What Is Tyler Robinson Really Guilty Of?

Probable Cause, Evidentiary Sufficiency, and the Record in State v. Robinson

By Billie Powers

I watched this week’s preliminary hearing through the eyes of someone who has spent more than two decades observing how innocent people can become trapped in the criminal justice system through coercion, manipulated facts, withheld evidence, unreliable testimony, and plea agreements accepted under duress. I am not declaring Tyler Robinson innocent. I am asking the question the law requires before accusation hardens into prosecution: What is Tyler Robinson really guilty of based upon the evidence placed before the court?

A preliminary hearing is not a trial, and the State is not yet required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Its burden is probable cause: sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that a crime was committed and that the accused committed it. Although that standard is lower than the standard required for conviction, it is not meaningless. Probable cause must rest upon identifiable evidence, not public pressure, emotional momentum, or assumptions used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case.[1]

The mixed DNA evidence discussed during the hearing was accompanied by a 95 percent figure. That percentage cannot be treated as an exclusive identification without a full explanation of what it measures, how the mixed sample was interpreted, how many contributors were involved, and what statistical method was applied. Utah Rule of Evidence 702 requires scientific testimony to be based upon sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods properly applied to the case.[2] A number may sound persuasive when repeated in court, but its evidentiary value depends upon its scientific meaning. A mixed sample is not automatically an exclusive match, and the court should not assign the result more certainty than the underlying analysis supports.

The testimony attributed to Twiggs must be examined under the same disciplined standard. Testimony does not become reliable merely because it is delivered under oath. The court must distinguish between what a witness personally observed, what was learned from someone else, what may have been reconstructed later, and what was independently corroborated. Utah law requires personal knowledge and permits scrutiny of inconsistent statements, bias, motive, and other matters affecting credibility.[3] A mental health condition does not automatically make a witness truthful or untruthful, but material inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration cannot be ignored.

Former Utah Valley University officer Chris Bagley testified that he heard the gunshot, responded to the scene, reviewed surveillance footage, and inspected the rooftop. He described disturbances in the gravel that he believed were consistent with a shooting position, but he did not testify that he saw the shooter fire the weapon. He described depressions in the gravel that appeared to have been made by elbows, knees, and feet and characterized the location as resembling a “sniper pad.” Bagley’s testimony addressed the condition of the rooftop and the movement shown in the footage; he did not identify the indistinct rooftop figure as Tyler Robinson.[10]

That identification came from lead investigator David Hull, who testified about the investigative effort to trace the person shown through a sequence of surveillance recordings and stated that he believed the rooftop figure was Robinson. It is therefore a fact that Hull made the identification in court, but that is not the same as the rooftop footage independently proving identity. The video did not provide a clear close up of the person’s face, and the prosecution acknowledged that no recording captured the actual shot being fired. The critical evidentiary question is whether the State reliably established continuity between the indistinct rooftop figure and Robinson through timestamps, clothing, gait, vehicle evidence, or other corroboration. Hull’s conclusion could not improve the pixels or make the rooftop image clearer than it was.[11] [12]

The limitations in lead investigator David Hull’s testimony deserve more than passing attention. As the investigator presented to explain and connect important portions of the State’s case, Hull was expected to provide a coherent foundation for the evidence attributed to the investigation. Utah law does not require a lead investigator to remember every detail, nor does a lapse in memory automatically compel dismissal. The legal question is whether the prosecution’s evidence, considered as a whole, still establishes probable cause that the charged offense occurred and that Robinson committed it.[1] (not including ballistic inconsistencies)

That distinction does not make Hull’s lack of knowledge immaterial. When the investigator relied upon to connect the evidence cannot recall or explain facts central to its source, sequence, identification, handling, verification, or interpretation, the court must determine whether other competent evidence fills those gaps. It may not simply assume the missing links. If the mixed DNA result, the unclear rooftop footage, the witness identification, and the remaining investigative evidence cannot independently establish the required connection to Robinson, then the foundational problem lies not merely in one witness’s memory but in the sufficiency of the State’s probable cause showing. Under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 7B, the proper result would be dismissal if the evidence as a whole fails to establish that connection.[1] 

This concern is not theoretical; documented cases demonstrate what can happen when weak or poorly supported prosecutions are allowed to proceed. Michael Morton spent almost twenty-five years imprisoned for a murder he did not commit after exculpatory evidence was suppressed, and the former prosecutor was later held in contempt.[4] Anthony Graves spent eighteen years behind bars, including twelve years on death row, before his conviction was overturned and the charges dismissed. The prosecutor in his case was later disbarred for misconduct that included withholding favorable evidence and presenting false testimony.[5]

