Conservatives Erupt As Robinson’s Lawyer Smears Charlie Kirk

The courtroom atmosphere shifted dramatically Tuesday when an attorney representing Charlie Kirk’s accused assassin attacked the conservative leader’s rhetoric as “hateful” in front of his grieving widow and parents.

Defense attorney Richard Novak made the comments while attempting to undermine prosecutors’ claim that Tyler Robinson was motivated by hostility toward Kirk’s political and cultural beliefs.

“Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people,” Novak told Fourth District Judge Tony Graf.

“He spoke hatefully of people who don’t have traditional, norm-conforming gender identities. He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual. He spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships out of marriage.”

Kirk’s loved ones visibly shook their heads in disagreement. His widow, Erika Kirk, cried in the courtroom gallery as another woman attempted to comfort her.

Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, and other relatives were also present for the emotionally charged hearing.

Novak’s argument came as Graf considered whether Utah County prosecutors had presented sufficient probable cause to send Robinson to trial for the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination at Utah Valley University.

Robinson, 23, ultimately was ordered to stand trial on all seven charges, including aggravated murder. He subsequently pleaded not guilty to every count.

If convicted of aggravated murder, Robinson could face the death penalty.

The other charges include felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child.

Tuesday’s ruling did not determine Robinson’s guilt. It established that prosecutors had cleared the lower probable-cause threshold necessary for the charges to proceed to trial.

Robinson remains presumed innocent unless prosecutors prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense attorney’s remarks about Kirk arose during a broader dispute over the prosecution’s political-motive theory.

Prosecutors allege that Robinson targeted Kirk because he opposed the conservative leader’s views on traditional marriage, homosexuality and transgender ideology.

Robinson was living in a same-sex relationship with Lance Twiggs, who prosecutors said was considering a gender transition and used the name “Luna.”

Utah County prosecutor Ryan McBride argued that the relationship provided important context for Robinson’s alleged hostility toward Kirk.

“Charlie Kirk was an outspoken critic of homosexuality and transgenderism and was an outspoken advocate for traditional conservative values, including traditional families and marriage,” McBride said.

“The defendant was living in a homosexual relationship with a man who was considering transgender or transitioning his gender and who went by the name of Luna.”

“It’s not difficult to understand the motive here,” the prosecutor continued. “The defendant’s views were repugnant to the positions that Charlie Kirk famously took.”

Prosecutors also presented messages allegedly exchanged between Robinson and Twiggs following the fatal shooting.

“I had enough of his hatred,” Robinson allegedly wrote in one message. “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

McBride argued that the message, Robinson’s relationship with Twiggs and Kirk’s well-known political positions collectively established evidence of a politically motivated attack.

Novak countered that prosecutors had not connected Robinson’s alleged statement about “hate” to any particular speech, policy position or public statement made by Kirk.

He argued that Robinson’s personal relationship and disagreement with Kirk’s views could not, by themselves, establish precisely what motivated the shooting.

“There’s no evidence as to really what was in Mr. Robinson’s mind, if in fact he was the shooter, about Charlie Kirk,” Novak said.

His characterization of Kirk’s public speech nevertheless generated an immediate emotional response from the family.

The prosecution maintained that its case rests on substantially more than Robinson’s alleged political views.

McBride cited video footage, DNA testing, ballistic evidence, handwritten communications, online messages and alleged admissions linking Robinson to the shooting.

“The first reason we know the defendant is the shooter is because of video evidence,” McBride told the court.

“The second reason we know is because of the DNA on the firearm. And make no mistake, Your Honor, this is the firearm that killed Charlie Kirk.”

Prosecutors allege Robinson left a note for Twiggs before the attack saying he had gone on a “mission.”

“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it,” the alleged note stated.

After the shooting, Robinson allegedly acknowledged his responsibility in messages to Twiggs and members of an online Discord group.

When Twiggs asked, “You weren’t the one who did it, right?” Robinson allegedly responded, “I am. Sorry.”

Investigators also presented a message allegedly posted by Robinson shortly before he surrendered.

“It was me at UVU yesterday,” he reportedly wrote.

“We have in this case the classic circumstantial evidence of motive, means and opportunity, and then some,” McBride told Graf.

The defense challenged the strength of the DNA and ballistic evidence and emphasized that prosecutors have not yet proven their allegations at trial.

Another crucial dispute concerned whether the single fatal shot placed other people in grave danger.

Prosecutors allege Robinson fired from a rooftop approximately 400 feet away while Kirk was surrounded by security personnel and more than 3,000 attendees.

McBride said the alleged shooter would have seen the massive crowd before taking a prone position, aiming and firing.

“He lay down in a prone position, and he would have seen this mass of people, of 3,000-plus people there for the event, took aim, put his crosshairs on Charlie Kirk and fired,” McBride said.

The prosecutor also noted that four rounds were inside the rifle, arguing that the shooter was prepared to fire again if the first bullet missed.

Defense attorney Staci Visser maintained that the gunman fired only once, hit the intended target and fled without reloading or threatening anyone else.

“There is one act. There is one shot. There is one bullet. There is one victim,” Visser told the court.

Graf ultimately concluded that prosecutors presented sufficient evidence to support their claim that firing toward Kirk created a great risk of death to others.

That determination allowed the aggravated-murder charge to move forward and kept the death penalty available.

Kirk family attorney Jeffrey Neiman forcefully rejected Novak’s portrayal of the slain conservative leader.

Neiman said Kirk spent his life building a movement around faith, freedom, open debate and love of country.

“Charlie was the opposite of hate,” Neiman told the courtroom.

He then drew a sharp distinction between expressing controversial political opinions and committing the violence alleged by prosecutors.

“Firing a bullet into a crowd and assassinating him? That is hate,” Neiman said.

Erika Kirk reportedly closed her eyes and nodded through tears as the attorney spoke.

Kirk was 31 when he was killed while addressing students and supporters during his “American Comeback Tour.”

As the co-founder of Turning Point USA, he became one of the country’s most prominent conservative organizers and played an influential role in mobilizing young voters behind President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Graf scheduled a pretrial conference for Oct. 23, when the court is expected to consider a timetable for trial.

The Kirk family described Tuesday’s decision as an important step in its pursuit of justice.

“Today’s decision, which comes nearly a year since Charlie was taken from us, marks an important step in our family’s pursuit of justice for him,” the family said following the hearing.

The defense will have every opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s evidence before a jury.

But the emotional courtroom exchange also exposed a fundamental distinction at the heart of the case. Americans are free to criticize Kirk’s beliefs, reject his arguments and describe his rhetoric however they choose.

Political disagreement remains protected speech.

Assassination does not.