Lawyers for suspect accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk make stunning argument for why he should be spared death penalty

Tyler Robinson mug shot.

Defense lawyers for the man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk last year argue their client shouldn't be punished with the death penalty because he didn't kill anyone else besides Kirk.

The stunning argument came this week in court filings as defense attorneys try to prevent the case against Tyler Robinson, the suspected assassin, from going to trial in Utah, The Associated Press reported. Robinson is accused of hiding on a rooftop at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 last year, during a Turning Point USA event that featured Kirk as a speaker. As Kirk answered a question from a member of the audience, a shot rang out from a high-powered rifle and struck Kirk in the neck, killing him.

Prosecutors say the evidence that Robinson was hiding on a distant roof and fired the fatal shot is overwhelming, and they have pointed to an alleged confession he made as well as a murder weapon, ballistics data, DNA, and the testimony of others who are close to Robinson, including his transgender romantic partner, Lance Twiggs. A key aspect of the aggravated murder charge prosecutors have brought against the suspect, which allows for the death penalty, is that Robinson, who was 22 at the time of Kirk's killing, put others in danger by allegedly shooting Kirk in a crowded public setting.

Lawyers for Robinson say that because only Kirk was killed, because only one shot was fired, and because no one else at the event was injured by gunfire, their client shouldn't be eligible to face the death penalty. The suspected shooter "hit the intended target," the lawyers contended in the audacious legal brief, and put no one else in danger.

“The only evidence presented supports that the bullet traveled above, not through, the crowd,” Robinson's lawyers wrote in a document filed this week. “The bullet that struck and killed Mr. Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space but rather, an open-air arena with what the State’s witnesses termed, ‘a clear line of sight,’” the brief reads. “There were no threats to others in the course of conduct. There was no one ‘directly’ next to Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and there was no one under the tent on the side that Mr. Kirk was struck or behind him in the breezeway,” the defense attorneys argued in the brief, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. “Multiple shots were not fired,” the lawyers added. “There were no ricocheting bullets. There were no threats to others.”

Prosecutors have argued that many of the hundreds of people in attendance that day were in a "zone of danger" due to the possibility of an errant shot or a ricocheting bullet. They point to the fact that even though Robinson is accused of firing just one shot, he loaded his gun with four bullets, showing he had the intent to fire more rounds. 

Chicago-based lawyer Donna Rotunno told Fox News the defense lawyers' argument was a longshot.

"The evidence in the preliminary hearing has already proven that there were many people there," Rotunno said. "The evidence has shown where the shooter was vs. where Charlie was and where the shot was taken from, the amount of people who were in the line of fire. They can argue those facts from other pieces of evidence that they've introduced. They didn’t need somebody specifically to get on the witness stand and say there were all these people in danger."

Robinson's defense lawyers have also argued that politics were not a motivating factor in the assassination. A judge is expected to rule on whether the case will go to trial or whether Robinson will face the death penalty in early September. For more on the story, watch the video below.