In the Duke lacrosse case, North Carolina’s attorney general dismissed the charges and declared the accused players innocent. Prosecutor Michael Nifong was later disbarred following findings that included withholding potentially exculpatory DNA evidence and making false representations to the court.[6] In United States v. Bundy, the federal indictment was dismissed with prejudice after the government failed to disclose evidence favorable to the defense. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding substantial prejudice and flagrant misconduct. The decision was not a declaration of innocence, but it confirmed that disclosure violations may so compromise a prosecution that dismissal becomes the only adequate remedy.[7]

Christopher Ochoa’s case demonstrates why even a guilty plea cannot always be treated as proof that the prosecution reached the truth. Ochoa pleaded guilty while facing the death penalty and served twelve years before DNA evidence excluded him and another convicted man. His case shows how the threat of an extreme sentence can pressure a person to surrender even when that surrender does not reflect factual guilt.[8]

These cases are documented in judicial decisions, disciplinary proceedings, and official exoneration records. They show why the filing of charges cannot be confused with proof and why courts must examine the evidence before accepting the prosecution’s interpretation of it.

It is equally difficult to watch social media posts and comments from people claiming to have seen or heard facts in court when the actual proceeding does not establish those claims. That widening distance between what was placed on the record and what is repeated online is a serious social problem. Public accusation can spread faster than evidence, and the desire to be right can become more important than determining whether the facts fit the accused.

The pattern reminds me of the Salem witch trials, when collective fear and public certainty overtook reliable proof. My own family history records an ancestor who helped establish an early Rhode Island community and was later expelled after questioning prevailing accusations and insisting upon facts. According to those family records, the Crown ultimately authorized his return. His experience remains a warning that questioning a popular narrative is not evidence of guilt. A lawful society must examine whether the evidence fits the accused rather than force the accused to fit the accusation.

There is also a broader question of transparency. Toll and Roll™ submitted to DOGE and other federal offices patent material and supporting records addressing nontransparent case activity, filings, docket systems, bonds, and financial instruments operating outside the portion of a proceeding visible to the public. That submission does not, by itself, establish that undisclosed docket or financial activity occurred in State v. Robinson. It does, however, support a lawful demand for disclosure concerning related case numbers, sealed or chambers filings, bond records, docket histories, audit trails, and any financial interests connected to the prosecution.[9]

I want to know what is happening in the shadow dockets no one is seeing. Claims involving bonds, hedged bets, or gambling cannot responsibly be stated as established facts without the underlying records, but neither should those questions be dismissed. The lawful answer is transparency. If no related records or financial instruments exist, that can be certified. If they do exist, they should be available for lawful examination.

The preliminary hearing was the prosecution’s opportunity to present sufficient evidence to justify moving the charges forward. Yet the mixed DNA evidence was not explained with enough scientific precision to establish what the reported 95 percent figure actually proved. The identification of the person shown on the roof required independent corroboration, the witness testimony required careful credibility analysis, and material gaps in the investigation remained unanswered. The prosecution’s acknowledgment that no recording captured the actual shot being fired further limits what the video itself can establish.

In my assessment, the evidence presented did not establish a dependable connection between Tyler Robinson and the charged conduct without relying upon inference, assumption, and public pressure. It may suggest that he was involved in some aspect of the events, but it does not yet establish precisely what criminal act he committed. The central legal question is not whether the public wants someone to pay, or whether online commentators have already reached a conclusion. It is whether lawful, reliable, and sufficiently supported evidence proves that Robinson committed the specific crime charged.

References

[1] Utah Const. art. I, § 12; State v. Lopez, 2020 UT 61, ¶ 46, 474 P.3d 949.

[2] Utah R. Evid. 702.

[3] Utah R. Evid. 602, 607, 608 and 613.

[4] Hillman v. Nueces County, 579 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. 2019) (Guzman, J., concurring); official Texas judicial records concerning the wrongful conviction of Michael Morton and the disciplinary proceedings involving former prosecutor Ken Anderson.

[5] Official State Bar of Texas disciplinary records concerning former prosecutor Charles Sebesta and the wrongful conviction of Anthony Graves.

[6] North Carolina State Bar disciplinary record and Office of Counsel materials concerning North Carolina State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong; Statement of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissing the Duke lacrosse charges, April 11, 2007.

[7] United States v. Bundy, 968 F.3d 1019, 1031–39 (9th Cir. 2020).

[8] Official Texas judicial and exoneration records concerning Christopher Ochoa and Richard Danziger.

[9] Toll and Roll™ submission to DOGE and other federal offices concerning nontransparent filings, docket activity, bonds, and related financial instruments; organizational records retained by the author.

[10] FULL TESTIMONY: Officer Chris Bagley testifies as witness during Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9z42bAffIY

[11] David Hull’s Entire Day 1 Testimony In Tyler Robinson’s Charlie Kirk Murder Prelim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8G-NKhEx78 

[12] Agent David Hull’s Entire Day 2 Direct Testimony In Tyler Robinson’s Charlie Kirk Murder Prelim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq78rMbB-i8

Source note: Statements concerning evidence and testimony presented during the July 6–10, 2026 preliminary hearing are based upon my research, observations and notes.