. Several samples were degraded and were mixtures of four to five people.
  • The defense’s central point: her elimination samples (Amber Robinson, Matthew Robinson, Lance Twiggs) turned up as included possible contributors on evidence items — Matthew Robinson on the rifle (swabs 1.4 and 1.6) and Lance Twiggs on the Dremel buttons — because they were associated with the home, not because they were suspects. She agreed anyone living there could contribute DNA to a household object.
  • She conceded she did not perform next-generation sequencing (NGS); her STRmix length-based analysis cannot distinguish the D3S1358 allele-17 sub-variants (17a/17b/17c) that share a length but differ in sequence. Graf sustained the State’s relevance objections on that line as beyond a probable-cause hearing.

The counterweight (redirect)

  • The lab is accredited (ISO 17025 plus an FBI standard), its methodology validated and accepted by courts across the country, and she is competency- and proficiency-tested. The reports place Robinson as a major contributor “at least one trillion times” more likely on the rifle’s stock/grips, bolt, trigger/guard, forend, barrel, receiver underside, and a chambered .30-06 cartridge case.

Ledger

Exhibit Log — Day 5

A light exhibit day — and under Friday’s sanction, nothing was broadcast. The DNA reports were already in evidence and were re-displayed to the witness; the defense’s reference documents were shown to the witness only.

Ex.ItemObjection → RulingStatus
30 / 30.4ATF DNA / forensic-biology reportsPreviously admitted; re-displayed to the witness for the cross on the reports’ limits— (already admitted)ADMITTEDCOURTNO BROADCAST
Def.Defense reference documents through OliverDOJ Uniform Language (DNA) policy, the NIST “Forensic DNA Interpretation and Human Factors” report, her case notes, allele tables, and lab SOP — exhibit numbers ASR-garbled [?]Shown to lay foundationWITNESS ONLY
11.1Enhanced surveillance video (~8 min)Played in the courtroom for the family; livestream cut to audio-only; no still/video capture of the monitorsDefense continuing objection → OverruledCOURTAUDIO ONLY

Bench

Rulings — Day 5

Camera sanction — no exhibit broadcast for the rest of the day

Graf found that his order barring broadcast of Exhibit 16 (the note) was violated when the exhibit appeared, inverted, on the livestream for ~3.5 seconds on Day 4. He denied the defense’s motion (Docket 305) to reverse the authorization for cameras, but as a sanction ordered that the media “shall no longer capture or broadcast any exhibits” for the remainder of Friday’s proceedings — proportional to the violation. The court reserved the question of cameras at the Sept 1 argument, there being no request yet before it.

Graf, J. · second such violation noted · note text already public via the Information and a March search warrant

Ex. 11.1 for the family — livestream to audio-only

Redrawing his prior ruling in light of the sanction, Graf ordered the enhanced ~8-minute video played in the courtroom for all present, including the victim representative, with the livestream limited to audio-only while it ran and no still capture of the monitors — the least-restrictive means of honoring the family’s access without transmitting the exhibit.

Graf, J. · Utah Const. art. I, §28

Scope held to probable cause; sequencing line cut off

Grunander recited the Utah probable-cause standard — the magistrate views the evidence most favorably to the State and may not weigh credibility or choose among competing inferences (Schmidt, Hester, Virgin, Lopez) — and Burt answered that the State had waived any standing objection. Graf held the line, sustaining several relevance objections during Oliver’s cross, particularly the next-generation-sequencing questions, as beyond a probable-cause hearing.

Graf, J. · reliability goes to weight, reserved for trial

Evidence closed — bind-over argument set for September 1

The defense rested; the State offered no rebuttal; and, on counsel’s advice, Robinson elected not to testify (nodding for the record). With the evidence closed and no probable-cause ruling issued, the hearing was continued to September 1 at 10:00 a.m., in person, for up to four hours of argument, with Robinson present. The briefing schedule set on Day 4 (State Jul 28 · defense Aug 11 · reply Aug 18) stands.

