Background

October 14, 1993

• Charlie James Kirk was born in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

2012

• Kirk co-founded Turning Point USA.

2018

• Kirk was named to Forbes 30 Under 30 in Law & Policy.

2019

• Kirk received an honorary degree from Liberty University.

May 2021

• Kirk married Erika Frantzve, Miss Arizona USA 2012.

August 2022

• Kirk and Erika welcomed their first child, a daughter.

May 2024

• Kirk and Erika welcomed their second child, a son.

Pre-Incident Indicators – Prior to September 10, 2025

• In the years before the shooting, Tyler Robinson had reportedly become noticeably more political.
• According to family information later described by investigators, Robinson discussed Charlie Kirk’s planned visit to Utah Valley University during a family dinner before the shooting. He allegedly expressed hostility toward Kirk’s viewpoints and said he believed Kirk was “spreading hate.”

September 10, 2025 — Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah

• 8:29 a.m. MDT – Tyler Robinson arrives on campus in a gray Dodge Challenger.
• Clothing matches surveillance stills released later by police.
• 11:50 a.m. Robinson walking across the grassy area north of Campus Drive.
• 11:57 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Stops at pedestrian tunnel.
• Removes cellphone.
• Appears to type or scroll.
• Pockets phone.
• 12:00 p.m. – American Comeback Tour event begins in the UVU Fountain Courtyard.
• Charlie Kirk takes the stage under the “Prove Me Wrong” tent. Crowd size: ~3,000.
• 12:02 p.m. Walking along the north side of the Losee Center.
• 12:05 p.m. – Audience Q&A.
• Kirk fields questions, including one about mass shootings. Atmosphere is energetic but orderly.
• 12:15 p.m. Climbs stairs toward rooftop access.
• 12:17 p.m. Crouches against north rooftop wall.
• Briefly disappears from camera.
• Runs across rooftop.
• 12:20:00 p.m. – Lies prone near the eastern edge of the rooftop.
• Direct line of sight to Charlie Kirk.
• Investigators describe it as a concealed firing position.
• Kirk begins answering a student’s question about shootings and political violence.
• 12:22:30 p.m. – Attendees report a lull just before the shot; Kirk continues speaking on stage.
• 12:23:00 p.m. – Single rifle shot fired.
• Kirk struck in the neck, collapses.
• Crowd screams; panic begins.
• 12:23:05 p.m. – Multiple audience members duck for cover; several rush the stage.
• 12:23:20 p.m. – Kirk is lifted and carried by staff and attendees away from the podium.
• 12:23:30 p.m. – Video captures a figure running across the roof of the Losee Center, ~400 feet from the stage. Authorities later state they cannot yet confirm this was Robinson.
• 12:24:00 p.m. – Officers on scene begin securing the courtyard; initial calls for EMS.
• 12:25:00 p.m. – Robinson flees rooftop. Later FBI assessment: he jumped off the building and escaped toward a residential neighborhood north of campus.
• 12:26:00 p.m. – Early witness reports describe “a man in black tactical clothing.”
• 12:27:00 p.m. – Dispatch audio: “Person on roof of building carrying long rifle.” Later call adds “wearing black tactical gear, helmet.”
• 12:28:30 p.m. – UVU security staff initiate internal lock down.
• 12:29:00 p.m. – Police perimeter expands around Losee Center and nearby streets.
• 12:30:00 p.m. – Miscommunication on radio: “shots near library” reported (later corrected).
• 12:35–12:36 p.m. – Officers confirm shooter likely fled from rooftop into nearby neighborhood. Statement later confirmed by Beau Mason, Utah Department of Public Safety.
• 12:37 p.m. – UVU issues official lock-down/emergency alert. Campus fully secured.
• 12:40–1:00 p.m. – Kirk transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in critical condition.
• 1:00–2:20 p.m. – Surgeons attempt lifesaving measures; media reports state Kirk is “critical.”
• 2:20 p.m. MDT – Early reports incorrectly circulate that Kirk was “killed at 2:20.” In reality, he had been shot at 12:23 and remained hospitalized.
• 2:27 p.m. MDT – Additional dispatch audio reaffirms a “suspect in tactical gear with rifle on rooftop.”
• 2:37 p.m. MDT – Video shows officers searching ~0.25 miles north of campus. Metadata confirms timestamp.
• 2:40 p.m. MDT – Donald Trump posts on Truth Social that Kirk has died.
• 4:21 PM – FBI Director Kash Patel Announced the arrest Source
• 5:59 PM – FBI Director Kash Patel The subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement. Source

