The State’s Own Evidence
Defeats Its Theory.

I. The State’s Motive Theory Collapses Under Its Own Witness

The State charged a political-expression victim-targeting enhancement. It alleges that Mr. Robinson intentionally selected Charlie Kirk because of Kirk’s political expression. The charging document further claims that Mr. Robinson’s mother described him as becoming more political, leaning left and becoming more interested in gay and transgender rights. Neither parent testified during this preliminary hearing. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov Instead, the State presented the recorded interview of Lance Twiggs, the person who lived with Mr. Robinson and was romantically involved with him. And what did the State’s own central witness say?

• Twiggs did not closely follow politics.
• Political discussions between the two were not consistent.
• Mr. Robinson sometimes mentioned things heard on the radio during his commute.
• The subjects were generally Trump or current policies.
• They did not really discuss gender-identity or LGBTQ-rights issues.

That is the witness the State says received his confession. That is the witness the State relies upon to explain the alleged Dremel request, the alleged note, the alleged messages and Mr. Robinson’s behavior after returning home. Most importantly, Twiggs said: “I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically.” Source: rev.com That is the witness who shared Mr. Robinson’s home.

The State wants this Court to leap from occasional comments about Trump and public policy to a meticulously planned political assassination. Its own witness did not build that bridge.

• an obsession with Charlie Kirk;
• repeated discussions about Charlie Kirk;
• escalating political rage;
• threats of political violence;
• fantasies about assassination;
• hatred consuming the household;
• or any demonstrated progression from political opinion to murder.

The State instead attempts to construct motive backward from the ammunition inscriptions and alleged messages: a cartridge contained political or cultural language; therefore the shooter was politically motivated. The rifle belonged to Mr. Robinson; therefore Mr. Robinson engraved the cartridges. Messages attributed to Mr. Robinson referenced hatred; therefore he authored the inscriptions and committed the shooting. Every part depends upon the next. That is circular reasoning — not independent proof of motive.

Twiggs knew where the household Dremel was. He testified that the apartment contained a common area where household tools were kept and that he directed Mr. Robinson to the Dremel’s location. That testimony establishes shared access to the tool. It does not establish who used it, when it was used, what it was used upon or who engraved the ammunition. Source: rev.com The State presented no eyewitness who saw Mr. Robinson engrave cartridges. It presented no forensic tool-mark comparison tying the lettering to that Dremel. It presented no video of the engraving. It presented no dated photograph showing Mr. Robinson performing it. It presented no recovered draft or plan independently connecting him to the inscriptions. The State has a motive allegation. Its closest witness did not corroborate the alleged obsession behind it.

II. The Video Shows an Unidentified Person — Not Tyler Robinson

The State has repeatedly narrated its surveillance footage using Mr. Robinson’s name. But narration is not identification.

• kept his head down;
• wore a hat and sunglasses;
• rarely exposed a clear view of his face;
• and moved through surveillance coverage while concealing identifiable features. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov

That is continuity. It is not identity. The footage may permit the State to follow the movements of a similarly dressed person between cameras.

• a clear facial image from the roof;
• a unique scar;
• a tattoo;
• a distinctive gait scientifically compared to Mr. Robinson;
• a measurable physical characteristic exclusive to him;
• a positive eyewitness identification of him on the roof;
• or any witness who could identify distinguishing characteristics of the rooftop figure.

Even Twiggs, who knew Mr. Robinson intimately, was not presented as making an unequivocal identification from every significant image. The State’s method is to begin by labeling the person “Tyler Robinson” and then use that label as proof.

First establish identity. Then use the person’s movements as evidence.

The figure is Mr. Robinson because the State says the figure is Mr. Robinson. That is not identification.

III. The Rifle Was Associated With Mr. Robinson — But the State Could Not Prove It Fired the Recovered Fragment

The State emphasizes that the rifle was connected to Mr. Robinson and his family. Ownership and prior possession are not disputed for purposes of this argument. But ownership does not establish use at a particular time.

Did the recovered rifle fire the projectile fragment submitted in this case? Her answer was not yes.

