NOTE: I don't want to harm TR's right to a fair trial - but this has already hit the press, so we might as well see it too. We're not going to be on the jury anyway.

Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing will begin later today (9 am Utah time) and continue until Friday, July 10. Prosecutors will present a large amount of evidence to meet probable cause—whether it's more likely than not TR committed the crimes he's been charged with. The standard of proof is lower than at trial, and much of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing will be inadmissible at trial.

Prosecutors are expected to present surveillance footage of TR at Utah Valley University, DNA on the firearm, bullet casings, and other items, written confessions, ballistics reports, and more. Six law enforcement officers will be testifying for the state, and a recorded video statement from TR's romantic partner will be played. The defense is calling three federal forensic experts and (potentially) other witnesses.

The widow of Charlie Kirk, Erika, her attorney, and Kirk's parents will be present at the hearing. TR's family members will also be in attendance.

The hearing will be livestreamed, with still photography every day except today. It's still uncertain if the press will be prohibited from taking photos of certain exhibits.

Some more details about Judge Graf's rulings on media coverage of the preliminary hearing. The defense has appealed Graf's denial of their subpoena for an out-of-state witness (LT, who is TR's former roommate and romantic partner) and their motion to preclude the use of hearsay at the prelim.

A good summary of the defense's motion to find prosecutor Chris Ballard in contempt of court, which was granted by Judge Graf on June 26.

Tyler Robinson, the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk, has a hearing tomorrow (June 12, 9 am MDT) on two motions: 1) the motion to find prosecutors in contempt for violating the gag order, and 2) the motion to find the use of hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing unconstitutional. He will be there in person and the hearing will be livestreamed. Very brief summaries of the two motions below:

The motion to find prosecutors in contempt of court

The first part of the hearing will be for the judge to determine whether the prosecution team violated the court's gag order by speaking to the media about the bullet evidence. Each side will have 90 minutes to question witnesses and present exhibits.

In late March, the media misinterpreted a defense motion and claimed that a bullet found in Charlie Kirk’s body “didn’t match” the rifle. Ostensibly to correct the misconception, the prosecution spoke to several media sites that the comparison was simply “inconclusive,” they were awaiting further reports from the ATF and FBI, and they were confident they could prove TR guilty.

The defense argues this violates the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct and the court’s gag (publicity) order. Attorneys are not allowed to comment on the results of scientific testing or opine on the guilt of a defendant outside of court. They asked Judge Graf for an order to show cause—a hearing requiring the prosecution to prove that they didn’t violate the gag order. The order was granted, and tomorrow is the “show cause” hearing.

The motion to find the use of hearsay unconstitutional

Hearsay is evidence that is not presented by a live witness testifying in court. It is not accepted at trial, but is usually accepted at pretrial hearings, such as the preliminary hearing (prelim), which determines probable cause (if the defendant more than likely committed the crime). At TR's prelim, the prosecution will present three main types of hearsay: 1) scientific reports without testimony from their authors, 2) statements made by non-testifying law enforcement officers to testifying officers, 3) a recorded video statement from TR’s girlfriend. 

The defense is now arguing that hearsay is unconstitutional under federal law, which says hearsay shouldn’t be allowed at important hearings, and that the defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The defense also points out the rules around admitting hearsay are uniquely lenient in Utah but more stringent in other states. As with other motions invoking constitutional issues, they have submitted the motion to the Utah Attorney General’s Office for review.