Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline: Legal Blog--What prosecutors must prove to secure the death penalty in the Charlie Kirk case
Utah’s Supreme Court has analyzed the legal theory that prosecutors are using to seek capital punishment for the alleged shooter.
What prosecutors must prove to secure the death penalty in the Charlie Kirk case www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
— @jimrissmiller.bsky.social 2025-09-17T20:26:08.394Z
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/tyler-robinson-death-penalty-charlie-kirk-shooting-utah-rcna231851
Now that Utah prosecutors are officially pursuing the death penalty against Tyler Robinson for Charlie Kirk’s death, let’s examine what they need to prove and what Robinson might argue at trial and on appeal if he’s convicted — a process that could take many years to play out.
Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder under a Utah state law that lays out various factors that can make a defendant eligible for capital punishment. Proving that he intentionally killed Kirk wouldn’t alone make this a death penalty case. The additional factor cited by Utah County prosecutors is that Robinson allegedly “knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor.”....
Robinson’s case is different in that he allegedly shot at, and seemingly only intended to shoot, one person. But the question isn’t what happened in retrospect but rather what was at risk of happening. Prosecutors will therefore argue that Robinson knowingly created that great risk when he shot Kirk. They apparently have this risk factor in mind in laying out their allegations, writing in the charging document filed Tuesday:
Similarly on the proximity point, the state alleges that the bullet’s trajectory “passed closely to several other individuals beside Mr. Kirk, including the questioner who was standing directly in front of Mr. Kirk.”....
One argument could be that, by targeting Kirk, he specifically intended not to shoot anyone else and, therefore, that no one else was at risk. It might not be a winning argument, but it could be the argument (or one of them) that his lawyer is left with. Had Robinson truly been concerned with not risking danger to anyone else, a prosecutor might argue, he would not have targeted Kirk in a crowded setting.
Again, this prosecution is just getting underway, but these are some of the arguments we could see develop as the case takes shape.
Robinson has been charged with aggravated murder under a Utah state law that lays out various factors that can make a defendant eligible for capital punishment. Proving that he intentionally killed Kirk wouldn’t alone make this a death penalty case. The additional factor cited by Utah County prosecutors is that Robinson allegedly “knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor.”....
Robinson’s case is different in that he allegedly shot at, and seemingly only intended to shoot, one person. But the question isn’t what happened in retrospect but rather what was at risk of happening. Prosecutors will therefore argue that Robinson knowingly created that great risk when he shot Kirk. They apparently have this risk factor in mind in laying out their allegations, writing in the charging document filed Tuesday:
Mr. Kirk’s team members were very close to him on his right and left, as well as some behind his canopy and others at various close locations near him. The large crowd surrounded Mr. Kirk on three sides. Temporary metal fencing separated attendees from Mr. Kirk by only a matter of feet. Directly above and behind Mr. Kirk was the UVU Hall of Flags, an indoor walkway spanning several hundred feet with floor-to-ceiling glass windows which overlook the plaza where Mr. Kirk was seated. People were in the walkway at the time of the shooting.
Similarly on the proximity point, the state alleges that the bullet’s trajectory “passed closely to several other individuals beside Mr. Kirk, including the questioner who was standing directly in front of Mr. Kirk.”....
One argument could be that, by targeting Kirk, he specifically intended not to shoot anyone else and, therefore, that no one else was at risk. It might not be a winning argument, but it could be the argument (or one of them) that his lawyer is left with. Had Robinson truly been concerned with not risking danger to anyone else, a prosecutor might argue, he would not have targeted Kirk in a crowded setting.
Again, this prosecution is just getting underway, but these are some of the arguments we could see develop as the case takes shape.