LIVE UPDATES: New video, DNA expert takes stand on day 2 of Robinson hearing in Charlie Kirk murder case

Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing is underway this week in Provo, Utah. Robinson faces 10 charges, including aggravated murder, in connection to the death of Charlie Kirk. During a preliminary hearing, a judge will decide if there is sufficient probable cause to go to trial on the charges levied against a defendant.

EastIdahoNews.com is livestreaming the hearing and will post live written updates each day. The most recent updates are at the top of this story. Please excuse typos.

5:08 p.m. Court is adjourned until tomorrow at 1 p.m. Watch “Courtroom Insider” tonight at 7 p.m. MDT on the East Idaho News YouTube channel for a recap of everything that happened today.

5:03 p.m. Burt asks if she agrees with statements that there are errors and mistakes in testing. She disagrees with the statements and says the data is reliable. Burt goes back and forth, trying to poke holes in her lab’s authenticity. Burt has nothing further. McBride has one clarifying follow up question and the witness is excused.

5:01 p.m. McBride says he’s going to wrap up because it’s 5 p.m. He asks if, in reaching her conclusions, she followed the protocols of her accredited labs. She did. No further questions from McBride. Burt returns to the podium for follow-up questions.

4:56 p.m. McBride asks if all DNA degrades. It does. If kept in a better environment, there is less degradation than if it’s in a bad environment. He asks if advances have been made in the DNA field over the past ten years. There have been.

4:53 p.m. McBride asks how DNA can get on an object. She says by direct contact, body fluids or through transfer – if she touches an object and it’s given to someone else, her DNA could potentially be on the other individual through the transfer. She is unable to testify about the transfer of the DNA or the time, but there are some indicators that may get information about how DNA was placed on an item.

4:48 p.m. McBride asks about colleagues checking and confirming Bakker’s work. That is part of the standard operating procedures. McBride asks about the programs and tools used in the lab.

4:43 p.m. McBride will now question the witness. He asks Bakker about her background and the accreditation of her lab. There are certain standards to get accredited.

4:38 p.m. Judge is going to allow it in, but says it’s 4:40 p.m. and Burt is limited on time. Graf asks how much time he will need. He says 4-5 minutes. McBride says he needs to cross-examine the witness for 20 minutes given that the witness is leaving town today.

4:30 p.m. Burt moves to admit a five-page report into evidence. State objects and says this is irrelevant to the preliminary hearing. Burt says this exhibit and the next one go directly to the comparison of DNA evidence of Twiggs and Robinson. McBride argues this isn’t relevant. Burt says he was trying to lay foundation that there were different DNA sequences.

4:25 p.m. Swabs from six items – smudges and sweat drops – were consumed upon testing, along with swabs of swiped finger areas and swabs of stairwell railing, Bakker says. The cotton portion of the swab was cut off, placed into a tube and consumed when tested. The items were taken from the northeast corner of the Losee Center. There was no DNA present on any of the items, Bakker says.

4:22 p.m. Burt says he has a few more questions and then he’s done. He asks about a backpack that was obtained from the scene. Bakker says it was determined the backpack was left behind by a bystander. Before she received any samples, Burt asks if she performed constructive testing, meaning the DNA is consumed and cannot be tested again.

4:16 p.m. Burt asks Bakker about her interpretation rules about excluding someone. She says there are differences when it comes from a single source sample versus multiple sources. If she has a mixture, it’s not cut and dry.

4:11 p.m. Burt pulls up a chart that shows the likelihood ratios with a qualitative equivalent of each number on the scale. Greater than or equal to one million means very strong support for inclusion and so forth down to less than 1 for limited support of exclusion or exclusion.

4:10 p.m. Judge says the question with a probable cause hearing is whether we walk one mile or 100 miles. He says we need to walk one mile and are beyond that. He grants the objection, but tells Burt he can wrap this up as long as it’s very brief.

4:05 p.m. We see the report. Burt asks what a likelihood ratio is, which is basically a statistical measure used to evaluate the strength or value of DNA evidence. McBride objects and says “we are hours into this hearing” and are far beyond a probable cause hearing. He asks the court to sustain the objection and not allow questioning on the issue of probable cause. Burt says the state offered this report on a complex, scientific area of inquiry. He says it is relevant to the probable cause inquiry.