Graf, J. · preliminary hearing adjourned

Record

Cleaned Transcript — Day 5

The broadcast violation — the defense asks for a sanction· Novak / State / media
Before any witness, Novak raised that Exhibit 16 (the note), which the court had admitted but ordered not broadcast, had appeared on the livestream the previous afternoon while it was placed beside the broadcastable burnt-note photo (Ex. 20.4).
Mr. NovakEvery morning this court has a colloquy with the camera operators, and they acknowledge they understand the order and will comply. We spent many, many hours addressing which exhibits would not be published through the electronic media. This exhibit the court ordered would not be — and it was. No doubt the state and the media will say it was a very brief mistake, corrected as soon as they realized it. But it’s done, it’s out there, it’s photographed. It doesn’t matter how long the order was violated when we live in an electronic world — it’s permanent. The order was specifically designed to protect Mr. Robinson’s right to a fair trial.
The Court (Graf)What is the requested remedy or sanction?
Mr. NovakWe will renew our request to exclude all electronic media coverage from all future proceedings — Docket 305 — video, still photography, and audio. This is the second time the court’s orders on the scope of coverage have been violated. I’m a baseball fan; I don’t think the court needs to wait for the third strike. Two strikes is enough. The alternative, less-desirable remedy is to reverse the authorization for today and preclude coverage of the last day, September 1.
Mr. BallardEveryone is doing their best. On review of the video, the exhibit was captured for about two seconds; the camera operator panned off as soon as the new exhibit appeared, and the court took it down. This exhibit was read into the record, part of it is in the Information, and it is largely cumulative of Exhibit 16.1, already admitted and broadcast.
Media counselThe camera operator beat almost everyone to it and moved away within seconds. I’ll note the full text of this exhibit was released in full on page seven of a search warrant made public in March. That doesn’t mean anyone gets to disregard the court’s order — if the court says don’t show it, that order should be adhered to — but for prejudice, the content is already in the public sphere. The media coalition is fully bought in on making sure this doesn’t happen.
The court’s findings and the sanction· ruling (Graf)
The Court (Graf)Exhibit 20.4 was displayed on the monitor visible to the media camera; Exhibit 16, inverted, was displayed on all monitors and appeared on the livestream for approximately three and a half seconds. The camera operator redirected the camera before any party called attention to it; about sixteen seconds later the court observed the image and said, “let me stop you — is this being broadcast,” and Mr. McBride said, “let’s take that down.” The full text had previously been made public through a search warrant available on or before April 2026; the portion displayed was about seventy-eight words, roughly fifteen of them in the Information; and the full note was read into the record.
The Court (Graf)The court finds its order prohibiting broadcast of Exhibit 16 was violated. The request to reverse the ruling on Motion 305 is denied. The alternative request is granted in part: effective immediately, members of the media shall no longer capture or broadcast any exhibits displayed during today’s proceedings. That sanction is proportional to the violation. The court reserves the question as to September 1 — there is no request before it, and it won’t issue a pre-ruling.
“Take time to save time” — the probable-cause reminder· Grunander / Burt
Mr. GrunanderYou said the other day, “sometimes you need to take time to save time.” We’ve spent the better part of a day on defense witnesses. This is a probable-cause hearing. The court has already found the admitted evidence reliable as a gatekeeper; further questions of reliability are really questions of credibility and weight, which this court does not engage at this standard. The magistrate views the evidence most favorably to the prosecution and may not choose between competing inferences — Schmidt, Hester, Virgin, Lopez. We may lodge a standing relevance objection if the testimony exceeds the scope.
Mr. BurtThe state waived any standing objection at the pre-hearing conference — that’s why we flew these witnesses in. My purpose is narrow: the state put its DNA reports in through a non-expert and read only selected paragraphs, leaving a misleading impression of their significance. I’ve brought the author to show the court the reports’ limitations. I hope to be done by noon.
Oliver — the limits of the DNA reports· cross (Burt)
QYour agency has five conclusions — exclusion, limited support for exclusion, uninformative, limited support for inclusion, support for inclusion — and you don’t use qualifiers like “strong.” Why?
Ms. OliverOur laboratory doesn’t use a verbal scale. Adding subjective words to “support” isn’t our practice; the likelihood ratio — the number — stands on its own, so we report the ratio and either support for inclusion or support for exclusion.
QPer the DOJ uniform-language policy, your reports don’t assert infallibility, a zero error rate, absolute identification or source attribution, or reasonable scientific certainty?
Ms. OliverCorrect. With forensic evidence you can’t state anything with one hundred percent certainty — that’s why we report a likelihood ratio, to speak to that uncertainty with a statistic.
QYou cap the likelihood ratio at one trillion — the actual number could be far higher?
Ms. OliverYes, it’s a reporting cap. It could be quintillions or octillions; we chose a trillion because it has meaning to people.
QAnd “major contributor” speaks only to the quantity of DNA — not to any activity, or how or when it was deposited?
Ms. OliverCorrect. None of my testing can speak to the activity that led to the deposition of the DNA. A profile can even be developed where the contributor never touched the item — secondary transfer — and a person’s DNA can be present when they weren’t involved. Some of these samples were degraded, and many were mixtures of four or five people.
The elimination samples — the father’s DNA on the rifle, the roommate’s on the Dremel· cross (Burt)
QYou requested elimination samples from people associated with the home — Amber Robinson, Matthew Robinson, Lance Twiggs — and compared them to the evidence. For swab 1.4, from the rifle, you found support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson?
Ms. OliverThere is support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson on the sample from the swabs of the rifle — as a possible contributor, with a likelihood ratio, not because he’s a suspect but because he’s associated with the premises.
QAnd on swab 1.6, again Matthew Robinson; and on the buttons of the Dremel tool, support for inclusion of Lance Twiggs?
Ms. OliverCorrect. It’s reasonable that anyone living in the household could contribute DNA to an object found in that household.
Burt turned to the D3S1358 allele-17 sub-variants (17a/17b/17c) — same length, different sequence — that only next-generation sequencing can distinguish, and which Oliver’s length-based STRmix analysis did not. The State objected on relevance; the court, holding the cross to probable cause, sustained the objections, since the witness did not perform sequencing.
QAs the number of contributors in a mixture increases, the difficulty of sorting it out increases — and your SOP notes that roughly seventy percent of four-person mixtures can present as two- or three-person mixtures on allele count alone?
Ms. OliverIt’s possible — I use my training and experience to determine the number of contributors. The likelihood ratio speaks to the weight of the evidence and isn’t directly tied to the contributor count.
Mr. McBrideThat the difficulty increases with more contributors is well understood, but it’s a weight question for a jury — not for probable cause.
Oliver — redirect: accreditation and the one-trillion findings· redirect (McBride)
QYour lab is accredited?
Ms. OliverYes — a voluntary process where an external body audits us to two standards: ISO 17025 for testing laboratories, and an FBI standard for the DNA section. Accreditation requires validated methodology and competency and proficiency testing, which I satisfy.
QAnd the methodology has been accepted by courts across the country?
Ms. OliverCorrect.
QWhere did you find evidentiary support for including Tyler Robinson on the firearm?
Ms. OliverOn the stock and grips, the butt plate, the trigger and trigger guard, the bolt, the forend, the barrel, the receiver underside after disassembly, and the .30-06 cartridge case and cartridges. For the trigger/guard and other items the DNA profile is at least one trillion times more likely if it originated from Tyler Robinson as a major contributor than from unrelated unknown individuals — and the probability of an unrelated individual yielding that support is less than one in a trillion.
QBut the one-trillion cap, the inability to state a source, when or how the DNA was deposited, or a zero error rate — all the limitations we discussed — still apply?
Ms. OliverCorrect — that’s why we report the likelihood ratio and address the uncertainty that way.
The defense rests — the family’s viewing, and the continuance· adjourn to Sept 1
The witness was excused and the defense rested. The State confirmed it had no rebuttal.
Ms. VisserWe’ve advised Mr. Robinson of his right to testify at this hearing, and he is choosing to take our advice and not testify.
The Court (Graf)The record reflects Mr. Robinson nodding in the affirmative. On the reserved matter: in light of this morning’s sanction, the court redraws yesterday’s ruling. Exhibit 11.1 may be viewed by all present, including the victim representative; the livestream will be limited to audio-only while it is displayed, with no still capture — the least-restrictive means of honoring the request without transmitting the exhibit.
The camera operator switched the feed to audio-only; the enhanced video was played in the courtroom; the feed then resumed.
The Court (Graf)This preliminary hearing is continued to September 1 at 10:00 a.m. for an in-person hearing, with up to four hours total for argument. The defense requests Mr. Robinson be present, and he will be. I appreciate the professionalism, civility, and respect shown by counsel and all present. This proceeding is adjourned until September 1.

