Charlie Kirk Murder Case Showdown Comes to a Head!

Your honor, on September 10th of 2025, the defendant, this man, Tyler James. Robinson, shot and killed Charlie Kirk. because he disagreed with him. >> There is zero evidence that there was. any action taken towards other people. Zero evidence. >> The prosecution and defense battled it. out in a Utah courtroom today, arguing. whether Charlie Kirk's accused [music]. killer, Tyler Robinson, should face. trial. a trial in which he [music] would. face an aggravated murder charge.

carrying the possibility of the death. [music] penalty. We are recapping all of. the major moments, the arguments from a. hearing that could decide the fate of. this alleged shooter. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. Is Tyler [music] Robinson, the. defendant, the man accused of murdering. political activist Charlie Kirk, going. to be ordered to stand trial for. aggravated murder? That is what happened.

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

looming. Now, prosecutors alleged that. Robinson shot Kirk in the neck back on. September 10th, 2025. that this was. during a rally at Utah Valley University. attended by thousands of people, including children. They claim they can. prove their case through a combination. of allegedly incriminating messages, DNA. evidence, surveillance footage, interviews, a recovered rifle at the. scene. He is facing charges of. aggravated murder, felony discharge of a. firearm, causing serious bodily injury,

obstruction of justice, tampering with a. witness, committing a violent offense in. the presence of a child. And today, District Judge Tony Graph Jr. heard the. arguments regarding all of these. charges, but really the one you have to. pay attention to more than anyone is the. aggravated murder charge, right? That's. significant that carries the death. penalty. And this is all important. because this would determine whether. Robinson ultimately enters a plea in. this case and an arraignment. And one of. the big aggravating factors that you're. going to hear about, okay, when we talk. about the murder is whether or not. Robinson allegedly created a great risk.

of death to another individual other. than Charlie Kirk. That is going to be. the key question about this alleged. shooting. So, let's get into what. happened today. Actually, I'll tell you. while we were waiting for the hearing to. go live. First, we saw this report from. CNN that Judge Graph held a sealed. hearing regarding allowing cameras in. the courtroom. Okay? When they came back. into the courtroom, that took up a big. part of the morning. So, the judge. talked about media coverage, what can be. seen, how the proceedings will be. recorded, what will be recorded, and the.

court ended up denying a request from. the defense to classify certain. information in this case to keep it away. from the public and the media. This is a. question about balancing transparency. versus the defendants's constitutional. rights. And one of the things the judge. even mentioned is how prominent the. public profile of both the victim and. the defendant are in this case. A lot of. publicity even mentioned how there were. these allegations of poly market these. bets these trades happening on poly. market on whether or not Tyler Robinson.

would be convicted. Okay. So we put that. to the side. Let's get into the. substance. Now before we even get into. the closing arguments here got to let. you know this is a big case that we've. been following here on sidebar. cover a. lot of big cases on the sidebar. We're. kind of limited in how much we can. always show you on a, you know, 20 30. minute episode, but we got the case file. section on the Long Crime Plus app. So, what's that? This is basically us. opening up the evidence vault, so you. can inspect the raw body cam footage, the 911 calls, the crime scene photos, the full trial tapes firsthand on all.

these big cases. Plus, by the way, you. get adree streaming of all your favorite. law and crime and court TV shows. And by. the way, through September 7th, we got a. special Labor Day offer for you. Use my. promo code sidebar, you'll get your. first 30 days of Long Crime Plus free. Yeah, the offer ends September 7th. So, head on over to Long Crime Plus. Use. code sidebar. Okay, so here is Deputy. Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride. arguing why the evidence supports. Robinson is the shooter.

>> Turning to count one, starting with uh. aggravated murder. We know that the. defendant, Tyler James Robinson, is the. shooter. There is a mountain of evidence. that proves that he is the shooter. As I. look at the evidence, I see four. categories of evidence that prove that. the defendant, Tyler Robinson, is the. man who shot Charlie Kirk. In any case, any one of those four. categories of evidence would provide.

evidence prob certainly probable cause. and possibly proof beyond a reasonable. doubt that the defendant is the man who. shot Charlie Kirk. And in this case, we. have all four categories of evidence. First, we know that the defendant is the. shooter because we have video evidence. The defendant then returned at 11:54. a.m. This time dressed to kill, black. shirt, long pants to obscure the rifle. he had concealed down his pants. Um, and. he made his way through campus, the same.