4 p.m. Burt wants to admit a report showing Twiggs contributed to both samples. Prosecution objects, judge allows it in and reminds Burt this is a probable cause hearing.

3:57 p.m. Court is back in session. Burt asks Bakker to take a look at a page of her report. She wrote on Sept. 15, 2025, that she spoke with a special agent and gave an update on the timeline. Upon review, additional statistics needed to be run. Burt asks her what statistics. She says she ran Twiggs DNA solo compared to the evidence.

3:35 p.m. We are taking afternoon recess until 3:50 p.m.

3:30 p.m. Burt asks why she expected Twiggs’ DNA would be found on the two items. She says because Twiggs was a roommate, it was assumed the items came from Robinson’s home and he would have been present. Burt asks if any investigator told her the towel was found at the university, but in Twiggs’ home. Bakker was aware of that, but investigators had told her it likely came from Robinson’s home.

3:22 p.m. Burt asks Bakker about DNA alleles, which are a specific variant or alternative form of a gene. Bakker explains how she came up with the three contributors versus the two contributors. She reached her conclusion around Sept. 12 – that there were three. She changed her conclusion the next day – on Sept. 13 – after she was given a sample from Lance Twiggs.

3:18 p.m. McBride again objects and says, once again, this is beyond the scope of a probable cause hearing. Graf finds that it is admissible and allows it in. He reminds Burt again that this is a probable cause hearing and “I definitely want to keep this within the track of probable cause.”

3:12 p.m. Judge allows the exhibit in and Burt asks to show the exhibit on all screens. We see a document that shows numbers Bakker and her colleague wrote – about 3 possible contributors versus two. Bakker says once additional known samples were received, she was able to change her findings and update her report.

3:06 p.m. Burt asks to admit a page of Bakker’s report that shows she originally determined there were three DNA contributors. Prosecution objects based on relevance. Burt says it’s relevant because the court needs to know how she came up with three contributors and then changed it to two.

3:01 p.m. McBride says there will likely be days of questioning during the trial when it comes to this line of questioning and it’s time to move on as this is a preliminary hearing. Graf says Burt can ask one more question, but then needs to move on to other questions.

2:56 p.m. Defense brings out another report and begins asking questions about how Bakker decided the numbers when it came to the likelihood that the DNA matched certain contributors. McBride objects again and says this is beyond the scope. Burt says it’s relevant because Bakker changed her reports, and the judge needs to know if there are reliability issues regarding the numbers.

2:49 p.m. Bakker says the PCAST report was written by people who do not work in the field. They source DNA experts in the field. Burt continues to ask questions about DNA and reporting. McBride objects and says this is beyond the scope of a probable cause hearing. Graf allows Burt to continue, but reminds him that this is a probable cause hearing.

2:45 p.m. Bakker says the program Starmix is used. PCAST, policy documents published by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, had some concerns about Starmix when it comes to multiple contributors for DNA.

2:44 p.m. Burt continues to ask questions about DNA, testing and sources of error. Prosecutor McBride objects and says this has gone beyond the scope of a probable cause hearing. Burt says he only has one more question related to this topic. McBride says, “I’ll hold him to it.”

2:41 p.m. Bakker explains what a DNA mixture is. It’s when there is a mix of the DNA of two people – like if someone shared a coffee cup. If there are a lot of people sharing, it can be challenging during testing. Drop-in DNA is when you have environmental DNA that is not detected in the usual environment.

2:38 p.m. Burt asks if there are rules to exclude someone from DNA matches. She says there are. He pulls out books about DNA published years ago. He asks about the author Dr. John Butler, who did research at the FBI. Bakker agrees that everyone relies on Butler’s research and his findings.

2:34 p.m. A full DNA profile was developed for item #7 – the towel. A partial DNA profile was developed for the screwdriver, meaning DNA did not appear at all 23 location test points on the item to compare with Twiggs’ and Robinson’s DNA.