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. Two Utah County Attorney press releases are included as official statements — flagged as such, and not court filings.

Sep 10 2025Statement
Utah County Attorney — Statement After the Shooting
StatePress release

The office’s first public statement following the Sept 10 shooting — its initial official framing of the case, issued the day of the killing. Official DA statement — not a court filing.

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.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Probable Cause Statement (Agent Davis)
StatePC statement

The standalone sworn probable-cause affidavit by SBI Agent Brian Davis supporting the initial arrest charges — the rooftop surveillance track, the towel-wrapped Mauser .30-06 and its engraved casings, DNA on the trigger, and the roommate message thread. Distinct from the probable-cause statement embedded in the Information.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Public Safety Assessment
Pretrial servicesScreening

Routine pretrial-services risk screen. Its "no elevated risk of violence" flag keys on an empty prior-record sheet — a scoring artifact, not a judgment about the offense, and not to be read as a risk finding on a capital defendant.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Bail Order
CourtHeld without bail

Orders Robinson held without bail on the capital charge. Signer/date to be confirmed against the order itself; the court register logs this as filed Sep 16.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty
StateCapital notice

The State’s formal notice that it will seek the death penalty — what makes Count 1 a capital prosecution and drives the heightened decorum, media, and closure fights that follow. Logged in the register; full text not yet hosted.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Pretrial Protective Order (proposed + entered)
CourtEntered

Protective order shielding the victim’s family (Erika Kirk). Proposed and entered the same day.