She could neither identify nor exclude the recovered rifle as having fired the jacket fragment. She testified that there was insufficient agreement and insufficient disagreement to reach either conclusion. Source: rev.com

• that this rifle fired the fatal projectile;
• that the fragment came through this barrel;
• or that microscopic markings tied the fragment to this weapon.

The State may say the rifle is “consistent.” But countless firearms can share class characteristics. The examiner herself agreed that bullets fired from different weapons can display similarities, and her final source conclusion remained inconclusive. Source: rev.com The fragment’s measured range — approximately .286 to .301 inch — was discussed as a class-characteristic measurement of a damaged jacket fragment. It was not an individualizing identification. The State wants the Court to hear “not excluded” as though it means “probably matched.” It does not. Not excluded is not identified. Inconclusive is not corroboration. The scientific evidence did not connect the fragment to Mr. Robinson’s rifle.

IV. The DNA Cannot Establish Who Used the Rifle or When

The State uses enormous statistical numbers to make the DNA evidence sound dispositive. But the State’s own expert explained the limitations. She testified that DNA can appear on an object for numerous reasons and that the laboratory does not offer an opinion about what activity produced it. She could not determine when the DNA was deposited. DNA can remain recoverable for years or decades under favorable conditions. Source: rev.com

• that he possessed it on September 10;
• that he transported it to UVU;
• that he carried it onto the roof;
• that he loaded the relevant cartridges;
• that he fired it;
• or that he was the last person to handle it.

The DNA proves biological material was present. It does not reconstruct conduct.

The State’s case becomes even less clean when the Court considers the mixtures and other contributors. The evidence established that Twiggs’s DNA was present on crucial associated material. One tested sample was interpreted as a mixture involving Twiggs and Mr. Robinson. The defense elicited that investigators had directed the examiner to treat Twiggs as an expected or elimination contributor because he lived with Mr. Robinson. Source: rev.com

The towel was not collected from their shared home. It was recovered outside, near UVU. The examiner acknowledged that it was not found in a location where Twiggs’s DNA would naturally be expected merely because he was a roommate. Investigators nevertheless told her that they suspected the towel had originated in the residence and that Twiggs should be treated as an expected contributor. Source: rev.com That does not prove Twiggs committed anything. It does prove the DNA cannot be presented as a simple, one-person trail leading exclusively to Mr. Robinson.

“Mr. Robinson’s DNA means he used the object” — then argue “Twiggs’s DNA means nothing because he lived in the home.” Both profiles require the same scientific caution. If shared-home transfer or prior household contact explains Twiggs’s DNA, it can also explain Mr. Robinson’s. If DNA proves active use, the State must explain Twiggs’s presence. It cannot have the science both ways.

V. The Fingerprint Evidence Does Not Identify Mr. Robinson — It Excludes Him

The State presented evidence from the window and alleged descent area through which it says the rooftop person escaped. Three latent impressions — identified as 11B, 11C and 11D — were considered suitable or of limited comparative value.

The Utah examiner excluded Tyler Robinson as the source of all three. Subsequent FBI examination was inconclusive. Source: rev.com The State will say the unknown prints could have been left by someone else at another time.

Physical evidence requires context. Presence must be tied to conduct and time. The State demands that Mr. Robinson’s DNA be treated as evidence of his conduct while insisting that unidentified prints on the alleged escape route carry no corresponding significance. The fingerprints do not establish another shooter — the defense does not carry that burden. They establish that the comparable ridge evidence from the route central to the State’s theory did not belong to Mr. Robinson. No fingerprint found on that alleged escape point identified him.

VI. The Screwdriver Discovery Was Not Documented As Cleanly As the State Suggests

Officer Richard Novak testified that his body camera was active when he approached the Losee building. He was accompanied by a man in civilian clothing who appeared to be armed and displayed a badge.

• the man’s name;
• his agency;
• his assignment;
• or why he was present beyond providing backup.

He testified that the unidentified man carried a handgun. Source: rev.com This was not some peripheral public area. This was the building and rooftop the State says contained evidence of a capital offense. Every person entering that scene matters. Every officer or unidentified badge-holder must be accounted for.

