Bombshell Note: Will Utah Let the Jury Hear “Take Out Charlie Kirk?"

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:01][music] >> Tyler Robinson's charging document includes a handwritten note prosecutors say he left for his roommate before Charlie Kirk was shot. In that note they say he wrote, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it." Some people treat that like a slam dunk confession. Others say it's just something in a court filing. Who knows if a jury will ever see it. I don't practice law in Utah and this isn't Utah specific legal advice. I'm just walking through Utah's evidence rules as they're written, which are substantially similar to the federal rules and a lot of other states' evidence codes including California. So in this video, I want to do one thing.

[00:00:48]Show you exactly where that line comes from and then walk through how a Utah trial judge is likely to analyze whether a jury ever gets to see this evidence.

[00:00:58]This is the charging document information filed by the Utah County Attorney in State v. Tyler James Robinson. In the section labeled the roommate, the state says that on September 10th, 2025, the roommate got a text from Robinson that read, "Drop what you were doing. Look under my keyboard."

[00:01:17]The roommate looks under the keyboard and finds a handwritten note that says, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it."

[00:01:26]The information also says police found a photograph of this note. So this isn't a rumor and it's not a leak. This is the prosecution in its own charging document telling the court he sent that text. The roommate found that note under his keyboard. The note uses that take out Charlie Kirk language and the police have a photo of it. That's the backdrop.

[00:01:47]Now the question is this, under Utah's evidence rules, does a jury get to see this note? Here's where Utah starts.

[00:01:55]Rule 401, the basic test for relevance.

[00:01:58]It says evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. And that fact is of consequence in deciding the case. Apply that to this note identified by the prosecution. If jurors believe this note is real and written by Robinson, it makes it more likely that he intended to take out Charlie Kirk, that he planned to do it, and that he specifically selected Kirk as the victim. In a capital aggravated murder case with a political targeting enhancement, intent, planning, and victim selection are all facts of consequence in deciding the case. Under Utah's any tendency standard, that's more than enough. This note is plainly relevant evidence under Rule 401. Now, relevance is only step one. The next question is this: Once something is relevant, what does Utah law do with it? Rule 402 is the general admissibility rule. It says relevant evidence is admissible unless the US or Utah Constitution, a statute, these rules, or other rules say otherwise. And irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

[00:03:07]Taken together, Rules 401 and 402 give you the default posture. If this note is relevant, and it is, Utah law starts from the position that it comes in.

[00:03:17]Utah, like the federal system, uses a rule of inclusion approach. Relevant evidence comes in, and exclusion is only an exception, not the rule. So, if you're the trial judge, once you decide the note clears Rule 401, you're not looking for reasons to admit it.

[00:03:35]You're looking for a specific rule that would keep it out. One obvious candidate is hearsay. On its face, this looks like a hearsay problem. The note is a statement made out of court, and the prosecution wants to use it to prove the truth of what it says, that Robinson intended to take out Charlie Kirk. Rule 802, as you see here, is the general hearsay rule. It says hearsay is not admissible unless a statute, the Utah rules of evidence, or other rules say otherwise. So, if this were just a random out-of-court statement with no exception, rule 802 here would block it, and rule 402's default of relevant evidence comes in would get overridden.

[00:04:19]But, that's not analysis ends, because of how Utah defines one specific category of statements. Rule 801 is the definition section, and buried in there in rule 801 section D subsection 2, which deals with an opposing party's statements, under rule 801 section D subsection 2, certain statements offered against an opposing party, including the party's own statement, are defined as not hearsay. So, in plain English, if the prosecu- -cution that this note is actually Robinson's statement, and they are offering it against him, Utah law does not treat it as hearsay at all. It treats it as an opposing party's statement. Look back at the foundation the state sketches in this charging document. They say Robinson texts his roommate and says, "Drop what you were doing, look under my keyboard." The roommate looks under the keyboard and finds this note. Police then find a photograph of the note. If the state can prove that up at a hearing or a trial with the roommate on the stand, the text messages in evidence, and the photo authenticated, they will argue this is Robinson's own statement offered against him. Once it fits rule 801 section D subsection 2, rule 802's general hearsay ban no longer applies. The note is not being smuggled in under an exception.

[00:05:45]It's in a category that Utah law defines as not hearsay to begin with. So, on hearsay, the state's position is strong.

[00:05:53]If they can prove up authorship and authenticity, a Utah judge is likely to treat this as Robinson's own words, not barred hearsay. This brings us to the rule that actually has a lot of teeth here, rule 403. Rule 403 says a court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by like unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. So, in plain English, even if something is relevant, and even if it's not blocked by the hearsay rule, a judge can still say no if the danger of unfairness or confusion is so great that it heavily outweighs what the evidence is worth as proof. All strong evidence is prejudicial in the normal sense. If it hurts one side, that is prejudice. What rule 403 is worried about is unfair prejudice. Evidence that pushes jurors to decide the case on an improper or emotional ground instead of on the elements and the actual proof in the case. So, how does this note look through the 403 lens? From the prosecution's perspective, the note has very high probative value. It uses Robinson's own words. It names Charlie Kirk. And it describes seeing an opportunity and deciding to take out that specific person. That goes directly to identity, to intent and planning, and to the idea that Robinson selected Kirk as the victim rather than this being some random encounter. Those are exactly the issues a Utah jury has to decide in a capital aggravated murder case with the political targeting enhancement. So, the state will argue this note is not some sideshow. It sits right on top of the core elements of the offense and the special circumstances they have to prove. Any prejudice, they'll say, comes from the note being strong evidence on the very questions the jury's supposed to answer. That is not the kind of unfair prejudice Rule 403 is aimed at.

[00:07:56]From the defense's point of view, this note is so charged that it threatens to dominate the entire case. "Take out Charlie Kirk" is emotional and political language in a case involving a highly polarizing public figure. They argue that phrase is likely to inflame the jury's emotions and political feelings in a way that goes beyond a calm evaluation of the evidence. They'll also say there's a serious risk the jury will treat this note as a complete confession and give it outsized weight compared to everything else, such as ballistics, timeline, mental state evidence, any inconsistencies in witness testimony, and so on. If there are gaps or conflicts in that other evidence, letting this one sentence tower over the rest could mislead the jury about how strong the case really is. That's where the misleading the jury and confusing the issues language in Rule 403 comes from in a defense like this. So again, and this is important, the Rule 403 question is not whether this note is prejudicial. It obviously is. The question is whether the risk of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury is so strong that it substantially outweighs what the note is worth as proof. If you're a Utah trial judge, you've already decided a few things before you answer that question. Under Rule 401, this note easily qualifies as relevant because it goes straight to intent, planning, and victim selection in a capital aggravated murder case with a political targeting enhancement. Under Rule 402, relevant evidence comes in by default unless something like the Constitution, a statute, or another rule knocks it out. Under rules 801 section D subsection 2 and 802, if the state proves this really is Robinson's note offered against him, Utah law treats it as an opposing party statement that is not hearsay. So, that leaves rule 403 as the only serious way to keep it from the jury. Given how tightly this note is tied to the charged conduct and this specific victim, my prediction is that a Utah judge is more likely than not to admit the note than to exclude it. The court might limit how theatrically the prosecution can use it, but completely shielding the jury from a statement like this in the defendant's own words would be a big step under Utah's rules. Please like and subscribe if you found this video informative. Also, leave a comment below. I would love to read your thoughts. And please share this video with somebody that would be interested in it. Thank you very much.