Sep 16 2025Filed
Request for Designation of Victim Representative
VictimFiled

Victim’s counsel (Neiman / Moss) asking that Erika Kirk be designated to represent the deceased victim, Charles James Kirk, under §77-38-9(2).

Sep 22 2025Statement
Utah County Attorney — Trial-Team Announcement
StatePress release

The office’s Sept 22 statement naming the prosecution trial team — Gray, Grunander, McBride, Hunt, Sturgill, and Ballard. Official DA statement — not a court filing.

Sep 22 2025Filed
Protection Order re Pre-Trial & Trial Publicity (“#23”)
CourtPublicity order

The publicity order (internal #23) governing extrajudicial statements — the order the State later moved to amend/clarify and the media repeatedly litigated. Full text not yet hosted.

Sep 24 2025Filed
Order to Transport
CourtFiled

Transport order tied to the Sep 29 waiver hearing.

Oct 8 2025Filed
Request for Copy of Audio Recording (completed)
DefenseRoutine

Routine defense request for a copy of a hearing audio recording. Low-value housekeeping — cuttable if the docket runs long.

Oct 8 2025Filed
Motion to Preserve Evidence (+ proposed order)
DefenseOpens saga

Defense moves to preserve all evidence and to require notice before any potentially destructive testing — opening the preserve-evidence saga that resolves in the Nov 4 stipulated order and governs the later ATF/ballistics dispute.

Oct 13 2025Filed
Stipulated Discovery Protective Order (motion)
StateStipulated

Stipulated Rule 16(d) order protecting witness PII in discovery — part of the witness-safety architecture the February closure proffer later leans on.

Oct 20 2025Filed
Order Granting Motion to Preserve Evidence
CourtGranted → later set aside

The court’s Oct 20 grant of the preserve-evidence motion — set aside two weeks later by the Nov 4 stipulated order. The last dangling reference in the preserve-evidence saga; full text not yet hosted.

Oct 21 2025Filed
Motion to Strike the Sheriff’s Response
DefenseFiled

Defense moves to strike the Sheriff’s response as a non-party filing — the UCAO’s Civil Division had answered “for the State,” a role-conflation beat that rhymes with the disqualification fight.

Oct 22 2025Filed
Motion to Set Aside the Oct 20 Preserve Order (+ Response)
StateFiled

State agrees to preserve material evidence but resists a blanket “preserve all” order and notice-before-testing, citing the Trombetta/Youngblood line and the routine release of items like a vehicle.

Oct 27 2025Filed
Notice of Open-File Policy & Invitation to Inspect
StateFiled

State notices an open-file discovery posture and invites inspection of the physical evidence.

Oct 27 2025Court
Ruling & Order — Strike / Civilian Clothing / Restraints / Decorum
CourtStrike yes · clothing yes · unrestrained no

Graf grants the motion to strike (Sheriff non-party), grants civilian clothing for pretrial hearings, denies appearing unrestrained (Rule 3-414(9)(C)), and amends the decorum order to bar media from filming restraints or Robinson entering and exiting. The origin of the courtroom-imagery limits and forerunner of the January cameras fight.

Nov 3 2025Filed
Stipulated Motion to Order & Classify the Oct 24 Transcript
DefenseStipulated

Stipulated motion to order the Oct 24 sealed-hearing transcript and classify the transcript and audio as private.

Nov 4 2025Court
Stipulated Order — Set Aside Oct 20 + Grant-in-Part Preserve Evidence
CourtStipulated compromise

Sets aside the premature Oct 20 grant and grants preservation in part on a stipulated compromise: preserve all evidence, but an item may be released on 14-day notice, and the office must notify the defense 14 days before potentially destructive testing (likely to consume an item or change its character). The regime the later ATF/ballistics fight is measured against.

Nov 10 2025Filed
Response to the Media Coalition’s Notice Request
DefenseFiled

Defense answers a Deseret News-led media coalition; it doesn’t object to legally required notice but calls the demand overbroad and presses fair-trial-over-access in a capital case. Foundation of the media-access fight running through the January cameras ruling.