route of ingress into campus that he had. taken during his second scouting. mission, coming through the north. parking lot, making his way through that. tunnel and then going up the stairs. We. know that he then made his way and he's. recorded on camera making his way up to. the Los Cy center roof where he comes to. the railing, does a Fazbury flop over. the railing and is out of the camera. camera view for about 5 minutes. That. time period, he removes the rifle from. his pants. uh uses the screwdriver that.

he left behind with his DNA on it to. reassemble a portion of that rifle and. then he made his way to the edge of the. Losi center roof. There he laid down in a prone position. and he would have seen this mass of. people of 3,000 plus people there for. the event. Took aim, put his crosshairs. on Charlie Kirk and fired at 123 and 28. seconds. We know that's the moment that he fired. because several different cameras record.

the the bullet striking Charlie Kirk at. that moment. From the autopsy, we know. that that bullet entered Charlie Kirk. slightly downhill, slightly at a. downward angle, slightly left to right, consistent with the vantage point that. the defendant had on the Losi center. rooftop. The bullet [clears throat] struck. Charlie Kirk's spine and fragmented, killing him. As we know from the medical. examiner's report, we know that the. defendant is the shooter first because. of all the video evidence. Second, we know the defendant is the.

shooter because of the DNA evidence. The. defendant's DNA was found all over that. gun. It was on the scope, the grips, the. stock, and even the trigger. It was on. the cartridge cases found within the. gun. And make no mistake, your honor, this. was the murder weapon. This was the. rifle that killed Charlie Kirk. We know. that because it was found in the woods, right to the area where that shooter ran. after taking the shot and dropping off.

of the Losi Center. We know it because. that rifle contained four rounds in it. Only one had been spent. Only one had. been fired, consistent with what we know. happened. at the amphitheater. A single shot was. fired. In addition to the classic. circumstantial evidence of motive, means, and opportunity, there's. significant other evidence. For example, um. the rifle had four rounds in it. Those. those rounds had some very weird.

etchings. Those etchings were consistent. with another round that was found in the. defendant's apartment, right? And that. round, the evidence was had an etching. in it that said test shot. Police also found the very Dremel tool. that they were able to determine through. tool marks analysis that etched those. rounds found in the gun. And finally, when it comes to. circumstantial evidence, after the. images of the shooter had been. published, the defendant turned himself. in.

Your honor, as to identity, there is a. mountain of evidence here. The evidence. is overwhelming. Any one of these four categories I've. talked about is adequate. certainly for. probable cause and likely for proof. beyond a reasonable doubt. And when. determining probable cause, the law is. very clear on this. There are very few. standards in the law that are more. clear. Frankly, you view all you are required as the. magistrate to view all evidence in the. light most favorable to the state.

This court is required to draw all. inferences in the state's favor. I know you know that, judge. I know that. you handle uh multiple preliminary. hearings every single week. None of. these standards is new to you, but I. emphasize those because defense council. has cited to an an antiquated old. standard that has been explicitly. overruled in the case law, which is that. drawing inferences is no more than. speculation. >> So, that's really the crux of the main. argument, timeline, evidence, and.

remember the standard here. This is not. about proving to the court at this time, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No, it's about is there sufficient evidence, sufficient probable cause to support the. charges. It is a much lower standard, much lower threshold. Okay, real quick. before we jump any further, this is so. important. So, the Medicare annual. enrollment period is right around the. corner. And if you or someone you love. is on Medicare, you really need to pay. attention because look, the truth is. Medicare can be really frustrating and. honestly pretty confusing, right?

Millions of seniors are on the wrong. Medicare plan. They don't even know it. I constantly hear about people who are. struggling to figure this out, who don't. even know they can compare plans. That's. why I want to tell you about Chapter. because Chapter helps you understand. your options and find the plan that best. fits your needs. They have unbiased. independent Medicare advisors who are. salary based. They're not paid on. commission. So, they're not trying to. sell you something. There's no pressure. to enroll in anything. The call is. completely free. If you're already on. the right plan, they're going to tell. you, but if there's a better option for. your situation, they'll help you switch.

