- The state won't show a video of Charlie Kirk's shooting at the next hearing under one condition.
- Defense must stipulate many witnessed the shooting and a prosecutor's adult child isn't a material witness.
- Tyler Robinson is charged with capital murder in Kirk's Sept. 10 death at UVU.
PROVO — The Utah County Attorney's Office says it will not show a video of Charlie Kirk being shot at the next Tyler Robinson court hearing, but only if the defense stipulates that numerous people witnessed Kirk being shot and that the adult child of one of the prosecutors is not a key witness.
"The state is content to use the still frames from the videos if (Robinson) stipulates that there were thousands of people present when Charlie Kirk was shot, many of them witnessed Mr. Kirk's shooting, his wound and emergency removal, that many of them witnessed that others were near Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and that there are many recordings of these facts. Otherwise, the state is entitled to prove these points with evidence, including exhibit 4.1," prosecutors argue.
On Thursday, the state filed its reply to Robinson's notice of objection to the state's "proposed exhibit 4.1."
Prosecutors describe that exhibit as a video "which includes the impact of the bullet on Mr. Kirk, as well as blood coming from his neck and him falling from his chair."
Robinson states that the video "is graphic and likely highly disturbing to any person who views it," and that it could adversely affect his right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the defense argues that the video is irrelevant to the issue the court will consider at Tuesday's hearing.
The hearing on Feb. 3 is a continuation of one that started on Jan. 16 regarding Robinson's efforts to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case because one of its prosecutors is the father of a Utah Valley University student who attended the Turning Point USA rally when Kirk was killed.
"Unless (Robinson) stipulates that (the) prosecutor's adult child is not a necessary witness, the state must prove that fact with evidence. Such evidence includes video recordings from witnesses who personally saw Charlie Kirk get shot, who personally saw or recorded the shooter exposing others to a great risk of death, and observations and recordings of the shooter on the roof of the Losee Center at Utah Valley University," prosecutors responded in their latest court filing.
Robinson, 22, is charged with capital murder and faces a possible death sentence if convicted of assassinating Kirk on Sept. 10.
According to the state's response, as long as the defense maintains that the UVU student is a "material witness," the state must show all of its evidence, including the video.
"The state intended to offer only the screenshots unless the defense objected or failed to acknowledge that there are, in fact, some 3,000 witnesses to the shooting, that the shooting, its setting, and its aftermath were recorded by multiple witnesses from multiple angles, and that because the material facts were so broadly witnessed and recorded, (UVU student) is not a necessary witness to the murder," according to the state's reply.
Prosecutors list eight exhibits they plan to show at the next hearing, all videos or screenshots of Kirk from his arrival at the event up to his death.
"The exhibits listed, including exhibit 4.1, are relevant because they demonstrate that (the adult child) is not a necessary witness: (the adult child) did not see the most important events of that day, while others did. For example, (the adult child) did not see Mr. Kirk get shot, his wound, Mr. Kirk get carried away, the shooter, or any other number of facts important to prove the elements of the charges. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of other witnesses who did," the prosecution's filing states.
Prosecutors admit that while the video "is highly probative ... it carries no danger of unfairly prejudicing a jury because a jury is not present. The facts demonstrated by the exhibits, including exhibit 4.1, make clear that (the adult child) is not a necessary witness."
The state further contends that the real reason for Robinson's objection is that it "may taint the jury pool, rather than admissibility under the rules of evidence. This is a separate issue which should be decided on its merits. The state makes no argument regarding closure of the hearing or publication of the exhibits to the gallery."
