A Utah judge threw out surveillance footage submitted by prosecutors on the opening day of preliminary hearings for Tyler Robinson, the 23-year-old charged with the aggravated murder of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, ruling that the edited compilation raised too many questions about how it was altered.
District Court Judge Tony Graf said Monday in Provo that he felt "concerned" by the footage the state put forward, telling the courtroom he did not know "when they were made, how they were made, how much was done to manipulate the video." Prosecutors insisted the edits "were only added to make it easier to view" and called the footage "accurate." The judge was unconvinced.
The ruling stripped prosecutors of a key piece of evidence on day one of a hearing that will determine whether Robinson stands trial for shooting Kirk in front of thousands of people at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. And they opened the case without possessing the raw, unedited footage, a gap that handed the defense an early win and left the court without video evidence that allegedly showed Robinson visiting the UVU campus four times before the shooting.
Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, attended the hearing and confronted Robinson for the first time since her husband's killing. She was joined by Kirk's parents, Kathryn and Robert, and by Donald Trump Jr. and his wife Bettina Anderson Trump, who came to show support.
The Kirk family released a statement ahead of the proceedings. As the Daily Mail reported, the family said:
"Charlie was a beloved husband, son, brother, friend, and father. Every court proceeding serves as a painful reminder of his death and the loss that has irrevocably impacted our lives and the lives of his children."
They added that they remained "deeply grateful for the support, prayers, and kindness" they had received, calling the outpouring of support a lifeline "during the darkest days of our lives."
Erika Kirk left the courtroom before Judge Graf played audio of the moment her husband was shot in the neck. Kirk's parents also left shortly after the first prosecution witness began testifying. Robinson's parents, Matt and Amber Robinson, were also present.
Robinson, who has remained in custody since his arrest in the days following the shooting, was reportedly seen laughing with his defense attorney, Kathy Nester, during the hearing. He has not entered a plea.
Utah Valley University police officer Chris Bagley took the stand as the prosecution's first witness. Bagley described watching Kirk speak at the Turning Point USA debate, then hearing a gunshot. He told the court:
"I saw him go to the left... I could no longer see the right side of his body. Then everybody started getting up and started to run, more of a chaos situation."
Bagley said he assessed the crowd for injuries and worked to preserve the crime scene. He then went to the top of a nearby building and observed a disturbance in the gravel that he described as a "sniper pad." He testified that there was a clear "line of sight" from Kirk's position to the top of the Losee Center, the building from which Robinson allegedly fired a rifle.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Nester pressed Bagley about his post-shooting report. The officer acknowledged that an empty pistol holster had been found on the ground near the scene. He admitted he never took custody of it and does not know whether it was ever fingerprinted.
That detail, an unaccounted-for holster, never tested for prints, is the kind of loose thread defense teams pull hard on. Whether it amounts to anything substantive remains to be seen. But it landed in a hearing already marked by prosecutorial missteps.
The surveillance footage the prosecution submitted was not raw video. It was a compiled, edited version. Prosecutors told the court they did not currently possess the unedited recordings but intended to obtain them for a later hearing. They also said they planned to call investigators who had viewed the original footage to testify.
Judge Graf was blunt about the risk. He said an exhibit that has been altered "can become problematic" once presented to a jury. His ruling did not permanently bar the footage, he could later admit unedited versions, but it denied prosecutors the ability to use the compilation they brought to the first day of hearings.
For a case of this magnitude, a death-penalty prosecution stemming from the public killing of one of the most prominent conservative figures in the country, showing up without raw footage and offering an edited compilation instead is a significant lapse. The judge's concern was not that the footage was fabricated. It was simpler than that: no one could explain exactly what had been done to it, or by whom, or when.
That is a basic chain-of-custody question. Prosecutors should have anticipated it.
The preliminary hearings are scheduled to continue this week. Prosecutors have signaled they will present DNA evidence, autopsy findings, and additional witness testimony. The defense, led by Nester, has sought to remove the death penalty from consideration, though the current status of that effort is unclear.
Judge Graf also viewed previously unseen footage of Kirk's killing in a private session, shielding it from the courtroom. He was described as flinching and appearing uncomfortable while watching. He told the court he withheld the video out of "respect and dignity" for the Kirk family.
Robinson faces an aggravated murder charge. Kirk was shot in the neck while speaking at the UVU campus event. He died in front of the crowd. The prosecution's theory, based in part on the now-excluded footage, holds that Robinson visited the campus multiple times before the shooting, a claim that will need to be supported by other evidence or by unedited video if the state can produce it.
The Kirk family's statement captured what no legal proceeding can resolve: the permanent weight of losing a husband, a son, a father. Every hearing reopens that wound. They came to court anyway.
Meanwhile, the prosecution opened its case by handing the defense a gift. Edited footage, no raw originals on hand, and a judge who rightly asked the questions any competent attorney should have prepared for. The state says it will get the unedited video. It should have had it from the start.
When you are asking a court to put a man to death, you do not walk in with evidence you cannot fully explain.