Most people, they can review their. options in under 20 minutes. And. historically, seniors who have worked. with Chapter have saved an average of. more than $1,100 a year. So don't guess. when it comes to your Medicare coverage. Call Chapter today at 8454933791. Again, that is 845-4933791. You're going to speak with a real person. who can help you understand your options. and the call is completely free. So that. is about him allegedly being the. shooter. But what about that aggravating.

factor, right? Right. The one that I. mentioned before that Robinson allegedly. created a great risk of death to another. individual other than Charlie Kirk. That's going to be key here. Okay. Listen to what the prosecutor said. We. know what what that event looked like, what that venue looked like on that day. There were people everywhere. People on the railings, people in that. amphitheater, people in front of Charlie. Kirk and people behind Charlie Kirk. As. he approached that rooftop on the low. sea center roof, as he approached the.

edge of that rooftop, he would have seen. this mass of thousands of people. As he. laid down and took up aim, he would have. seen all of those people. As he looked. through that scope, his scope likely. passed over the faces and heads and. bodies of multiple people before it. rested on Charlie Kirk. Not notwithstanding all of the people. around Charlie Kirk, the defendant chose. to fire. He knew, as anybody would know, that.

that creates a great risk of death, not. only to Charlie Kirk, but the people. around Charlie Kirk. And this is what uh the scene looked. like. There were people everywhere. There are people moving around behind uh. Charlie Kirk. You see in the minutes. leading up to to the shooting, there are. people moving behind Charlie Kirk, moving in front of the the uh stand the.

uh pop-up tent there from behind from in. front, moving around freely. Just 5 seconds before the shot, there is. a woman directly behind Charlie Kirk in. the line of fire. And we know the. defendant would have seen all these. people and of course the people in front. of Charlie Kirk and especially that. questioner who is only feet away. as well as. the security detail immediately to. Charlie Kirk's right. looking at that image probably two feet.

away. but the defendant took chose to take. that shot anyway. >> [sighs]. >> What do we know about the defendant's. mental state? We all know people can. miss, right? Michael Jordan didn't hit. every single three-pointer he took, right? Major League pitchers don't throw. strikes every time. And the defendant. knew he could miss two. Exhibit 25, I. count 28 rounds that are fired through.

these targets. And only one, two, three, four of those 28 rounds hit the red. The defendant knew he could miss. Not. only did he know he could miss, he. planned for it. He planned for it. because he came loaded with four rounds. in that magazine, not just the round. that he shot. He knew he could he could. miss. And the only reason he took other. rounds is because he knew he could miss. and he came prepared to shoot again. >> So this idea, you shoot into a crowd,

very similar. They compared it to the. Butler shooting of Donald Trump. Great. risk to killing someone else. As to. count two, the discharge of a firearm. Prosecutors said it's basically the same. argument they made. What about the other. counts? >> Count three, obstruction of justice. This involves hiding the rifle. Um, we. know that the defendant hid the rifle. One, because we see him after he jumps. off the Losi center, run into the woods. The rifle was found hidden under a bush. and the defendant admitted to his. boyfriend that he had to leave it in a.

bush. Count four deals with disposing of the. clothing. In exhibit 14, which is the written. statement of Mike Mitchell, Mike. Mitchell recounts his conversation with. the defendant where uh the defendant. stated he had disposed of the clothing. Count five, witness tampering. This. deals with the defendant telling Lance. Twigs to delete the text messages after. the defendant had admitted to killing.

Charlie Kirk. Count six, witness tampering. This is. telling Twigs to stay silent. Now, defense council in their pleading state. states that [clears throat] no, this is. altruistic. This is not uh witness. tampering because it's not telling um. Lance Twigs to avoid giving information. or testimony for the defendant's. benefit. It's just telling him his. rights in essence. Well, that requires. you to draw the inferences in the. defendant's favor, which is improper at.

this stage. Moreover, it requires you to. ignore the circumstances here. Um, you. have to remember the defendant had just. shot and killed someone. He' just hidden. the rifle. He just gotten rid of his. clothing. He just asked Lance Twigs to. delete the text messages and. incriminating messages. And of course, so he told Lance Twigs also to avoid. giving him up. Don't talk to police when. they come to ask you questions. Furthermore, as it relates relates to. the fifth amendment, Lance Twigs did not have a fifth. amendment right against incriminating.