2:31 p.m. Bakker explains how she tests DNA and DNA sequences. The FBI uses a kit called Global Filer. She compares length differences in DNA patterns. Everyone has different DNA except identical twins.

2:27 p.m. Burt asks Bakker to explain DNA degradation. She says it when high heat, cleaning products or something else causes the DNA to degrade. She says there was some degradation on the screwdriver. On the towel, there was a slight amount of degradation, but not as much as the screwdriver.

2:24 p.m. Burt asks if the FBI has a policy about whether she can express opinions about formal activity level – meaning the likelihood that DNA could be on an item. Bakker says there is a policy and she can not give an opinion about formal activity level. Bakker can’t give exact timing as to when DNA was deposited on an item. Burt asks how DNA gets deposited on an item. Bakker says by body fluid or skin cells. Once it’s on an item, it can persist on an item indefinitely. It can degrade over time, but they have been able to recover DNA on items 40 or 50 years old.

2:18 p.m. Burt shows a table of contents showing items not approved for statements made concerning FBI DNA testing. He points to one point – an examiner may not state or apply that DNA examinations have a zero error rate or are infallible. Bakker says she followed that policy and did not say that.

2:14 p.m. Burt shows part of Bakker’s report on the screen. She wrote this report on Sept. 15, 2025. Burt has her read the statement from her report saying she followed standards for testing and reporting. Burt wants to admit the exhibit, but the prosecution objects. Judge allows it in and defense wants it published. It will be shown to the public on the monitor.

2:12 p.m. Bakker prepared a report on her findings. Burt asks her to read from her report detailing a conversation she had with FBI agents in Utah on Sept. 13, 2025. She told the agents Robinson was included as a possible DNA match on the towel.

2:09 p.m. Defense attorney Michael Burt is questioning Bakker. She says the state of Utah asked her to do testing in September 2025. It can take 90-200 days to process evidence. The evidence from the Kirk shooting came in on a priority 1 level – meaning they worked 24/7 until exams were complete. They were conducting the analysis while evidence was being submitted.

2:08 p.m. Defense will now call Amanda Bakker as a witness. This is being done out of order as Bakker is visiting from out of town. She is a DNA forensic examiner at the FBI law in Quantico. She describes her duties.

2:03 p.m. McBride says he’s simply drawing the judge’s attention to the items in the report. Judge overrules the objection. Faumuina says male DNA was obtained from the towel – two males, one of whom is Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate, and Robinson. There was also DNA from Twiggs and Robinson on the screwdriver. State has no further questions for now, but the witness will be recalled.

2:01 p.m. McBride admits an FBI report into evidence and it will be published to the gallery and livestream. He asks Faumuina to read from item #7 – towel from around Mauser rifle serial #8863. Item #8 – screwdriver from perch. Defense objects to Faumuina reading from the report.

1:56 p.m. McBride asks about a screwdriver collected at the scene. It was sent to the FBI crime lab for testing. A Mauser 98 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a dark towel was found in a wooded area on campus. The gun was given to the ATF lab, the towel and screwdriver were given to the FBI.

1:53 p.m. Back from lunch. Next witness is Jennifer Faumuina, a Sergeant with the Utah Department of Public Safety. She will be called for a limited time, a defense FBI expert will be called, and then Faumuina will return to the stand. Faumuina is sworn in and shares her law enforcement background.

12:36 p.m. Graf says the statement is relevant as it relates to the victim targeting enhancement given Kirk’s political viewpoints. Graf will allow the exhibit in provisionally, but not fully admitted at this point. When it comes up, the court can re-examine whether it should be published to the courtroom and livestream. Graf now says we will head to lunch until 1:45 p.m.

12:33 p.m. Graf says he brings it up because Novak said political enhancement and went straight to the Bible. Novak says he didn’t bring the Bible into the case, the state did. McBride says the document provides context for the defendant’s state of mind.

12:31 p.m. Graf asks Novak if religion or gender intersects with political expressions. Novak says that’s a good question, but one not one for him to be answered in this setting. He says the state wants the court to say yes to that question. “The court’s asking me to testify about where religion and politics intersect,” Novak says.