The admitted screwdriver photograph was also not a contemporaneous image of the officer’s first untouched observation. The photograph contained a yellow evidence marker that had been placed after discovery. Officer Novak acknowledged the marker was not present when he first encountered the screwdriver. The defense challenged the photograph’s foundation because the State initially had not established who took it or exactly when it was taken. Source: rev.com Therefore, the photograph establishes what the screwdriver looked like after evidence personnel had entered and marked the scene.

• the precise untouched condition in which it was first found;
• who approached it before photography;
• who placed the marker;
• whether it was moved;
• the complete sequence of access;
• or what occurred during any body-camera gap.

The defense need not prove planting or misconduct. The State bears the responsibility to present a clean, documented evidentiary sequence. Instead, its own officer testified that he entered with an unidentified armed badge-holder whom he could not identify. That is not complete scene accountability.

VII. The Alleged Confession Is Not a Confession Given by Mr. Robinson to Law Enforcement

The State and the media have repeatedly used the word confession. The Court must be precise about what was actually presented.

• recorded police interrogation in which Mr. Robinson admits the offense;
• body-camera recording of such an admission;
• signed confession;
• audio recording of an admission to his parents;
• original handwritten confession recovered and scientifically attributed to him;
• live testimony from his mother;
• live testimony from his father;
• or live testimony from Mike Mitchell.

1. Messages recovered from Twiggs’s phone and attributed to Mr. Robinson.
2. A photograph on Twiggs’s phone of a note Twiggs said he found.
3. Secondhand accounts of alleged statements to parents and a family friend who did not testify.

Those are not the same thing as producing Mr. Robinson’s own authenticated confession.

VIII. The Original Note Was Not Produced

The State claims that a text at 11:00 p.m. instructed Twiggs to look underneath a keyboard. Twiggs said he found a note, photographed it and returned it to the desk. He did not produce the original note. The State presented the photograph found on Twiggs’s phone. Source: rev.com Agent Davis called it a handwritten note “from Tyler to Lance.”

• handwriting analysis;
• fingerprints;
• DNA;
• paper examination;
• ink dating;
• an eyewitness to its creation;
• or recovery of the original.

He answered that Twiggs told investigators about it and identified it. Source: rev.com That is not independent authentication. It is Twiggs authenticating evidence supplied by Twiggs.

• handwriting comparison;
• latent-print examination;
• DNA testing;
• ink examination;
• paper-source comparison;
• indentation analysis;
• or verification of physical possession.

The Court received a digital image. It did not receive the original alleged document.

a photograph on Twiggs’s device, of a note Twiggs said he found, attributed to Mr. Robinson because Twiggs said it was his. That is a closed evidentiary circle.

IX. The Digital Evidence Was Forensically Extracted — But the State Did Not Present the Actual Examiners

The defense should not inaccurately claim there was no forensic extraction. The record establishes that Twiggs’s phone was seized, transported to the Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory and downloaded using Cellebrite. Discord materials were also obtained through investigative process. Source: rev.com But that does not end the inquiry.

• he does not personally conduct Cellebrite extractions;
• he did not perform this extraction;
• and when asked whether he had spoken with those who performed it, his testimony did not establish meaningful firsthand involvement with the extraction personnel. Source: rev.com

• the extraction method;
• whether it was full-file-system, advanced logical or another extraction type;
• database integrity;
• message identifiers;
• account identifiers;
• deleted records;
• synchronization artifacts;
• whether messages originated locally or were restored from cloud data;
• whether the displayed conversation was complete;
• whether multiple devices accessed the account;
• or whether timestamps reflected device time, server time or another reference.

Instead, Agent Davis narrated selected messages. When asked how he knew gray messages came from Mr. Robinson, Davis explained the iPhone color convention and said Twiggs acknowledged who was saying what. Source: rev.com But gray means only that a message was received on that displayed device. It does not establish the physical identity of the human being typing on the sending device. The authorship foundation again runs through Twiggs. The State showed that messages existed on Twiggs’s phone. It did not establish through the extracting examiner or a corresponding extraction from Mr. Robinson’s device that Mr. Robinson physically authored every attributed message.

