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