Dec 5 2025Filed
UOVC Restitution Notice — Claim #1113665
VictimRestitution notice

Utah Office for Victims of Crime restitution/subrogation notice. It names statutory victims beyond Kirk, consistent with the felony-discharge and violent-offense-in-presence-of-a-child counts; the filing redacts non-Kirk individuals to initials, mirrored here. Additional victim detail held pending publish-judgment.

Dec 8 2025Filed
Response re Media Intervention (Deseret News et al.)
DefenseFiled

Defense response in the media-intervenors thread (Deseret News-led coalition) over access to and classification of case records.

Dec 15 2025Court
Ruling & Order Granting the State’s Motion to Clarify the Publicity Order
CourtGranted

Graf grants the State’s motion to clarify the pre-trial/trial publicity order (#23) as it applies to witnesses and extrajudicial statements.

Dec 17 2025Filed
Motion to Disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office (public version)
DefenseDenied Feb 24

The public version of the defense motion to disqualify the UCAO for conflict of interest — the anchor of the disqualification subplot (a prosecutor’s child at the UVU event; an undisclosed ward connection that later surfaces under oath; the §17-68-304 AG-referral gambit). Denied Feb 24, 2026.

Jan 2 2026Court
Utah Supreme Court — Order Denying Interlocutory Appeal
CourtAppeal denied

The Utah Supreme Court denies the defense petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order, sending the disputed questions back to the district court.

Jan 5 2026Filed
State’s Opposition to the Motion to Disqualify
StateFiled

State opposes disqualification; it keeps the deputy/child identity redacted and flags the “chief deputy’s daughter” reporting as unconfirmed.

Jan 8 2026Filed
Defense Partial Reply on Disqualification (+ request to take evidence)
DefenseFiled

Defense partial reply requesting that the court take evidence at a hearing on the disqualification question.

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 12 2026Filed
Subpoena for Sgt. David Hull
DefenseFiled

Defense subpoena for the lead case agent, Sgt. David Hull.

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.

Jan 16 2026Filed
Victim Representative’s Invocation of the Speedy-Trial Act
VictimFiled

Erika Kirk’s representative invokes the victims’ speedy-trial provisions. Logged in the register; full text not yet hosted.

Jan 27 2026Filed
Objection to the State’s Proposed Exhibit 4.1
DefenseFiled

Defense objects to the State’s proposed Exhibit 4.1 (the Engelhardt statement) on relevance, opinion, and prejudice grounds — the religion-vs-political-expression fight over the victim-targeting enhancement. Full text not yet hosted.

Jan 30 2026Filed
Renewed Request to Refer Disqualification to the AG (§17-68-304)
DefenseDenied Feb 3

Defense renews its request that the court refer the disqualification question to the Utah Attorney General under §17-68-304.

Jan 30 2026Filed
State’s Opposition to Classifying the Cameras Motion Private
StateFiled

State opposes the defense bid to classify the camera-exclusion motion as a private record.

Jan 30 2026Filed
State Memo Opposing Camera Exclusion — Attachment A
StateExhibit

Attachment A to the State’s opposition: the UCAO’s internal media-statements guidance directing staff to cease public statements about the case.

Feb 2 2026Filed
State’s Opposition to the Renewed AG Referral
StateFiled

State argues the statute gives the court no power to hand the case to the AG, that no threshold conflict exists, and that the motion is a delay tactic; it rebuts the defense’s “Mike Lee footnote.”

Feb 2 2026Filed
Proffer to Close Portions of the Evidentiary Hearing
StateWitness-safety

Witness-safety proffer to close the courtroom for testimony from “Prosecutor A” and an “Adult Child.” It recites a separate defendant who targeted a prosecutor for doxing and tried to recruit online supporters, with witnesses relocating and scrubbing accounts.

Feb 3 2026Court
Minute Order — Disqualification Evidentiary Hearing
CourtReconsider & AG-referral denied

Graf denies both reconsideration and the AG-referral from the bench. Testimony from Jeff Gray, a partially-closed witness (H.G.), Chad Grunander, and Sgt. David Hull; the disqualification motion taken under advisement, with a Feb 24 oral ruling set. Court reporter Phoebe Morehead.

Feb 24 2026Court
Ruling & Order Denying the Motion to Disqualify the UCAO
CourtDenied

The court’s ruling denying the motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office — the disposition of the disqualification subplot. Full text not yet hosted.

Mar 11 2026Filed
UOVC Restitution Notice — Claim #1113572
VictimRestitution notice

A second Utah Office for Victims of Crime restitution/subrogation notice, distinct from the December claim; it likely names additional statutory victims. Same initials-only handling applies. Sensitive — held pending publish-judgment; full text not yet hosted.

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.

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.

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.