Audience companion · Case 251403576 · Tuesday, Sept 1, 2026

Final arguments — what each side is set to cover

Fourth District, Provo. Hon. Tony F. Graf Jr. Closing talks after a five-day preliminary hearing. This is “enough to go to trial,” not a guilty verdict. Alleged filings throughout.

Filing buttons open the yellow-highlight / black-box PDFs in the docs/ folder sitting next to this page. Keep this HTML and the docs folder in the same unzipped folder. Source list: Burkhart legal documents · warrant affidavits.

What Tuesday is — and is not

July 6–10, 2026 was the evidence week. Witnesses, exhibits, fights over what the livestream could show. Judge Graf did not rule from the bench. He set written briefs, then four hours of oral argument on September 1, then a written decision that can come later.

Plain English: this is the “do these charges go to a full trial?” hearing. Court word: bindover. It is not a jury. It is not a finding of guilt. The trial standard — beyond a reasonable doubt — is a different mountain.

KSL: state brief due July 28, defense August 11, state reply August 18, then Sept 1 talk. That calendar matches the PDFs in this pack.

Two fights, one morning

Fight A. Send some or all charges to trial, including the death-penalty extra.

Fight B. The Friday discovery report asks Graf to set dates so the defense can later ask him to order missing FBI/ATF lab files. That written “force the files out” motion is not on the archive page yet.

Room rule

August 27 minute entry: no portable phones or laptops in the gallery except lawyers, staff, the victim representative’s lawyer, and approved media gear.

Paper calendar that leads into Tuesday

June 2026
Graf already denied a defense try to block Rule 1102 hearsay at the prelim

Rev transcript of that ruling: the first hearing can rest, in whole or in part, on reliable secondhand talk. Tuesday the defense asks him to say the reliability check still never happened on the identity pile.

July 6–10, 2026
Five-day preliminary hearing

State puts on campus video, DNA, texts/note through the roommate interview, rifle recovery. Defense crosses FBI/ATF forensic witnesses and fights what can air. Prosecutor Chad Grunander, last day: “The evidence is overwhelming; it’s devastating.” Graf does not rule.

July 28
State memorandum in support of bindover

Opens the death-penalty extra: high-powered rifle toward a crowd of thousands; questioner between perch and Kirk; four cartridges; closet targets that miss paper; rifle taken apart and rebuilt on the roof.

August 11
Defense preliminary-hearing briefing

Secondhand-talk attack. Death-penalty extra attack: one scoped shot that hit the intended target. Asks to strike Count 6 (witness tampering), Count 7 / targeting extra, and the presence-of-a-child extra.

August 18
State reply

Ties go to the State at this stage. Same targets, opposite read. One-eighth-inch bump at 410 feet. Hit on Kirk does not erase risk when the trigger broke.

August 27–28
No-devices order + defense discovery status report

Friday numbers: 45 website dumps, 29,237 files, 3,267.1 GB, 12.1 TB device drive, 613,023 files. As of Aug 26: 100% downloaded, ~23% usable, ~20% fully tagged. Tuesday ask on this track: set dates for a later motion to force FBI/ATF lab files.

The legal test Tuesday actually uses

Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 7: if the judge finds probable cause that the crime was committed and this defendant committed it, the case is sent to trial. Findings may rest in whole or in part on reliable hearsay. The judge is supposed to view the evidence in the light most helpful to the State and not weigh a later jury fight.

If from the evidence the magistrate finds probable cause to believe that the crime charged has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the magistrate must order that the defendant be bound over for trial.

State reply leans on that “light most favorable to the State” line (they cite Ashcraft, 2015). Defense says even that low bar still needs a reliability check on secondhand identity evidence and a real “great risk” showing on the death-penalty extra.

What the State is set to cover

From the July 10 courtroom + the July 28 / August 18 briefs

Expect them to start where Grunander left Friday of evidence week: the prelim record is enough. Then walk the charging paper count by count and spend the heat on the death-penalty extra.

Identity / who crawled the roof

State reply opening: the defense is not really fighting the story that the person who crawled the Losee roof, fired, hid the rifle, dumped clothes, and told the roommate to delete texts was Robinson. They call the hearsay attack “repeatedly rejected.”

That is the State’s characterization. The defense heading still fights the secondhand path those facts took.

What they put on in July

Campus and roof-area surveillance. Enhanced UVU video the Kirk family was allowed to view after the public feed. DNA the State describes as tying Robinson to the rifle, towel, screwdriver. Roommate interview (State Exhibit 16). Recovered Mauser 98, .30-06, scoped, bolt-action. One spent case in the chamber, three live rounds.

Death-penalty extra, State version

He “intentionally fired his grandfather’s high-powered rifle towards a crowd of thousands, several of whom were in the line of fire between him and Mr. Kirk, while others were in close proximity to Mr. Kirk.”

  • Questioner a few feet in front of Kirk, “directly between the sniper perch… and Mr. Kirk.”
  • Four cartridges = reasonable inference he thought the first shot might miss.
  • Exhibit 25 closet targets: seldom a bullseye; some rounds miss the paper; a “test shot” cartridge.
  • Rifle taken apart to reach the roof, rebuilt with a screwdriver left there — scope may not sit where it was zeroed.
  • From 410 feet, a one-eighth-inch bump is a big miss.
  • 35–44 seconds prone makes a miss more likely, not less.
  • Hit on the intended target does not erase the risk that existed when the trigger broke.