12:27 p.m. Novak says there is no evidence in the document that shows Robinson’s political views or had disagreement with Kirk’s political expression. “There may be other evidence of that, we’ll have to see,” Novak says. “It’s not relevant, it’s improper opinion and it’s overbroad in terms of the evidence the state is proferring to prove a very narrow point – and it actually doesn’t get to that point.”

12:24 p.m. Novak says this exhibit does not say anything about Robinson’s state of mind. He says the document talks about foreign affairs, America’s founding principles, cultural trends and what Engelhardt describes as orthodox Christian views on sexuality and gender identities. Novak says the document goes way beyond what McBride mentioned, Novak says, and he argues it should not be admissible because it’s not relevant.

12:22 p.m. McBride says Robinson was on the other side of Kirk’s views and it was his motive to shoot Kirk. “This exhibit is relevant. I don’t see the unfair prejudicial effect this would have on the fact finder,” McBride says. “This case has already highlighted the political issues we’re talking about here. This evidence is admissible for that purpose.”

12:21 p.m. McBride returns to the lectern. He says the exhibit describes TPUSA events, gender issues, sexuality issues, Christian and political views regarding marriage, family and gender identity. McBride says this is relevant to the case because it was Robinson’s motive and Robinson falls into political and gender views that Kirk was against.

12:18 p.m. Graf mentions that the aggravated murder count mentions Robinson chose Kirk because of his religious and political views. “Because that is part of the information that is squarely before the court, this becomes relevant,” Graf says. The judge says the need for a closed hearing has not been met at this point. Prejudice has not been shown. If prejudice is shown that can contaminate a jury pool, then the court could close it. Graf rules that McBride can quote from the statement.

12:12 p.m. Novak returns to the podium and argues the statement should not be read in public. He says McBride can’t have his cake and eat it too.

12:09 p.m. Media attorney David Reymann now approaches the podium. He says the public’s right of access to proceedings is not limited to what might eventually be admitted at trial. Reymann says if the judge does close the hearing, it needs to be as minimal as possible and most of the argument about things like this can occur in open court.

12:06 p.m. Graf suggests there could be a sidebar or close the hearing to discuss the exhibit. McBride says he doesn’t feel the court needs to be closed, but needs to be able to argue freely about the statement. “If I am not permitted to quote the evidence in my argument, then we need to decide whether or not this hearing should be closed,” he says. Graf asks if he can make the full argument by referring to the paragraphs and lines without quoting it verbatim. McBride doesn’t think so.

12:03 p.m. McBride says he has to be able to argue the exhibits and refer to the language in it. “My job and my duty to my client, which is the state of Utah, requires me to make a good and powerful argument and that requires me to refer to the exhibit,” he says. Graf sustains the objection and says McBride can talk about the exhibit conceptually, but can’t read from it directly in open court when it hasn’t been admitted as an exhibit.

11:59 a.m. McBride says the statement is relevant to determine the defendant’s motive. He goes on to say that this explains what Kirk’s business was. McBride starts to read from the exhibit and Novak objects. He asks that it be struck from the record because the exhibit has a tendency to confuse issues in the case and create fair trial risks.

11:55 a.m. Novak says introducing this document into the case will create chaos and confusion to the future jury pool. He says this case is not about Charlie Kirk’s religious views. Novak has another issue he wants to discuss at sidebar to protect the constitutional rights of Robinson.

11:46 a.m. Novak references the phrase, “Mr. Robinson intentionally selected Mr. Kirk because of Mr. Robinson’s belief or perception regarding Mr. Kirk’s political exception.” Novak is concerned Engelhardt’s statement goes far beyond what is admissible and says the statement is irrelevant.

11:44 a.m. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are Engelhardt’s opinions about a branch of Christianity, a portion of the Bible and he quotes the Bible, according to Novak. He also talks about Kirk’s religious beliefs. Novak says none of this is relevant. He references a victim-targeting enhancement and it is alleged in a few of the criminal counts Robinson is facing.