September 11, 2025: Public Identification Effort

• 9:58 AM FBI released new images and asking for the public’s help identifying this person of interest in connection with the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk Source
• 10:56 AM The FBI announced a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading to the identification and arrest of the individual or individuals responsible for Kirk’s murder Source
• 6:17 PM The FBI released additional photographs of a person of interest. Source
• 7:00 p.m. Authorities released rooftop escape footage and surveillance stills. A public tipline was activated. Investigators also confirmed that cartridge casings recovered in the investigation contained engravings. Reported inscriptions included:  Transcript / Visit Video Source |  Source
• “Hey fascist! Catch!”
• “Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao.”
• “If you read this, you are gay LMAO.”
• “notices, bulges, OWO, what’s this?”
• 9:00 PM: A family member reportedly contacted a family friend after Robinson confessed. The family friend notified the sheriff’s department, which initiated the law enforcement response that led to Robinson.

September 12, 2025 – Tyler Robinson Arrested

• The FBI announced that Tyler Robinson, 22, had been arrested in Washington County, Utah, after being turned in by someone close to him.
• Authorities seized or reviewed evidence including:
• Rifle
• Ammunition
• Rooftop forensic evidence
• Surveillance footage
• Discord communications
• Text messages
• Weapon Recovery: Officials recovered a bolt-action rifle wrapped in a dark towel in a wooded area near Utah Valley University. Utah Governor Spencer Cox later described the weapon as a Mauser Model 98 bolt-action rifle with a mounted scope.
• Discord Evidence: Investigators reviewed Discord messages that reportedly referenced:
• Retrieving a rifle from a “drop point”
• A rifle wrapped in a towel
• Engraved bullets
• A unique rifle and scope
• Instructions to Robinson’s roommate to retrieve the rifle
• Afternoon Search: Forensic agents searched Robinson’s apartment complex in St. George, Utah.
• Robinson reportedly lived there with his romantic partner.
• Agents photographed, collected, and documented evidence at the residence as part of the federal investigation.
• Key Physical Evidence
• Weapon: .30-06 bolt-action rifle.
• Casings: Engraved with political slogans.
• Forensics: Shoe impressions and palm/forearm prints on rooftop.
• Surveillance: Vehicle arrival, rooftop escape, and neighborhood flight.
• Digital: Discord communications about rifle and bullet engraving.
• Discord: Discord messages reviewed by investigators indicated that the shooting suspect engraved writings on bullets he used and that the rifle and scope he used were “unique,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said at a news conference this morning.
• Weapon: Officials found a bolt-action rifle wrapped in a dark towel yesterday in a wooded area on the edge of Utah Valley University. Cox said it was a Mauser model 98 bolt-action rifle. It had a scope mounted on it.
• There were inscriptions on casings found within the rifle, Cox said. The inscription on the fired casing said: “notices, bulges, OWO, what’s this?”
• Three unfired casings also had inscriptions
• One read, “Hey fascist! Catch!” with an up arrow, a right arrow and three down arrows.
• The second said, “Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao.”
• The third, “If you read this, you are gay LMAO.”

September 12, 2025 – Tyler Robinson Arrested

• Afternoon: Forensic agents search Robinson’s apartment complex in St. George, Utah, where he lived with his romantic partner.
• Agents photographed, collected, and documented evidence at the residence as part of the federal investigation. Source

September 13, 2025 – Father Recognizes Robinson

• FBI Director Kash Patel stated that Robinson’s father ultimately turned him in to authorities. According to Patel, Robinson’s father recognized his son in the video released by investigators. “Robinson’s father, who ultimately turned him in to authorities, told law enforcement that he recognized his son in that released video.”  Source

September 14, 2025 Kash Patel – FBI Confirmation of Robinson’s Relationship

• FBI officials confirmed that Tyler Robinson, 22, was in a romantic relationship with an unnamed person who is a male transitioning to female.
• Robinson and the individual shared an apartment in St. George, Utah.
• The partner has been described as “extremely cooperative” with the FBI’s investigation.
• Agents emphasized that the partner had no knowledge of Robinson’s alleged plan to assassinate Charlie Kirk.
• The partner is not accused of any criminal activity in connection with the attack.
• Kash Patel posted about the development on X (Twitter), amplifying the FBI confirmation and noting that the partner is working closely with investigators. Source | Source

September 15, 2025 – DNA Evidence and Digital Evidence

• FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the suspected assassination weapon matched Robinson. Source
• Patel also confirmed that DNA recovered from a screwdriver left on the UVU rooftop matched Robinson. Patel stated:

“I can report today that the DNA hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA from the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody.”

