A judge has decided there is enough evidence for the aggravated murder case to move forward against Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting Charlie Kirk at a Utah college campus nearly a year ago.

Robinson, 23, is facing seven criminal charges, including aggravated murder, in connection with Kirk’s Sept. 10, 2025, death.

His attorneys had asked 4th District Judge Tony Graf to strike the murder charge’s aggravating factor — the allegation that the shooting “knowingly created a great risk of death” to someone other than Kirk — which would have made Robinson ineligible to face the death penalty if he is convicted.

On Tuesday, however, Graf found there was enough evidence to move forward with the charges as filed.

Robinson entered not guilty pleas on all counts Tuesday. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.

Jeffrey Neiman, an attorney representing Kirk’s family, urged the judge to guard against delays, asking him to set a trial date when attorneys next gather in court on Oct. 23. Kirk’s widow, Erika, and his parents were in court Tuesday. Erika Kirk dabbed tears from her eyes throughout the hearing.

“Today’s decision, which comes nearly a year since Charlie was taken from us, marks an important step in our family’s pursuit of justice for him,” the family said in a statement. “Every step in this process carries the weight of all that Charlie’s murder has taken from his family, especially his children who will grow up without their father.”

‘A mountain of evidence’

In July, Utah County prosecutors laid out evidence that they say shows that Robinson used his grandfather’s rifle to fire a single shot from atop a Utah Valley University building toward a crowd of thousands gathered for Kirk’s Turning Point USA event. The bullet struck Kirk’s neck.

Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride argued Tuesday that there was a “mountain of evidence” that showed Robinson was the shooter. He argued that prosecutors showed surveillance video of Robinson on campus, DNA evidence found “all over” the gun that authorities believe was used in the killing — and Robinson’s own written confessions to his romantic partner and friends he chatted with online. And, McBride added, Robinson turned himself in.

There was “no doubt,” McBride argued, who the shooter was.

Pointing his finger towards Robinson, the prosecutor said, “On Sept. 10, 2025, the defendant — this man, Tyler James Robinson — shot and killed Charlie Kirk because he disagreed with him.”

In response, Robinson’s defense team focused its arguments not on the substance of this evidence, but on whether Robinson put others at a “great risk of death” when he allegedly fired the fatal shot. That allegation, considered an aggravating factor, is what prosecutors are relying on to make the case eligible for the death penalty.

Defense attorney Stacy Visser said Tuesday that focusing on this argument was not a “concession of facts,” but she acknowledged that at a preliminary hearing Graf was only deciding whether prosecutors had shown that there was “probable cause” that Robinson likely committed the crimes he is charged with. It’s a much lower burden than the proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that jurors must find in a trial.

And, Graf was required to view all of the preliminary hearing evidence in the light most favorable to the state.

Visser argued that there was “no actual threat” to anyone else, noting that only a single bullet was shot and hit one victim.

Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander argued in response that Robinson was playing “ballistic roulette” and “gambling with innocent lives when he made that shot” — noting that the shooter fired into a crowd of thousands, with Kirk’s security staff feet away.

Grunander argued that a nervous inhale or a slight wind could have affected the shooter’s aim — and the bullet possibly could have hit someone else.

“The law does not protect an assassin,” he said, “who happened to hit his target.”

In his ruling, Graf noted that he wasn’t persuaded that merely shooting towards a crowd put people in grave danger, but he found there was enough evidence to show that the shooter likely put Kirk’s security team at risk, along with a man who had been debating Kirk when the bullet was fired.

Defense: Kirk ‘spoke hatefully’

Prosecutors also argued Tuesday that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his political beliefs. Kirk was famous, McBride argued, and was known for promoting traditional family values and and opposition to gay marriage and transgender rights.

That stood in opposition to Robinson, who was in a romantic relationship with a man who was considering transitioning genders. He pointed to a text message Robinson allegedly sent his partner admitting to the shooting, saying he had “had enough of [Kirk’s] hatred.”

Defense attorney Richard Novak argued that the evidence didn’t show what exactly Robinson’s feelings were about Kirk, but asserted that Kirk “spoke hatefully” about gay people and those who were having sex outside of marriage.

Novak’s characterization caused Erika Kirk to become visibly emotional, and later, drew harsh words from Neiman, the Kirk family attorney. The person who showed hate, Neiman said, was a shooter who assassinated the man leading a movement among young people.

“Charlie,” Neiman said, “was the opposite of hate.”