Defence in Charlie Kirk case argues shooter should not face death penalty

The Utah man on trial for the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk should not face the death penalty because he hit his “intended target” and did not endanger anyone else, defence lawyers said this week.

Attorneys for Tyler Robinson, 23, laid out their argument against the death penalty in a court filing ahead of a Sept 1 hearing in which a judge may decide if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial of the former apprentice electrician.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Robinson, alleging he knowingly created a risk of death to others when he shot Kirk in front of thousands of people at a Utah university.

The case is a closely watched test of how Utah treats the alleged political killing of a close ally of president Donald Trump.

Kirk was killed on Sept 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, Orem, during one of his trademark campus debates where he challenged students to “prove me wrong” on issues ranging from affirmative action to immigration.

In a legal filing this week, Robinson’s lawyers argued that the single shot that killed Kirk did not create the “high probability” of death to others required under state law as an aggravating factor warranting the death penalty.

“The state has not established and cannot establish probable cause to support the aggravator that the shooting knowingly created a ‘high probability’ of death to another individual from the single shot from a high-powered, scoped rifle from a rooftop vantage that hit the intended target,” defence lawyers wrote.

Prosecutors argue Robinson knowingly put others at risk of death by firing his grandfather’s rifle from a “sniper pad” above the crowd, and loaded four rounds in case he missed on the first shot.