• Text Messages: Patel also stated that Robinson exchanged text messages with another individual about taking out Charlie Kirk.
• According to Patel, Robinson allegedly said he had an opportunity to “take out” Kirk and was going to do it because of his hatred for what Kirk stood for.
• Patel stated those findings had been turned over to local and federal authorities for prosecutorial decisions.
• Note Found at Residence: Patel also described a note connected to Robinson and his partner’s residence. According to Patel, the note was written before the shooting. Although the note had reportedly been destroyed, investigators said they recovered forensic evidence confirming its existence and contents.  Source

“That note was written before the shooting. Evidence of its existence, we now have learned, existed before the shooting, was in the location, in the suspect and partner’s home.”
“We have since learned that the note, even though it has been destroyed, we have found forensic evidence of the note, and we have confirmed what that note says because of our aggressive interview posture at the FBI.”

• Cooperation Status: Authorities stated Robinson was not cooperating with investigators. According to Patel, Robinson allegedly wrote in a text that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and would do it, saying “some hatred cannot be negotiated with.”  Source
• Related Investigation Involving George Zinn: The Utah County Sheriff’s Office Special Victims Unit obtained a search warrant for George Zinn’s phone, finding over 20 CSAM images and graphic text exchanges. Zinn admitted he gained sexual gratification from sharing such material and that his preferred victim age was 5 to 12 years old. This investigation was separate from the Charlie Kirk homicide investigation.  Source

September 16, 2025

• George Zinn Charged: Authorities announced charges against George Zinn. No evidence links Zinn to collusion with the UVU shooter.  Source
• 21D Felony Obstruction of Justice
• 21D Felony Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (4 counts)
• CSAM investigation remains ongoing.
• 2:00 PM EST: Authorities announced charges against Tyler Robinson:  Source
• Count 1: Aggravated murder, capital offense for causing the death of Kirk
• Count 2: Felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, first degree felony
• Aggravating Factors: Aggravating factors on counts 1 and 2 for targeting Charlie Kirk for his political expressions and knowing there would be witnesses.
• Count 3: Obstruction of justice for moving and concealing evidence
• Count 4: Obstruction of justice, second degree felony, for disposing of clothing
• Count 5: Witness tampering, third degree felony, for directing his roommate to delete incriminating texts
• Count 6: Witness tampering for directing his roommate to remain silent
• Count 7: Commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child, misdemeanor, for committing homicide in front of children
• 3:00 PM EST The hearing for Tyler Robinson on Tuesday, 9/16 at 3 p.m. will be held virtually. Robinson will not be in court in person. Source

September 23, 2025

• An in-person appearance was filed and the hearing was rescheduled for September 29, 2025.
• The reason for the change is Court Ordered The court modifies this hearing to be conducted in-person in courtroom 4B.

September 24, 2025 – Defense Attorney Appointed

• Salt Lake City attorney Kathryn Nester was appointed to represent Tyler Robinson in the criminal case.

September 29, 2025

• Robinson appeared in court in person.
• His attorney requested additional time to review the large volume of evidence before deciding how to proceed with the preliminary hearing.
• The court scheduled the next hearing for October 30, 2025.

October 30, 2025

• The case returned to court for further proceedings related to the preliminary hearing and evidence review.
• Robinson had not yet entered a plea.

December 11, 2025

• Robinson appeared in Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah.
• Judge Tony Graf addressed media access and courtroom coverage issues.
• The judge warned that future broadcasts could be terminated if media outlets violated the court’s order restricting images of Robinson in restraints or outside the defense table area

December 30, 2025

• The court released a transcript from a closed hearing in Robinson’s case.
• At that time, Robinson remained charged with aggravated murder, prosecutors continued to indicate they planned to seek the death penalty, and Robinson had not yet entered a plea.

January 15, 2026

• A law enforcement source confirmed that Robinson’s roommate and romantic partner was no longer under FBI protection.
• The roommate had not been charged with any crime.

January 16, 2026

• Robinson returned to court as his attorneys sought to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case.
• The defense argued there was an alleged conflict of interest.
• Prosecutors continued to pursue the death penalty if Robinson was convicted.

March 31, 2026

• Robinson’s attorneys asked the court to delay the preliminary hearing that had been scheduled for May.
• The defense said it needed additional time to review extensive discovery materials and bullet analysis that could affect the defense strategy.