What the defense is set to cover

From the August 11 brief + the August 28 discovery report

Two tracks in one appearance. First: do not send this to trial on untested secondhand talk, and do not hang a death-penalty tag on one shot that hit the person it was aimed at. Second: put dates on the calendar for a later fight over FBI/ATF lab files.

Secondhand talk

“This Court may not bind over Mr. Robinson based upon the State’s evidence consisting primarily of hearsay that has not been assessed for reliability.”

They flag alleged Robinson–Twiggs messages, alleged Discord, and a UVU camera ID arriving through the recorded county-attorney interview of Lance Twiggs — a witness they say they were not allowed to force to Utah.

One shot, intended target

Defense heading: single shot from a high-powered scoped rifle from a rooftop that hit the intended target. Bolt gun. Spent case still in the chamber. Path east-to-west and down. Questioner to the east — if he were in the path, they say he would have been hit. Agent Hull: “I can’t answer” what the roof could see. Tent does not see through from behind.

Legal test they want on the extra

More than a possibility someone else might die. A high chance, plus knowledge of that high chance. Nearby people plus one successful aimed shot, they say, is not enough. Utah cases they walk usually want a chain of events and, with a gun, more than one shot that hits or endangers someone other than the person who died.

Death-penalty extra — same photos, opposite reads

Statute both sides cite: Utah Code § 76-5-202(2)(a)(iii) — the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to another person who is not Charlie Kirk and not the shooter. Defense nickname: KGRD. Forget the letters. Remember the sentence.

Neither side’s September briefs argue that the shot that struck Kirk was aimed at someone else. The fight is what else was put at risk when it left the muzzle.

Fact on the pageDefense readState read
One shot, bolt Mauser, spent case in chamber + 3 unfiredNo spray of fire into a crowdThe first round still crossed a packed courtyard
Exhibit 25 closet targetsHoles walk in toward centerSeldom bullseye; some miss the paper
Four cartridgesWhat was left after one hitPacked extras because he thought he might miss
410 ft / 68 ft drop / scopeAimed downhill; questioner was east of the path1/8-inch bump = feet at the target
Screwdriver / soft case / backpackDoes not prove the rifle was in pieces when firedRebuilt scope may not be true
35–44 seconds proneDo not guess what he saw in that windowHaste raises the chance of a miss

Say the word: inference — a conclusion they want drawn — not a second person struck. These briefs argue risk, not a second gunshot wound.

Secondhand talk — why it is still on the table

Defense

June ruling let Rule 1102 into the room. August 11 brief says Graf still never did a reliability check on the identity package that came through the Twiggs interview. Close of that brief: decline bindover for that reason alone.

Housekeeping: table of authorities says Utah Rule of Evidence 1102. Argument paragraph says Rule of Criminal Procedure 1102. The mismatch is in the paper.

State

Utah prelims may rest on reliable hearsay. They say this objection was already lost and that the defense is not challenging the substance of who fired. Tuesday is argument on the existing record, not a new evidence week unless Graf says it is.

The file mountain — the other Tuesday ask

This is not “is he guilty.” This is “what has actually been handed over, and what has been read.”

BucketWhat the Friday report says
1 · State website (Axon)45 dumps · 29,237 files · 3,267.1 GB. As of Aug 26: 100% down, ~23% usable, ~20% fully tagged
2 · Device driveArrived Mar 13 · ~12.1 TB · 613,023 files · ~2.9M phone artifacts · ~4.9M computer artifacts
Provider dumps~183 GB + Aug 18 Apple ~170 GB unopened. Discord 1,000,000+ messages. CSLI ≥ 25,253
3 · FBI / ATF“Some, but certainly not all,” of the March 25 lab request. Tuesday ask: set dates for a motion to force the rest

Do not add 3.27 TB to 12.1 TB. Different boxes. An artifact is a crumb the software pulled out, not a unique smoking-gun document. Downloaded is not read.

Other counts they briefed — if Tuesday goes long

Count 6 · witness tampering

Charging paper, as quoted: he told the roommate to stay silent if police asked. Defense: that is “ask for a lawyer and remain silent,” Fifth Amendment, unless the motive is to block the investigation. State: the ask was to hide the shooting, not protect a roommate’s rights.

Count 7 / targeting + child extra

Defense: after searching houses, phones, and hundreds of interviews, the State hangs a political-targeting extra on one alleged “hatred” line. Presence-of-a-child extra: they say the State did not put a child under 14 in the zone the statute requires. State reply still asks Graf to send every count forward.

What Graf can do from this record

  • Send some or all charges to trial.
  • Stop the case here.
  • Keep or drop the death-penalty extra, and the other extras.
  • Set dates for the missing-file fight — or wait for the written motion.
  • Take it under advisement. July coverage already said a written decision can take weeks after argument.

What these PDFs do not let him do on Tuesday: retry the July hearing, release the website pile to the public, name which phone hit a tower dump, unseal an autopsy, or rule on a motion that has not been filed.

Pertinent coverage and primary pages

Hearing week + Sept 1 date
Rules and statute

Confirm the subsection live. Both briefs cite (2)(a)(iii) as the “great risk of death to another” extra.

Opinion weather — not a filing

Cap three per side if this page is on screen. A YouTube title that says the defense is “buried under discovery” is treating a logistics chart as a guilt pile.

Where new paper will show up

Andrea Burkhart’s public list is the counter. As of Monday night it still ended Friday, August 28. No bindover order. No written ruling. No motion to compel on the page yet.

After court, look here first before anything circulating on X.