Robinson’s Defense Team: Shooter ‘Hit the Intended Target’

It has been clear for quite a while now that Tyler Robinson’s defense team is really only trying to do one thing: Get the death penalty off the table. They have delayed the trial, tried to have the prosecutors removed from the case and pushed the judge to punish them for speaking to the media.

Despite all their efforts, Robinson is still facing the death penalty and with the preliminary hearing out of the way, his trial is finally on the horizon. All that’s left is for the judge to decide the case should move forward and set a date.

After the preliminary hearing, prosecutors submitted a brief listing all the reasons the case should go to trial, including the fact that Robinson had confessed at least 11 times in writing (and several more times verbally). Now the defense has submitted a 41-page response arguing that Robinson shouldn’t be eligible for the death penalty because the enhancements/aggravating factors in the case haven’t been proven by the prosecution.

Lawyers for the man charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk say he shouldn’t be eligible for the death penalty because the shooter “hit the intended target” during the assassination last year at a Utah event attended by thousands of people.

Defendant Tyler Robinson’s attorneys say prosecutors have not proven that others who attended Kirk’s event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 were endangered by the shooting — a potentially aggravating factor under state law that would make it a capital crime.

This appears to be the major argument being made by the defense in this brief: The enhancement that makes this a death penalty case hasn’t been sustained because the shooter had a clear shot and only fired one bullet. No one else was in danger.

Utah law states that if a defendant “knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual” other than the victim who was killed, it can be used as an aggravating factor. But Robinson’s defense team notes that the state needs to show there was a “high probability” that Robinson put the thousands of people gathered at the Turning Point USA rally where Kirk was speaking at risk for death, and not just a “possibility” of that happening.

“The state has failed to show that the actual conduct created a ‘high probability’ that someone other than Mr. Kirk would be killed and, thus, this theory fails as a matter of law,” according to their briefing. “Where no other person was injured in a manner creating a great risk of death, and no other shots were fired, the allegation of … (an) aggravator cannot be sustained.”

Defense attorneys contend there was no one else in the “line of fire” when the fatal shot was fired. Furthermore, “the firing of a single shot at an intended victim that hit only the intended victim” is not an aggravating factor “merely because other people were in the vicinity.”…

“The bullet that struck and killed Mr. Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space but rather, an open-air arena with what the state’s witnesses termed, ‘a clear line of sight.’ There were no threats to others in the course of conduct. There was no one ‘directly’ next to Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and there was no one under the tent on the side that Mr. Kirk was struck or behind him in the breezeway. Multiple shots were not fired. There were no ricocheting bullets.”

Of course the defense isn’t admitting to anything really. But the argument they are making is that the shooter, whoever that person turns out to be, was a skilled enough assassin that no one else was in danger that day. This is the kind of thing that might go over well with Candace Owens fans who have been pushing the idea that skilled government assassin was responsible for months. 

In reality, Robinson does not seem to have been especially skilled, but he did practice and prepare and got lucky on the first shot. Had he missed, there’s every reason to think he would have fired again using one of the other cartridges he had prepared and loaded.

The defense is also denying that Kirk was targeted over politics.

Prosecutors alleged that Robinson told his roommate that he killed the activist because he “had enough of his hatred.” But the defense said that was not enough to prove what could have motivated Robinson, after searches of his apartment, computers and telephone failed to produce anything beyond that one statement.

Here’s more on that.

Even after police searched Robinson’s residence, his parents’ home and Robinson’s electronic devices, “there is nothing to base this sentencing enhancement upon other than that single criticism of Mr. Kirk’s ‘hatred,'” the defense contends.

“In the face of the absence of evidence, the state focuses on Mr. Robinson’s sexuality and Mr. Twiggs’ gender identity, if only because those are two topics on which Mr. Kirk was, in fact, widely viewed as expressing hatred and intolerance. However, that is not an evidentiary substitute for proof that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of those expressions. It is the state’s speculation that he did so.”

During the preliminary hearing, Lance Twiggs testified that he and Robinson occasionally talked about politics but he claimed they didn’t really talk about trans identity or Charlie Kirk. This seems pretty unlikely to me but the point is that the prosecution has to prove Kirk was targeted over his politics, not just argue it makes sense. Lance Twiggs’ testimony didn’t help them do that. 

There were reports early on that Robinson had become more political and specifically more “pro gay and trans rights oriented” in the year before the shooting. Those reports came from authorities relaying what Robinson’s mother had said to them. I don’t believe we saw any of that evidence during the preliminary hearing.

The prosecutors will now get a chance to rebut the defense briefing. They have to submit that rebuttal in writing by next Tuesday. Then the judge will hold a hearing to issue his final decision on September 1.

As you would expect, Candace Owens is downplaying today’s brief and denying it shows anything significant about the case.

Ugh… I’ve barely had my coffee and I can already tell that the “overwhelming evidence” crowd is lying about the recent case filings in the hope that no one will actually read them or understand them.

How are they not tired of running the exact same strategy and losing every…

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) August 12, 2026

Blake Neff from TPUSA responded to her, noting all the things the defense is not claiming.

Candace is having her latest blowup because the defense’s new 41-page filing in the Tyler Robinson case uses exactly none of the wild claims she’s spent the last 11 months pushing. Rather than make the case that Robinson is not guilty, the filing focuses almost exclusively on… https://t.co/BPQwsNL85Q pic.twitter.com/JQlXvUtpd5

— Blake Neff (@BlakeSNeff) August 12, 2026

Candace is having her latest blowup because the defense’s new 41-page filing in the Tyler Robinson case uses exactly none of the wild claims she’s spent the last 11 months pushing. Rather than make the case that Robinson is not guilty, the filing focuses almost exclusively on trying to spare him from the death penalty.

-The filing spends only one page contesting the actual murder evidence, by arguing that Lance Twiggs’s testimony was improper hearsay. ALL the rest of the filing concerns aggravating factors or secondary charges.

-The filing admits that Charlie was killed by a rifle shot from the Losee Center — it explicitly describes the person captured on camera on the Losee rooftop as “the shooter.” There is absolutely no effort to talk about exploding microphones, either directly or indirectly by contesting the idea Charlie was killed by a rifle round.

-The filing never argues that Robinson was not at UVU — in fact, on page 22, it says “the evidence shows Mr. Robinson walking up and down stairs at UVU” and calls it a “reasonable inference” that his impaired gait was caused by a “fully-assembled rifle.”

-The filing admits that Robinson was texting with Lance Twiggs, telling him “Im gonna turn myself in willingly.” When Lance asks if there’s any way he avoid prison, he replies “I highly doubt it.”

Professional lawyers, unlike dishonest podcasters, have ethical obligations that bar them from saying things they know are untrue. So, unsurprisingly, their defense bears absolutely no resemblance to the one Candace has spent months shilling to her audience.

This case is definitely going to trial. Whether or not it does so as a death penalty case remains to be seen.

Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.

Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.