11:42 a.m. The statement in question is from Turning Point USA representative David Engelhardt. He is a pastor, attorney and was close to Charlie Kirk. The first paragraph talks about TPUSA’s status with the IRS, the purposes of TPUSA and the goals of the organization, according to Novak. The second paragraph talks about Kirk’s relationship with TPUSA. Novak says none of this is unknown information and says there is no relevance to the case.

11:37 a.m. Court is back in session. Prosecutor Ryan McBride wants to admit a self-authenticating document from a Turning Point USA representative. Defense attorney Richard Novak objects for a variety of reasons and wonders if the exhibit should be discussed in a sidebar. Novak says he’s not trying to conceal his concerns, but will go forward and if further argument needs to be made, they can approach the bench in sidebar.

11:16 a.m. Sturgill has nothing further. Hull is excused. We are in a recess for 5 minutes.

11:14 a.m. Sturgill asks if Hull is aware that a rifle was discovered on Sept. 10 in a wooded area of the campus. Hull says yes, it’s the area where Robinson entered. Sturgill asks if tips were followed up on. Once they were analyzed and screened, the various law enforcement entities followed up. Hull did not personally follow up on any of them, but worked closely with people who did.

11:11 a.m. Sturgill asks about a banner on the back of the tent where Charlie Kirk was speaking. He asks if Kirk could have been seen from the other side of the tent. Hull says you could not. TPUSA representatives and police were behind the tent. There was consistent movement behind the banner, Hull explains.

11:07 a.m. Hull says there were specialty officers on campus equipped with handguns and rifles. Sometimes, when rounds are cleared, they drop from the cartridge. Hull says the total number of officers was in the “high hundreds.” Sturgill references the video showing the man on the roof. He asks Hull when he first noticed something in the man’s hand. Hull says it’s when he’s preparing to jump off the roof. Then the man drops off the roof and when he lands on the grass, he almost drops it or goes into a crouched position, Hull says. The items appears to be black and longer.

11:05 a.m. Nester has nothing further. Sturgill has some follow-up questions. He begins by asking about the unfired bullet and if that bullet was accounted for. Hull says he was told it was an officer clearing his weapon. Sturgill asks if police officers were present on Sept. 10 securing buildings. Hull says there was a large, rapid response of law enforcement clearing and securing the entire campus.

11 a.m. Nester asks if K9 dogs sniffed the scene. Hull says a K9 was present on the day and it may have been used to try and track someone who jumped off the roof. Nester asks about tips received from the public. Hull says a huge variety of tips, information and suggestions were sent in. Nester asks about someone being used to facilitate Robinson turning himself in. Nester asks if it was one of Robinson’s scout leaders and says Robinson voluntarily drove himself to the sheriff’s office and he voluntarily walked in.

10:55 a.m. Nester asks about the Turning Point USA videos that were given to investigators. She asks if Hull was involved in the gun being recovered in the forest area. He was not. Nester asks if Hull met with the medical examiner after the autopsy. He did. Nester asks if any information from the autopsy went to anyone. He says anything of evidentiary value is transferred and fragments of a bullet casing, along with Charlie Kirk’s personal items, were collected.

10:51 a.m. Nester references video that showed the shooting, but says she is not going to show it if anyone is concerned about leaving the courtroom. Nester wants to show Hull a clip of video from the breezeway area, but does not want the sound on and only wants him to see it. Hull watches the video and Nester asks if anyone was standing behind the tent. Hull says there’s a videographer on the right side behind the tent, but nobody standing in the middle behind the tent.

10:49 a.m. Nester asks Hull if he sees a gun in the hands of the man who jumped off the roof. He does not see a gun, but there is a long item. Nester asks if anyone called police to say that a man was walking down the street with a gun. Hull says they did not receive any reports. Nester asks how long the person would have been prone on the roof. Hull says approximately 15-30 seconds.

10:46 a.m. Nester asks if facial features or other identifiable information could be determined from the video of the person on the roof. Hull says there were distinguishable features on video from the stairwell. Nester asks if two young men at the event gave investigators video of the shooter on the roof. Hull says they were given video of a person dressed in dark clothing on the roof. Nester asks if Hull interviewed the young men. He personally did not, but believes the young men thought it was a police officer on the roof.

