Tyler Robinson is facing serious criminal charges for allegedly killing Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), during a public event at Utah Valley University on September 10. Prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and committing a violent crime in front of a child. Authorities allege Robinson’s motive stemmed from political hatred, claiming he said he had “had enough of [Kirk’s] hatred” and that “some hate can’t be negotiated out.” Robinson is scheduled to appear in court on October 30.
The case has garnered national attention due to the high-profile nature of the victim and the political overtones of the crime. According to court documents, Robinson left a note under his keyboard, which his roommate later discovered, stating: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I’m going to take it.” Text messages between Robinson and his roommate revealed Robinson’s confession. This written and digital evidence is expected to be critical during both the trial and sentencing phases. Prosecutors are likely to argue that the killing was a premeditated political act, which could be used to justify seeking the death penalty.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani explained that Robinson’s motive will play a central role in the punishment phase of the trial. Prosecutors will likely use his political justification to “dirty up” his character in front of the jury. Rahmani emphasized that for Robinson to receive the death penalty, all 12 jurors must agree to it. Thus, the prosecution must present a compelling case not just of guilt, but of the heinous nature and moral depravity of the motive. Political violence, Rahmani said, is an “aggravated factor” that could sway jurors toward a harsher sentence.
However, securing a unanimous death sentence is not guaranteed. Even one or two jurors can prevent it. Rahmani noted that some jurors may find it morally difficult to sentence someone to death, especially if they are unconvinced by the state’s argument or are emotionally swayed. The defense might try to argue that Robinson was radicalized or mentally unwell, though Rahmani acknowledged that such a defense will be difficult to sell given the overwhelming evidence of premeditation and the lack of moral justification.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox weighed in, describing the killing as a “political assassination.” He revealed that one of the bullets allegedly used in the killing had the words, “Hey fascist, catch,” engraved on it—further reinforcing the argument that this was a politically motivated act of violence. If true, this detail could further inflame public opinion and influence the jury’s perception of Robinson’s intent and character. Prosecutors are still finalizing their case and building the narrative around motive, but evidence so far appears to support a preplanned, ideologically driven attack.
Robinson’s defense attorney, Kathryn Nester, has not yet responded to specific claims about her client’s motive but stated in court that the defense is reserving the right to request a preliminary hearing. This would require prosecutors to present their evidence early and allow the defense to cross-examine key witnesses. Such a move could be strategic, giving the defense insight into the prosecution’s strategy while potentially uncovering weaknesses in the case. However, given the gravity of the charges, the public nature of the crime, and the weight of the evidence already revealed, Robinson faces an uphill legal battle with life-and-death consequences.
