- Tyler Robinson's defense is seeking to delay his preliminary hearing, citing incomplete evidence.
- But prosecutors argue the defense has sufficient evidence for the hearing scheduled for next month.
- The state claims delaying the preliminary hearing has no effect on determining probable cause.
PROVO — The Utah County Attorney's Office says Tyler Robinson's defense team has enough evidence to prepare for a preliminary hearing next month.
Late last week, the state filed its opposition to Robinson's attempt to postpone his preliminary hearing to a future date.
Robinson, 22, is charged with capital murder and faces a potential death sentence if convicted of killing Charlie Kirk, 31, on Sept. 10 on the campus of Utah Valley University. A preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for May 18, 19 and 21. During a preliminary hearing, prosecutors present evidence for a judge to decide if there is sufficient probable cause for a defendant to stand trial for the crimes he or she is charged with.
Robinson's defense team says it needs more time to properly prepare for a preliminary hearing because of the large volume of evidence it has already received and has yet to receive.
"Discovery in this case is incomplete, voluminous, and the processing of it is complex," Robinson argued in his motion asking for his preliminary hearing to either be postponed or canceled until new dates could be determined at a later time.
But the state contends defense attorneys have had the same materials that prosecutors intend to present at the preliminary hearing, and they have had that evidence for a while.
"To be more precise, as of April 1, 2026, counsel for the state had provided approximately 100% of discoverable material in its possession to the defense. In other words, the defense has what the state has. And much of this discovery was presented long ago," the Utah County Attorney's Office says in its court filing.
Prosecutors say they provided the defense with their witness list and "a list of approximately 35 exhibits it intends to offer" at the hearing in March.
"With the exception of a photograph of a burnt note, doorbell surveillance from a single property, a DNA report regarding items found in (Robinson's) apartment, and a toolmarks report, each of the witnesses and exhibits has been known to the defense for at least six months before the preliminary hearing," prosecutors argue. "Most of the evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing, including the DNA report regarding the rifle found at the scene, was provided to the defense in October of 2025. The state does not intend to offer evidence obtained through forensic extractions of electronics seized in this case."
Robinson's defense team has said it needs time for its own experts to review DNA and other forensic evidence. In the defense motion, it was revealed that "the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson. Although the state has not indicated an intent to produce this report at the preliminary hearing, the defense may very well decide to offer the testimony of the ATF firearm analyst as exculpatory evidence," the defense motion states.
"In order to make this determination, it is necessary for the defense and its firearm expert to review the ATF case file and protocols relating to this examination, which have not yet been provided. The state has also indicated that the FBI is in the process of conducting a second comparative bullet analysis, as well as a bullet lead analysis, but that these analyses are not yet complete," the defense argues.
In their reply, prosecutors contend, "What (Robinson) neglects to mention is that the reason the FBI has not completed this second comparative analysis is that he objected to it.
"He can hardly complain that the test has not been conducted when he is the reason it has not been conducted. This circumstance demonstrates the absurdity of waiting for completion of all expert investigation and discovery before the preliminary hearing. Any discovery delay is not the product of dilatory performance on the state's part, but of the process of investigation, which, in this circumstance, includes litigation of the investigatory process," the prosecution argues.
Furthermore, the state says what the defense is asking for is typically reserved for a trial.
"In essence, the defendant asks the court to attach trial rights to the preliminary hearing. Defendant puts the cart before the horse: Expert discovery obligations attach to the final stages of pre-trial proceedings, not the initial ones," according to the state. "Contrary to defendant's contention for expansive preliminary hearing rights, the Constitution limits the preliminary hearing to only one purpose: the determination of probable cause. The extent to which discovery and due process rights apply at the preliminary hearing must be viewed in light of this very narrow purpose."
Prosecutors also note that it is not uncommon for "investigation and expert discovery" to be incomplete at the time of a preliminary hearing, and that continuing the hearing will not affect the probable cause determination.
"The preliminary hearing is not the time to challenge expert testimony," prosecutors argue. "Aside from forensic reports, the evidence will include images of (Robinson) at the scene, incriminating evidence in his possession, and multiple confessions. Consequently, even if (Robinson) could show that expert testimony and additional expert discovery would defeat expert conclusions tying him to the murder, it would not defeat probable cause."
Other evidence the state says it has already shared with Robinson includes "the DNA report analyzing the rifle, rounds found in the rifle, a towel found with the rifle, and a screwdriver found near the sniper's perch."
