Tyler Robinson roommate does not have to appear at preliminary hearing, judge rules

PROVO, Utah (KSL) — Tyler Robinson’s former roommate, whom the court says he was in a romantic relationship with, will not have to testify in person at Robinson’s preliminary hearing.

On Monday, 4th District Judge Tony Graf ruled that hearsay evidence is acceptable for the purposes of a preliminary hearing — including a video-recorded interview with Twiggs — and denied a request from defense attorneys to compel Twiggs to attend the preliminary hearing in person.

Graf delayed his ruling, however, on whether the Utah County Attorney’s Office should be held in contempt of court. That decision is now expected on Friday.

The decisions come as Robinson and his defense team are renewing their efforts to keep cameras and microphones out of the courtroom during his upcoming preliminary hearing.

Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing political activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. He faces a potential death sentence if convicted. At a preliminary hearing, a judge decides if there is enough probable cause for a defendant to proceed to trial on the charges levied against that person. Robinson’s preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 6-10.

Hearsay evidence is any statement that a person, such as a police officer, collects from another person, such as a witness, and presents that statement at the hearing. The state plans to call several police officers to the witness stand during the preliminary hearing and present a video-recorded interview that the state conducted with Twiggs.

On Monday, Graf said that the limited purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether the state can meet its low burden of proof that Robinson allegedly committed the crimes he’s accused of. A determination of guilt or innocence is not made at a preliminary hearing, Graf reminded attorneys, and not all the evidentiary safeguards that are standard at a trial need to be in place for the prelim. Because of that, Graf announced that hearsay evidence from law enforcers and Twiggs would be acceptable for the limited purpose of the preliminary hearing.

Graf also ruled Monday that the right to subpoena witnesses is not absolute, and unless the defense expects to get testimony during cross-examination that is “reasonably likely to defeat probable cause” established by the state, a recorded interview with a witness is sufficient. Because of that, Graf denied Robinson’s motion to compel Twiggs to appear in person.

The judge was also expected to announce on Monday whether the Utah County Attorney’s Office should be held in contempt of court for speaking to the media about evidence in the case. But because of new court filings made last Thursday regarding the issue, Graf said he needed more time to thoroughly review all the evidence before him.

In March, Robinson’s defense team filed a motion to postpone his preliminary hearing. In that motion, they noted that an initial report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “indicates that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson.”

The state contends that Robinson should have said the ATF report could not identify or exclude that the bullet fragments recovered at autopsy matched the rifle found near the shooting. But because that part was left out, prosecutors argue the statement created a firestorm in the media, and they needed to correct the misleading information being spread. To do that, prosecutor Chris Ballad, the Utah County Attorney’s Office spokesman, issued a press release and appeared on several national news programs to discuss the ATF report.

Robinson’s defense team believes Ballard’s “media tour” violated Graf’s order not to prejudice the potential jury pool by speaking to the media and now wants the office held in contempt. Furthermore, Robinson has requested that Graf pull the option of seeking a death penalty from the table as a penalty for that contempt.

Graf is also expected to announce this coming Friday his decision on another request by Robinson’s defense team to keep cameras and microphones out of the courtroom during the preliminary hearing.

“Mr. Robinson objects to electronic media coverage of the preliminary hearing in its entirety because ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will prejudice the right of the parties to a fair proceeding,'” the defense team stated in their latest motion filed Sunday. “Continuing electronic media coverage of the proceedings in this case, particularly the preliminary hearing, threatens Mr. Robinson’s rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury by perpetuating bias in the public against Mr. Robinson.

“Specific to the preliminary hearing, the electronic media coverage will memorialize and widely disseminate the anticipated largely hearsay-based evidentiary presentation from the state. Such evidence is, by its very nature, insufficiently reliable for admission at trial,” the motion continues. “It bears repeating, the state of Utah is seeking the death penalty against Mr. Robinson. The taking of evidence during the preliminary examination and the determinations made by the court thereafter based upon that evidence is a critical stage of these capital proceedings. The media presence in the courtroom both distracts and places added pressure on hearing participants to present for the media, as opposed to focusing on the facts, evidence, and mechanics of the hearing. Mr. Robinson’s case is not and should not be made into a reality TV show.”

Robinson has appealed Graf’s decision to allow cameras in the courtroom for the preliminary hearing to the Utah Supreme Court and has further asked the state’s high court to order a pause on all legal proceedings in the Robinson case until the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear his appeal. Last week, Robinson filed another motion to the Utah Supreme Court requesting that the judges expedite their review of the motion to stay the 4th District Court proceedings in light of the upcoming preliminary hearing.

Also, on Monday, defense attorneys announced that they plan to call seven forensic witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing, with six of them being flown in from the East Coast. Robinson’s defense team says it anticipates the state may file a motion opposing the move, and hopes Graf can make a decision on that issue before the hearing begins.