Defense Moves To Block Graphic Kirk Video From Pretrial Hearing

Attorneys representing Tyler James Robinson are pushing back against an effort by state prosecutors to publicly play a graphic video of the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during an upcoming pretrial hearing, warning that the footage has no bearing on the legal issue before the court and could seriously compromise Robinson’s right to a fair trial.

In a nine-page objection filed Jan. 27, Robinson’s defense team urged a Utah judge to reject the State’s request to display a close-range, full-color video with audio depicting the moments leading up to, during, and immediately after Kirk was shot. The footage, according to the filing, would be shown at a Feb. 3 evidentiary hearing tied not to the facts of the shooting itself, but to a procedural dispute over who should prosecute the case. Fox News reported on the filing.

That upcoming hearing centers on Robinson’s motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office due to what the defense describes as an actual or apparent conflict of interest. Specifically, Robinson’s attorneys argue that a prosecutor’s adult child was present at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025, and allegedly witnessed the shooting — a circumstance they say raises serious ethical concerns.

Defense lawyers emphasize that the hearing is narrowly confined to that question alone and has nothing to do with Robinson’s guilt or innocence, nor with the cause or manner of Kirk’s death. They note that prosecutors have already submitted still photographs and diagrams showing Kirk’s location and the proximity of witnesses at the scene — materials the defense does not oppose and says are more than sufficient for resolving the limited factual issues relevant to the disqualification motion.

According to the filing, the video prosecutors want to play adds nothing of legitimate evidentiary value to the conflict-of-interest question. Even if the court were to find some minimal relevance, the defense argues the footage should still be excluded under Rule 403 because its prejudicial impact would vastly outweigh any probative benefit.

The defense describes the video as “graphic and likely highly disturbing,” warning that playing it in open court would all but guarantee immediate national and international broadcast. Such exposure, they argue, would severely jeopardize Robinson’s constitutional right to an impartial jury — a concern heightened by the fact that the case is being pursued as a capital prosecution.

“This is the most momentous judgment a jury can be asked to make,” the defense wrote, citing prior Utah Supreme Court precedent underscoring the need to insulate death penalty cases from bias and undue emotional influence.

Robinson’s attorneys stress that releasing the video at this stage would do nothing to advance justice and could permanently contaminate the potential jury pool before a trial even begins. Importantly, the filing does not seek to permanently bar the footage from ever being shown. Instead, the defense asks the court to exclude the video from the Feb. 3 hearing altogether or, at minimum, to keep it sealed and out of public view if it is admitted.

Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man, faces charges including aggravated murder in connection with the fatal shooting of Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors have made clear they intend to seek the death penalty.

In recent proceedings before Utah’s Fourth District Court in Provo, Robinson’s defense team has filed a series of motions aimed at limiting certain evidence and challenging the authority of the Utah County Attorney’s Office to continue handling the case. Prosecutors have flatly rejected claims of a conflict of interest, insisting no ethical violation occurred and that their office remains capable of prosecuting the matter fairly.

Meanwhile, Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has called on the court to move forward without unnecessary delays, citing the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.

Several motions remain unresolved, with additional hearings scheduled for early February. The case is still in the pretrial phase, and no date has been set for jury selection.