• Was Mr. Robinson’s phone recovered?
• Was it extracted?
• Did his native device contain the corresponding outgoing messages?
• Did Discord supply IP records?
• Were device identifiers established?
• Was the account logged into elsewhere?
• Did Twiggs know passwords or have access to Mr. Robinson’s devices?
• Were deleted or preceding messages recovered?
• Was the complete conversation introduced rather than selected passages?

Without those answers, the State has evidence of messages received by Twiggs — not conclusive proof of who physically authored them.

X. The Digital Timeline Requires Explanation

Twiggs testified that he received no direct message from Mr. Robinson during the day on September 10. He said the first direct message arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. Agent Davis testified that the Cellebrite extraction likewise placed the first text at 11:00 p.m. Source: rev.com

• he was “still” in Orem;
• he was stuck there;
• he needed to retrieve the rifle;
• police activity prevented recovery;
• one vehicle was lingering;
• and he remained near the drop point. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov

“OMW home 3.5 hours.” Source: rev.com

• UVU surveillance;
• roadway-camera footage;
• license-plate-reader records;
• fuel or purchase records;
• cellphone location information;
• the Challenger’s departure time;
• the approximately four-hour travel distance;
• and Twiggs’s account of when Mr. Robinson returned home.

If surveillance shows the vehicle or Mr. Robinson elsewhere while the alleged author claims to be in Orem, that is not a minor discrepancy. The alleged messages are written as real-time location reporting. Their reliability therefore depends upon real-time location corroboration. The State cannot ask the Court to accept the messages as accurate confessions while disregarding any conflict between their claimed location and objective travel evidence.

XI. The Central Witness Received Both Federal and State Immunity

The recorded interview itself confirms that Twiggs had been granted both federal and state immunity relating to the material he discussed. Source: rev.com Immunity does not automatically make a witness dishonest. But it creates a direct reason for rigorous cross-examination.

• what conduct Twiggs feared could expose him to prosecution;
• why federal immunity was necessary;
• why state immunity was necessary;
• what investigators believed he might have done;
• whether the agreements required truthfulness;
• what benefits he expected;
• whether immunity covered obstruction, evidence handling or account access;
• how many times he was interviewed;
• what changed between interviews;
• what information investigators disclosed to him before the April interview;
• and whether he had reviewed messages, media reports or charging allegations before giving his recorded account.

Instead, the State presented Twiggs by video. The defense did not conduct live cross-examination before the Court. That matters because Twiggs was not merely a corroborating witness.

• the alleged confession;
• the alleged note;
• authorship of the messages;
• the Dremel;
• motive;
• Mr. Robinson’s schedule;
• Mr. Robinson’s alleged return;
• Mr. Robinson’s alleged in-person admission;
• and his supposed emotional reaction.

The prosecution was permitted to ask Twiggs questions in a controlled recorded setting after immunity had been granted. The defense was denied the equivalent opportunity to confront him live before the factfinder. The State cannot convert an immunized, un-cross-examined account into unquestioned fact merely by playing it on a screen.

XII. The State Did Not Call the Parents Who Allegedly Heard an Admission

The charging document contains dramatic claims about Mr. Robinson’s parents.

• his mother thought the released image resembled him;
• his father thought the pictured rifle resembled a family rifle;
• Mr. Robinson implied self-harm;
• Mr. Robinson implied he was the shooter;
• and Mr. Robinson supposedly said Kirk spread hatred. Source: atty.utahcounty.gov

Neither parent testified.

• the exact words used;
• the questions asked;
• the emotional context;
• whether statements were assumptions or admissions;
• whether either parent misunderstood;
• whether accounts changed;
• what investigators suggested before obtaining statements;
• or whether the written summaries accurately captured the conversations.

The charging document repeatedly uses the word “implied.”

Without the parents, the defense could not ask what was actually said. That omission matters most because the State and media publicly converted “implied” into “confessed.” The record presented to this Court does not contain a recorded parental confession. It contains investigative accounts of what absent witnesses allegedly interpreted.