April 17, 2026

• Robinson appeared in court as his defense team sought to push back the preliminary hearing.
• The defense also argued for excluding media cameras from the courtroom, citing concerns about coverage and depictions of events in the case.

May 19, 2026

• Robinson appeared in Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah.
• The proceeding occurred as the court continued addressing issues connected to public access, media coverage, and the upcoming preliminary hearing.

June 1, 2026

• Judge Tony Graf denied the defense request to restrict public and media access to the upcoming preliminary hearing.
• The judge ruled that the public and media have a presumptive right to access court proceedings, including preliminary hearings.
• The preliminary hearing was scheduled for July 6 through July 10, 2026.

June 12, 2026

• Robinson appeared for a virtual hearing in Fourth District Court.
• The court addressed motions connected to the death penalty, prosecution conduct, and pre-hearing issues.

June 22, 2026

• The judge denied a defense request to force Robinson’s former roommate to testify in person at the preliminary hearing.
• The ruling allowed some testimony or evidence to be presented without requiring the roommate’s live in-person appearance.

June 26, 2026

• Judge Tony Graf held prosecutor Christopher Ballard in civil contempt over public comments made about Robinson.
• The court did not remove the death penalty as a possible punishment.
• The death penalty remained in play.

June 30, 2026

• Reports stated that Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, were expected to attend Robinson’s preliminary hearing.
• The hearing is expected to be the first time Kirk’s family would be present in court with Robinson.

July 6, 2026

• Robinson’s five-day preliminary hearing was scheduled to begin in Provo, Utah.
• Prosecutors are expected to present evidence to show probable cause for the case to proceed to trial.
• Expected evidence included DNA evidence, surveillance footage, witness statements, autopsy evidence, and alleged admissions in notes or messages.
• Robinson had not yet entered a plea.

The FBI is releasing a video of the shooter in the Utah Valley shooting. The subject is seen jumping from the rooftop of a building after the shooting. Around 12 p.m. Mountain Time on September 10, 2025, the subject climbed up to a rooftop; after he shot and killed Charlie Kirk, he jumped off and ran away. He left a gun and ammunition in a wooded area near the university. Trace evidence collected from the rooftop scene included shoe impressions, a forearm imprint, and a palm print. Anyone with information in this case should call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or visit fbi.gov/utahvalleyshooting.

Transcript / Visit Video Source

• Robinson Hearing Arguments
• State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson
• Fourth District Court, Provo Utah