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

children. It's reasonable to assume that. the defendant saw them. Make a. reasonable inference that he saw them. The prosecutor even mentioned that when. you do screenshots of the videos, you. can see babies, you can see children. So, the inference is the defendant would. have known that children are there. There is also a discussion about a. victim targeting enhancement. This is. goes to the line of punishment, right? How severe the penalties would be, severe the alleged crime. The idea here, was this a killing done for political. purposes, political motivation?

>> Charlie Kirk was an outspoken critic of. homosexuality. and uh transgenderism and was an outspo. outspoken advocate for traditional. conservative values. including uh. traditional families and marriage. The. defendant was living in a homosexual. relationship with a man who was. considering transgender or transitioning. his gender and who went by the name of. It's not difficult to understand the. motive here. The defendant's views were.

repugnant to the positions that Charlie. Kirk famously took. >> So there you go. That's Mr. McBride. basically making the argument that the. defendant should be bound over on all of. these charges for trial. Now, we heard. from the defense and we heard from. several lawyers here, several defense. lawyers. First up was Stacy Visser and. she started out by stating that this is. a constitutional issue at stake. She. cites a number of different cases, but. really focuses on that aggravator, right? Did the defendant, if he's.

accused of what he's doing, if he really. did it, did he create a situation that. presented a great risk of death to. another person other than Charlie Kirk? She made the argument it doesn't. >> There is one shot, there is one bullet, there is one victim. There is no. temporal relationship for this court to. evaluate. This factor is not met. There were no actual threats. by the asalent to the third party.

There was no evidence that would suggest. that anyone else was threatened. In the other cases talking about threats. to the third party, we're looking at. multiple gunshots. We're looking at. verbal threats. We're looking at. pointing a firearm at someone. We're. looking at using a device that is more. likely to cause injury to multiple. people. Um, for example, in Florida, there was a case involving a saw off.

shotgun that was found to be more likely. to cause injury to people in surrounding. areas. Bombs, those are the types of weapons that. would cause injury to more people than. the actual victim. And I will acknowledge we acknowledge. that the Sosa Herertado court was. careful to say that these are not a. checklist, right? These are factors for. this court to consider in deciding.

whether or not the conduct here falls. within the statute. And the fact that maybe one of these. factors is met but the other two are not. should be something that this court. weighs. It's interesting in um Sosa Herertado. when I was rereading it in preparation. um. they describe Johnson itself the Johnson.

case as like a single act. So, she. really hit on the idea that a great risk. to death has to be not just a. possibility. Okay. And and she really. focused on the distance, the spatial. proximity, that the prosecution wasn't. entirely clear about it. She made the. argument that the prosecution didn't. really provide evidence about how far. Charlie Kirk was away from other people. And then you look at the videos and the. videos speak for themselves about where. Charlie Kirk was positioned. Then she.

made the argument that the prosecution's. kind of cherrypicking certain videos and. it's being a little bit misleading. And. then she goes into this argument about. how the prosecution is kind of. manipulating the value or the meaning or. the context of the evidence. Take a. look. >> I do want to briefly mention the issues. in the evidence about the state. speculating. Um, the [clears throat] state asks the. court to draw inferences from evidence.

that appear to have been admitted. primarily for the purpose of. establishing identity. but is now trying to construe it in such. a way that it shows knowledge. For example, the screwdriver on the. roof. The screwdriver on the roof, according. to the state's evidence, has a DNA. that is similar to Mr. Robinson's.

I would imagine that is intended to show. that it was allegedly Mr. Robinson on. the roof. Now, we're going to deal with that. evidence in the future. We're going to. have hearings about the DNA evidence for. sure. But. the state goes on. to ask this court to infer that the. rifle was taken apart and put put back. together with the screwdriver. The four. bullets in the gun is an interesting.

argument um that I think ultimately cuts. against the state's position. because we know this was a boltaction. rifle. in order to reload it, the spent. cartridge had to be removed and it. wasn't. So, it actually cuts against this idea. that maybe other people were endangered, that there was an intent or knowledge. that other people might be killed. There is zero evidence that there was.

any action taken towards other people. Zero evidence. >> And I just want to focus one more time. on her key argument here. Take a look. The facts at their c at their core. are that the shooter shot a high-powered. rifle from a roof at a downward angle, hitting the victim in the left side of. the neck at a distance of 415 ft. The. angle is 415 ft. It's not 410 ft. It had.

