A major development has emerged in the case surrounding the fatal shooting of activist Charlie Kirk, as questions are raised over crucial forensic evidence. Defence lawyers now argue that a central piece of evidence may not connect the accused to the crime.

Others are reading now

The claim could play a significant role as the case moves forward in court.

Defence argument

According to LADBIBLE, lawyers for 22-year-old Tyler Robinson say the bullet recovered from the scene cannot be definitively tied to the rifle linked to him.

In a court filing, the defence stated that federal investigators were unable to match the bullet to the weapon in question.

They said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr Robinson”.

Questions over weapon

Prosecutors allege the rifle belonged to Robinson, having originally been passed down from his grandfather.

Also read

However, reports indicate discrepancies between the firearm and the ammunition, including differences in calibre.

Experts cited in the case suggest that bullets from such rifles can fragment on impact, making precise identification more difficult.

Legal strategy

Robinson’s legal team is now seeking to delay proceedings, arguing that further expert analysis is needed.

The filing highlights the complexity of forensic examination, particularly when dealing with DNA mixtures and ballistic evidence.

It states: “the comprehensive review required to determine what is missing will take hundreds of hours.”

Prosecution claims

Prosecutors allege Robinson travelled several hours to Utah Valley University in September 2025 to carry out the attack.

They have also pointed to alleged messages sent by the suspect, referencing attempts to recover a rifle and concerns about leaving evidence behind.

In one message, he reportedly wrote: “If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.”

Next hearing

Robinson faces capital murder charges and could receive the death penalty if convicted.

He is due to appear in court again on 17 April, where further arguments over evidence and procedure are expected.