A 4th District judge issued several significant rulings Monday in the case against Tyler Robinson, the 23-year-old accused of fatally shooting conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, as the case moves closer to a preliminary hearing scheduled for next month.
Key Rulings on Evidence and Witnesses
Judge Tony Graf ruled that hearsay evidence is acceptable for preliminary hearing purposes, a decision that could shape what prosecutors are permitted to present when the hearing convenes July 6–10. The judge also denied a defense motion seeking to compel a former roommate, identified as Twiggs, to testify in person. Instead, Judge Graf ruled that a video-recorded interview with Twiggs may be submitted as evidence in place of live testimony.
The decisions represent early procedural wins for the prosecution as the case moves toward what is expected to be a high-profile and closely watched preliminary hearing in the weeks ahead.
Robinson faces the possibility of the death penalty if convicted of killing Kirk. The case has drawn national attention since the shooting, which took place on the Utah Valley University campus in what investigators have described as a targeted attack.
Contempt Motion and Media Access Still Pending
Judge Graf deferred a ruling on a contempt of court motion filed against the Utah County Attorney’s Office, with a decision expected later this week. That motion stems from actions taken by prosecutor Chris Ballad, who issued a press release and subsequently appeared on national news programs to discuss an ATF report related to the case. Robinson’s defense team had earlier filed a motion in March noting that the ATF report concluded investigators were unable to identify the bullet recovered during the victim’s autopsy — and argued Ballad’s public statements about the report prejudiced the proceedings.
That ongoing dispute over prosecutorial conduct and media contact underscores tensions between the defense and prosecution that have already produced multiple pretrial legal clashes. For more on the defense’s earlier challenge related to Ballad’s public statements, see the full coverage of the defense motion to bar the death penalty over the prosecutor’s media statements on ballistics.
Also pending before Judge Graf is a ruling on whether electronic media — cameras and microphones — will be permitted inside the preliminary hearing. Robinson’s defense filed that motion on Sunday, arguing that recording equipment poses a direct threat to the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding.
The defense stated in filings that Robinson “objects to electronic media coverage of the preliminary hearing in its entirety because ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will prejudice the right of the parties to a fair proceeding.'”
The judge is expected to rule on both the contempt motion and the media access request by Friday. The outcome of the media coverage question will determine how much of the July preliminary hearing the public can watch in real time, a matter of considerable interest given the national profile of the victim and the potential for a capital prosecution.
What Comes Next
With the preliminary hearing set to begin July 6, both sides are still working through a series of pretrial motions that will define the boundaries of what evidence and testimony jurors may eventually hear. Judge Graf’s rulings this week — on contempt and media access — will add further shape to the proceedings before they formally begin.
Robinson remains in custody. If prosecutors successfully carry the case through the preliminary hearing, it will advance toward trial where the death penalty remains a possible outcome. The case continues to attract scrutiny at both the state and national level, placing significant pressure on Idaho and Utah courts to manage the proceedings carefully.
Idaho courts have faced heightened attention in recent capital and high-profile cases. For broader context on how Idaho’s judicial system handles sensitive evidentiary matters, see coverage of a recent Idaho Supreme Court case examining public records access in Bonneville County.