10:42 a.m. Nester shows Hull a report that shows Gonzalez found a gun in a holster in the amphitheater. Nester asks if bullets or casings were found on the roof of the Losee Center. Hull says none were found. Nester asks about a report Hull created. It contains a timeline of the case. Nester says as of Sept. 14, Tyler Robinson had turned himself in to authorities. Hull says he turned himself in on Sept. 11. Nester asks if, prior to Robinson turning himself in, law enforcement did not know who the shooter was. Hull says they had identified a person of interest, but no suspect.

10:38 a.m. When Hull arrived on scene, he was aware someone had been taken into custody. He did not have any interaction with the person. The person ended up not being a suspect. Other firearms were on the scene. Nester asks how many guns were confiscated. Hull says a handgun was found in a backpack, but doesn’t recall any others. Nester asks about a man named Noah Gonzalez being interviewed. Hull doesn’t recall. Nester says he was an off-duty trooper who found a holster with a gun in it. Hull is aware of the comments.

10:36 a.m. Nester asks Hull what he did when he arrived at the scene and what other investigators were assigned. Nester asks about a bullet found on a nearby building. Hull says there was an unfired bullet on another building – an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle. Nester asks when that was accounted for. Hull doesn’t know. Nester asks what type of bullet it was. Hull doesn’t know. Nester asks where the bullet is now. Hull doesn’t know.

10:33 a.m. Court is back in session. Nester begins questioning Hull about his leaving the State Bureau of Investigation and going to the Utah Department of Public Safety. Nester asks when Hull arrived on campus. Around 1:30 p.m. – around an hour after Charlie Kirk had been removed from UVU.

10:07 a.m. Prosecutor plays the video while judge, defense and state watch. Sturgill has nothing further. We will now take a morning recess. Back at 10:30 a.m.

10:03 a.m. Graf will review the video, but not in the courtroom. Sturgill says there is one portion of the video that is important – the zooming in on the suspect. He asks if it can be played in court for the judge to see. Nester objects. Graf says he will review the video in court with the prosecution and defense seeing it, but the footage will not be shown to the public. The video has already been seen – it simply is zooming in and Graf doesn’t find it necessary to show it.

9:58 a.m. Sturgill asks the judge if he will now admit and publish the video with the red circles and zooms. Nester objects. Graf will admit the video, but doesn’t see a need to play it for the public.

9:56 a.m. Sturgill asks about the red circles in the prior version of the video. Hull says those were to highlight the individual in the footage, but nothing else was added or altered. There was also some blurring of other people in the parking garage. Sturgill also asks about the zooming in and zooming out. This was on the Loose Center building, but no content was changed, Hull says.

9:53 a.m. The video now shows Robinson’s vehicle leaving the campus. Officer Goforth stopped the vehicle at 12:30 a.m. He ran a partial license plate and was able to identify that Robinson and his mother owned the car.

9:51 a.m. Robinson goes onto the roof of the building and stays up there for a little bit of time. Charlie Kirk was shot as 12:23 p.m. The person on the roof then goes to the corner of the building and jumps off the roof onto the grass. Robinson then moves away to Campus Drive while he is carrying an object in his hands. This was at 12:24 p.m. Robinson then crosses Campus Drive and enters a wooded area.

9:44 a.m. Robinson then returns to campus, but he is wearing a different outfit, Hull says. He’s also walking with a limp. He walks up the stairs of the parking structure and “seems to be having issues walking,” Hull explains. Robinson is later seen at the Losee Center around 12:22 p.m., crouching down and then crawling to the corner of the building.

9:40 a.m. We see another video of Robinson returning to the parking structure from a nearby neighborhood wearing the same outfit – Converse shoes, a red shirt and shorts. This was around 10 a.m. After he leaves the parking structure, he goes to Chick-fil-A in the Sorensen Center at UVU. He then moves across campus into a wooded area on the northeast side. He returns back through a few buildings but does not have his backpack. He eventually walks off campus around 11 a.m.