October 24, 2025

• Defense argues the Sheriff’s policy of automatically shackling Tyler Robinson at every court appearance is unconstitutional. Source
• Defense states that the Constitution requires an individualized assessment of whether restraints are necessary and that a blanket policy violates constitutional standards. Defense relies on Deck v. Missouri, arguing that in a state criminal prosecution the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments require case specific justification based on actual security risk from this defendant, not institutional preference or convenience.
• Defense explains the constitutional reasoning why shackling is impermissible. Defense argues shackling violates three core constitutional interests:
• The presumption of innocence, because visible restraints visually label the defendant as dangerous or guilty.
• The Sixth Amendment right to meaningfully participate in his defense, because shackling restricts movement, interferes with note taking, communication, and concentration in court.
• The dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings, because a courtroom is not a jail and the judicial process requires respect, fairness, and dignity, especially in publicly visible proceedings.
• Defense emphasizes that most hearings in this case will be public, recorded, or otherwise visible, and therefore appearance matters. Defense argues the public nature of these proceedings increases the constitutional importance of courtroom dignity and fairness.
• Defense argues the State has provided no individualized evidence establishing that Robinson poses a courtroom threat. Defense notes there has been no proof of violent past courtroom behavior, no escape attempts, no pattern of assaultive behavior in custody, and no evidence suggesting instability or imminent danger. Defense argues that without individualized and demonstrable safety justification restraints cannot constitutionally be permitted.
• Defense argues shackling protections must extend beyond jury trials. Defense maintains constitutional fairness standards exist at every stage of criminal proceedings, not only when jurors are present. Defense argues the presumption of innocence exists before and beyond a jury trial, the right to participate in defense exists at all hearings, and respect for courtroom dignity is required at all stages. Defense states there is no legal or constitutional basis to say those rights suddenly vanish simply because a proceeding is non jury.
• Defense also connects shackling to the clothing issue. Defense argues that appearing in jail clothing combined with restraints compounds prejudice and harm to presumption of innocence, especially in a high profile case where proceedings may be photographed, televised, recorded, or widely reported. Defense argues that unless there is individualized justification, Robinson should not be visually presented as a restrained inmate.
• State Argument: The State argues the Court should first determine when Robinson even needs to be physically present in court. The State argues many non critical hearings do not require his physical presence and can instead be conducted virtually. The State states that virtual hearings eliminate restraint issues, transportation risk, courtroom management burden, and safety concerns, and also protect the defendant himself during transit.
• The State responds to Defense’s legal reliance on restraint jurisprudence by addressing Washington case law. The State acknowledges that State v. Luthi discussed restraint protections but explains that Washington later issued State v. Ferguson, which clarified that appearing by video from jail does not trigger the same restraint rights as physical courtroom appearance. The State uses this to argue that virtual hearings change the restraint analysis.
• The State concedes that in any jury proceeding Robinson has the right to appear in civilian clothing and without visible restraints unless the State proves individualized justification. The State agrees those protections are clear and established.
• However, the State firmly distinguishes jury hearings from non jury hearings. The State argues there is no controlling Utah case law that requires extending shackling protections to non jury hearings. The State argues Defense relies on a Supreme Court decision that applies to jury trials and on a Ninth Circuit case that was later vacated. The State emphasizes a vacated case carries no binding legal effect and is treated as if it never existed.
• The State’s position is that Utah courts are not legally obligated to expand shackling protections beyond jury trial contexts and that constitutional precedent does not require such an expansion. The State urges the Court to consider practicality, procedure, and security realities when ruling.
• Sheriff Participation Argument
• The State argues there was nothing improper about the Sheriff filing a joint response with the State. The State explains:
• The Court previously referenced the Sheriff’s role in its orders.
• Court security is a joint responsibility of the Court and the Sheriff.
• The Sheriff’s interest aligns with the State’s interest in safety.
• The State argues this was not an attempt to improperly insert the Sheriff as a party but simply to comply with Court direction while addressing security.
• The State argues the Sheriff has limited purpose standing, meaning the law allows non parties to provide input on narrow legal issues when statutes or rules authorize their involvement. The State compares this to situations where:
• Crime victims have voice rights.
• Relatives provide placement input in child welfare matters.
• The State argues similar principles authorize Sheriff input on courtroom security decisions.
• The Court clarifies procedural confusion. The Judge explains that an initial order requiring Sheriff response was issued as a holiday courtesy notice under tight deadlines. The Judge states that a later official order removed the Sheriff requirement and that the confusion resulted from timing. The Court clarifies the official record.
• The State says it does not oppose handling Sheriff input differently moving forward. The State agrees the Sheriff can provide security information through testimony, affidavits, or structured evidence, so long as the Court continues to receive necessary expert security information. The State emphasizes the Sheriff is the expert on courtroom safety and the Court must have that information to evaluate restraint policies.
• Court Posture
• The Court acknowledges the constitutional and procedural complexity.
• The Court does not issue a ruling during the hearing.
• The Court takes the matter under advisement for later decision.

March 30, 2026

• Defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson filed a motion to continue or vacate the scheduled preliminary hearing dates of May 18, 19, and 21, 2026. Source
• The motion states that discovery remains incomplete, voluminous, and complex, with approximately 20,000 electronic files already produced and a substantial amount of additional evidence still pending.
• The defense specifically identifies outstanding forensic materials that have not yet been produced, including:
• Full DNA case files and underlying data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Firearms and ballistics reports, case files, and testing protocols from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
• Validation studies and electronic datasets necessary to independently evaluate forensic conclusions
• Ongoing comparative bullet and bullet lead analysis being conducted by the FBI
• The defense states that delays in production are attributable, in part, to federal and state agencies that have not completed or provided discovery in time for the currently scheduled preliminary hearing.
• Regarding DNA evidence, the motion notes that multiple DNA contributors were identified on certain items of evidence, requiring extensive expert review by forensic biologists, geneticists, system engineers, and statisticians to determine contributor profiles and evaluate the reliability of the methodologies used.
• Regarding firearms evidence, the defense states that an initial report from the ATF indicates the bullet recovered during the victim’s autopsy could not be identified or matched to the rifle allegedly associated with Robinson.
• The defense further states that although prosecutors have not indicated an intent to introduce this ATF report at the preliminary hearing, the defense may call the ATF firearm analyst to testify regarding these findings as potentially exculpatory evidence.
• The motion emphasizes that full review and analysis of discovery will require hundreds of hours and that proceeding with the preliminary hearing before completion of discovery would impair the defense’s ability to adequately prepare.