a telescopic scope on it. The shooter. did not fire any more shots and in fact. did not even reload. The shooter is not alleged to have. engaged with anyone else, is not alleged. to have pointed the rifle at anyone. else, threatened anyone else, or done. anything other than shoot that gun and. run away. There was no ricochet. The only other individual under the. tent, excuse me,

[clears throat and cough]. with Mr. Kirk, like I described, was on. the opposite side of him. This was an open air environment. This was not an enclosed space. And contrary to the screenshots that the. state pulled. from exhibit 9, no one was behind the. tent when Mr. Kirk was shot. Even assuming that the shooter might. have some knowledge about that, which I. think is a real stretch because it's not.

like the tent was see-through. No one was behind Mr. Mr. Kirk when that. shot was fired. And Mr. Kirk was seated in an elevated. position. This is clearly visible in. exhibit 7. He is above those closest. So there's nothing in this evidence. showing that there was a great risk that. someone else was going to be killed, let alone that the shooter would have.

knowledge of that risk. It's not just the shot fired, it's what. happened around it. >> So, she makes the argument striking the. aggravator is the only conclusion under. Utah law and the Constitution. Next up, you heard from defense attorney Michael. Bert. Now, one of the things he did was. focus on how the prosecution is. overstating the significance of the. forensic evidence. Give you a sense of. what is probably going to be argued at. trial. Take a look at this. >> Mr. McBride in his argument said the de.

the defendant's DNA was all over the. weapon, but the weapon was tested by. Miss Oliver from the ATF. And in her report, uh, if you just look. at the report and not her testimony, what the report says, and this is. exhibit. 30, her ultimate conclusion was based on. this calculation, there is evidentary support for the.

inclusion of Tyler Robinson as a. possible contributor. And I want to. emphas and end quote and that's it. states exhibit 30 a possible contributor. and she as well as Miss Baker uh from. the FBI went out of their way to explain. to the court that based on the current. state of the science there is no basis.

to conclude that based on the DNA. testing that was done in this case that. a particular piece of DNA can be traced. back to a source. >> Now, later on, another defense attorney. came to the podium, Richard Novak. He. focused, among other things, on count. six, right? This tampering with a. witness, and he really disagreed with. prosecutor McBride's characterization. that Robinson in that moment was trying. to protect himself and not trying to.

protect Lance Twigs. This is how he. described it. What the court sees is. somebody who the state alleges is Mr. Robinson saying to. uh Mr. Twigs, quote, "I'm going to turn. myself in willingly. One of my neighbors. here is a deputy for the sheriff.". And then. the text message goes on.

Why is that important? That is important. because what this court knows from the. preliminary hearing testimony is that. the person that the state says is Mr. Robinson had left. ORM had returned all the way to St. George and the court knows this through. Mr. Mitchell's 11:02. had spoken with Mr. Robinson's.

father. and had arranged for Mr. Mitchell to. help Mr. Robinson surrender. to the Washington County Sheriff. That has already occurred. when Mr. Robinson, according to Mr. Twigs, is saying, "If any police ask you questions, ask. for a lawyer and stay silent.". Just before that he says, "You are all I.

worry about love." So the case law which. we present basically requires this court. to determine whether Mr. Robinson's. statements to Mr. Twigs were intended to. obstruct justice or were altruistic. What is more clear in terms of altruism. than having already decided to surrender. and saying, "You are all I worry about. love. If any police ask you questions,

ask for a lawyer and stay silent. That is actually. a demonstration of altruism. That is a. demonstration of caring for another. person. That is a demonstration of what. Mr. Robinson said to Mr. Twigs, "You are. all I worry about, love.". But he also tells him, "Make sure that. the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff. Be polite and. respectful, of course." So, I don't see.

how the court can accept. Mr. McBride's. suggestion that this is an effort to. obstruct an investigation. >> Okay. And now I just want to play you a. little bit from the prosecution in their. rebuttal closing argument. The law does. not protect. or better reward an assassin who shoots. into a crowd of people and happens to. hit his target.