9:37 a.m. We now see the video. The first clip is from the parking garage. We see Robinson’s vehicle arriving on campus around 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 10. Hull says DMV records matched the vehicle owned by Robinson. The wheels were very distinctive. The driver of the vehicle exits and walks on foot to exit the parking garage. We see Robinson in a red shirt, shorts and shoes with a backpack. He heads out of the parking garage, down a stairwell, and over to the amphitheater area of the campus, Hull says. He makes contact with Turning Point representatives and returns back to his vehicle at 9:25 a.m.

9:33 a.m. Graf rules that the video can be admitted and shown in the courtroom and on the livestream. Sturgill asks Hull how they tracked Robinson on the video system. Hull says they looked at video of him on the roof and then backtracked his movements beforehand and after. Robinson visited the campus four times and Hull attempted to track Robinson on video during each visit.

9:28 a.m. Burt says the vast majority of media coverage on this case has been prejudicial and pro-prosecution. He says because of that, the video should not be shown to the public. Media attorney Reymann responds, saying pre-trial publicity can co-exist with the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Reymann says a video showing the defendant walking around the UVU campus is not extremely prejudicial. Sturgill says the video shows the defendant getting on the roof and then leaving the roof after the shooting, but you don’t see the actual shooting.

9:24 a.m. Graf asks what the video shows. Sturgill asks Hull when the video was taken. Hull says it’s from Sept. 10 and 11, 2025. It shows Robinson arriving and leaving in a vehicle at UVU, arriving and leaving on foot and his movements throughout the day. Graf asks if there is any footage of the alleged shooting. Sturgill says there is not. Defense attorney Michael Burt says the judge may regulate or deny access to exhibits to ensure a fair trial and the rule should apply to this situation.

9:22 a.m. Sturgill asks that it be shown to the public. Media attorney David Reymann steps forward and says the public has a right to view what the judge is viewing. “This seems like a very important piece of evidence. It doesn’t seem like there is a basis to keep the people in the courtroom today from understanding why it is being introduced,” Reymann says. He says the media didn’t object to the sensitive, gruesome video yesterday, but this is different today.

9:20 a.m. There is a written statement from a UVU employee named Mr. Olson who authenticated the video footage. The state tried to admit this video yesterday, but there were circles and zoom-in/zoom-out portions that the judge had an issue with. Prosecution has removed the zooms and the circles and asks to admit it again. Defense attorney Kathryn Nester objects to having the video published.

9:15 a.m. Agent David Hull, of the Utah Department of Public Safety, is back on the stand this morning. Prosecutor David Sturgill will continue questioning. He asks about a compilation of videos obtained from Utah Valley University showing Robinson arriving and visiting the campus on Sept. 10, 2025. The Utah County Attorney’s Office prepared the montage. It does not contain all of the video of Robinson walking around campus, Hull says.

9:11 a.m. Prosecutor Ryan McBride addresses the judge about the defense’s standing objection. Robinson says a lot of the testimony is hearsay and objects to all of it. McBride says the prosecution understands the defense is objecting and they are repeatedly causing unnecessary delay. Michael Burt, defense attorney, has no objection if they don’t have to repeat the standing objection. Graf says he takes no position if the objection is made again and again, but because both sides stipulate, Graf will keep the standing objection in place.

9:08 a.m. Judge reminds everyone that electronic devices are not allowed in the courtroom. Spectators must remain quiet, civil and respectful. Comments are not allowed, and spectators cannot shake or nod their heads. Pins, buttons, signs, clothes and photos expressing support for or opposing anyone in the case are prohibited.

9:06 a.m. Judge Graf calls up still photographer and videographer. Asks if they have reviewed the decorum order. They have. Photos will be taken during today’s hearing. Thanks to the Salt Lake Tribune and KSL for being the pool photo/video operators.

9:02 a.m. Court is in session. Judge acknowledges Erika Kirk, who is in the courtroom, and says good morning to Tyler Robinson. Attorneys state their names. Now there appears to be an audio issue in the courtroom.

8:45 a.m. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.