XIII. Mike Mitchell Did Not Testify

The State says family friend Mike Mitchell helped arrange the surrender and supposedly asked Mr. Robinson about clothing connected to the event. Mitchell did not testify. Agent Davis testified about interviews conducted with Mitchell and about a written 1102 statement Mitchell supplied. Davis initially had difficulty accurately identifying which agents interviewed which family members and Mitchell before correcting the record. Source: rev.com The State introduced Mitchell’s written statement through an investigator.

• what Mr. Robinson said verbatim;
• what questions preceded the response;
• whether police or family members had already described the allegations;
• whether Mr. Robinson adopted Mitchell’s language;
• what “related clothes” meant;
• whether the account was written from memory;
• whether Mitchell discussed his statement with anyone before writing it;
• or whether investigators influenced the framing of the questions.

Again, the State substituted a written account and an investigator’s narration for live testimony from the person who supposedly heard the statement.

XIV. The State’s Surrender Narrative Was Presented Through Layers

Agent Davis testified that investigators received information at approximately 8:30 p.m. that an individual was turning himself in or intended to turn himself in. He then traveled to St. George on September 11. Source: rev.com He did not personally witness the initial family discussions that caused Mr. Robinson to go to the sheriff’s office. The State presented no recording showing Mr. Robinson walking into the station and confessing.

• fear;
• confusion;
• family pressure;
• recognition that police are looking for him;
• desire for protection;
• or a decision to submit to legal process.

Surrender is not itself a confession. The State must prove the words it attributes to Mr. Robinson — not invite the Court to infer guilt merely from his submission to custody.

XV. The State’s Case Depends Upon Its Own Labels

• “the shooter” for an unidentified surveillance figure;
• “the murder weapon” for a rifle the firearms examiner could not identify;
• “the confession” for communications whose authorship depends substantially upon Twiggs;
• “the handwritten note” for a photograph of a missing original;
• and “motive” for a political obsession the witness closest to Mr. Robinson did not describe.

Calling the rifle “the murder weapon” does not make the ballistic comparison conclusive. Calling the messages “Tyler’s” does not replace device and authorship proof. Calling the rooftop figure “Robinson” does not reveal his face. Calling an implication a confession does not supply the missing words.

XVI. The State’s Evidence Does Not Corroborate Itself Independently

The prosecution will argue that each weak item strengthens the others. But evidence does not independently corroborate another item when both depend upon the same source.

• Twiggs attributes the messages to Mr. Robinson.
• The messages supposedly corroborate Twiggs.
• Twiggs identifies the note.
• The note supposedly corroborates the messages.
• Twiggs explains the Dremel.
• The inscriptions supposedly corroborate Twiggs.
• Twiggs describes Mr. Robinson’s movements.
• Those descriptions supposedly corroborate the alleged confession.
• The alleged confession is then used to identify the otherwise unidentified rooftop figure.

That is not a set of independent evidentiary streams. It is one stream repeatedly routed through Twiggs. The Court must ask what evidence exists without first assuming Twiggs’s complete reliability.

• An unidentified person on surveillance.
• A rifle associated with Mr. Robinson.
• An inconclusive firearms comparison.
• DNA that cannot establish activity or timing.
• Mixed DNA involving Twiggs on associated material.
• Latent prints excluding Mr. Robinson.
• A photographed note without the original.
• Hearsay from absent parents.
• Hearsay and a written account from an absent family friend.
• And an immunized witness shown on video without live defense cross-examination.

That is not the overwhelming case the State has portrayed.

XVII. The Court Must Not Reverse the Burden

• who was on the roof;
• who handled the rifle last;
• whose prints were on the window;
• why Twiggs’s DNA was on the towel or screwdriver material;
• who authored the messages;
• whether Twiggs framed anyone;
• or what alternative sequence occurred.

Those questions remain the State’s burden. The defense is not required to solve the homicide to demonstrate that the State has failed to reliably identify this defendant.

The proper question is: what reliable evidence proves that Tyler Robinson did it?