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

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

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

dangerous. If the bullet fired from the. defendant's gun had struck a hard. surface, it's reasonable to infer that. it would have changed directions and or. broken into unpredictable fragments of. dangerous, even lethal shrapnel. And. it's very important to look carefully at. the language of Sosa Ortado and look at. what the court found there because the. Utah Supreme Court, the controlling. court here, found that the defendant. there, quote, perpetrated two separate.

acts that created a great risk of death. to Isabelle, who is the survivor. The. first shot was actually directed at. Isabelle, but missed him, shattering. some glass, throwing some glass and wood. into his leg. and the second shot when the defendant. quote fired a shot at Steven which hit. Steven's hand when Isabelle was only a. few feet away close quote. The court. found that quote a reasonable jury could. conclude that both of these acts created.

a great risk of death to Isabel close. quote. So in other words, our high court. here in the state of Utah has held that. even one shot can create that one shot. that kills someone that injures someone. intended for a target can create a great. risk of death to a third party. And. that's exactly what we have here. Mr. McBride talked about common sense. Common sense is incredibly important. Like he said, we ask our juries to not. check their common sense at the door. when they come into a trial and.

ultimately when they deliberate. The record clearly establishes, especially for probable cause purposes, that Tyler Robinson knew that his. actions were creating a great risk of. death to others. First, when Mr. Robinson was crawling towards and. settling into his shooters perch that. day on top of the Losi building and then. set his sights on Charlie Kirk, he was. looking down into a crowd of people, thousands of people.

He not only could see the crowd but also. the people standing within a short. distance to Mr. Kirk. He was looking at. Mr. Kirk. um. through a scope that magnified the area. He could see Mr. Kirk and he could see. those standing right next to him. That's. the reasonable inference. It is more. than fair that to infer that Robinson. knew and that what that he knew he was. shooting into a crowd and that his. margin of error that I've talked about.

was very tight. Very tight. This was a very purposeful act on his. part. He knew what he was walking into. He had scoped the place out that day. He. knew that Charlie Kirk was going to be. speaking to a group of people that were. going to be assembling right around him. And that's exactly what he saw when he. got up onto that shooter's perch. He. nonetheless purposefully. pulled out that weapon.

and fired it, killing Mr. Kirk. The. defendant thought he had committed an. almost perfect murder. But judge, nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence and the clues the defendant. left behind that day and his actions. over the next day or so amount to. overwhelming and devastating proof of. his guilt. >> And after all that later on, this was. the decision from Judge Graph. >> It is hereby ordered that the defendant. Tyler James Round Robinson is bound over.

for trial in the fourth judicial. district court on the following counts. in sentencing allegations. Count one, aggravated murder, a capital felony in. violation of Utah code annotated. 76-5-202, including the capital aggravating. circumstance under section 76-5-202. Count two, felony discharge of a firearm.

causing serious bodily injury, a. firstdegree felony in violation of Utah. code annotated 76-11-210. sub 2 and sub3c, including the victim. targeting allegation under 76-3-203.14. sub2 subject to the sentencing treatment. described in 76-3-203.143b. and the presence of a child aggravating. factor. under 76-3-203.9.

Count three, obstruction of justice, a. seconddegree felony in violation of Utah. code annotated 76-8-306. sub 2. Count four, obstruction of. justice, a secondderee felony in. violation of Utah code annotated. 76-8-306. sub 2. Count five, tampering with a witness, a. thirdderee felony in violation of Utah. code annotated 76-8-508.

Count six, tampering with a witness, a. thirdderee felony in violation of Utah. code annotated. 76-8-508. Count seven, violent offense committed. in the presence of a child, a class A. misdemeanor under Utah code annotated. 76-3-203.10. 10 reclassified as a class A misdemeanor. under section 76-3-203.14. sub3I.

based on the victim targeting targeting. allegation under 76-3-203.14. sub 2. All evidentiary determinations in. this order are limited to the. preliminary hearing and do not determine. admissibility or the ultimate weight of. evidence at trial. Nothing in this order. constitutes a final determination of. defendants's guilt or witness. credibility. Defendant remains presumed. innocent and the state bears the burden.

at trial of proving each charge offense. beyond a reasonable doubt. So there you. go. Tyler Robinson is going to be headed. to trial. We're going to continue to see. what happens next in the Tyler [music]. Robinson case. That's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us and as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple [music] Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. You can also check us out on NBC's. Peacock as [music] well. If you want to. follow me, ex Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through.

Friday, 11 p p.m. Eastern. See you next. time, everybody.