PROVO, Utah — The first day of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing saw prosecutors lay out a detailed account of the investigation into the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, while the defense aggressively challenged the handling of evidence, police reporting and the overall investigation.
The hearing focused primarily on testimony from responding officers and investigators as prosecutors introduced dozens of exhibits intended to support their theory that the shot originated from a rooftop overlooking the Utah Valley University campus.
Prosecutors Focus on Rooftop
University police officer Chris Bagley spent much of the morning walking the court through the campus layout before describing what investigators discovered on the roof of the LOSI building.
Bagley testified investigators found what he described as a disturbed area in the gravel that appeared consistent with someone lying in a prone shooting position. Multiple photographs documenting the area were admitted into evidence throughout the day.
“It looked like impressions from elbows, knees, feet and where a rifle had been placed.”
Bagley also testified investigators recovered a red-and-black screwdriver from the rooftop and established a direct line of sight from the roof toward Charlie Kirk’s event below.
The State later presented testimony describing surveillance footage that allegedly showed an individual moving onto the rooftop, dropping into a prone position before the shooting and fleeing afterward.
At one point during the proceedings, the courtroom fell silent as the judge privately reviewed video and audio evidence that was not played publicly. The material reportedly captured the moments surrounding when the bullet struck Charlie Kirk. While the contents were not disclosed in open court, the judge appeared visibly unsettled after viewing the evidence, pausing briefly before the hearing continued.
Defense Presses Investigation
Cross-examination shifted attention away from the rooftop and toward how the investigation unfolded.
Defense attorneys questioned Bagley about staffing levels, evidence collection and omissions from his reports.
Bagley acknowledged that only six armed officers had been assigned to an event expected to attract thousands of attendees. He also testified he missed the operational briefing because he had been diverted to another disturbance before the shooting.
One of the more significant moments came when Bagley admitted he observed an empty pistol holster near the crime scene but did not personally collect it or ensure it was preserved.
“I left it where it was.”
The defense also established that Bagley never filed a supplemental report after reviewing additional forensic photographs before the hearing.
Report Becomes Key Issue
Another notable exchange occurred after defense counsel presented one of Bagley’s reports.
Initially, Bagley testified the report was not his. After reviewing the document more closely, he reversed himself.
“Yes, I prepared that report.”
The defense continued questioning why details Bagley testified about in court—including observations regarding the rooftop—were absent from his original report.
Questions About Initial Response
Bagley also acknowledged someone was taken into custody almost immediately after the shooting.
“Pretty much instantly.”
Defense attorneys suggested that testimony was difficult to reconcile with the State’s later-developed theory that the fatal shot originated from the rooftop, arguing investigators’ understanding of the incident evolved significantly after additional evidence was discovered.
Lead Investigator Testifies
The State later called Special Agent David Hull, who testified he became one of the lead investigators assigned to the case.
Hull outlined how investigators divided responsibilities, reviewed surveillance footage and collected evidence.
During his testimony, Hull corrected earlier statements regarding when a key cellphone video had been collected and confirmed an edited surveillance compilation had been prepared during the investigation.
Court Addresses Evidence Issues
Proceedings briefly shifted away from witness testimony after the court discovered that one exhibit submitted by prosecutors contained unredacted personal identifying information belonging to a civilian witness.
The issue prompted a pause while prosecutors prepared a redacted version before the exhibit was admitted.
Looking Ahead
By the close of the first day, prosecutors had established the framework for their rooftop shooting theory through physical evidence, photographs and investigator testimony.
The defense, meanwhile, concentrated on exposing inconsistencies in police reports, evidence handling and investigative decisions in an effort to undermine the reliability of the State’s case before additional witnesses take the stand.
The preliminary hearing is scheduled to continue Tuesday.
About the Author
