LiveNOW from FOX: Final Day of the Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing in the Charlie Kirk Case

Outlet: LiveNOW from FOX | Appearance Type: Video Interview
Last reviewed July 10, 2026 by Mark Astor, Florida attorney.

Watch the Interview: https://www.livenowfox.com/video/fmc-tukzmk7tp1m7hf0q

AT A GLANCE

Today marked the final day of the week-long preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk.

Mark Astor joined LiveNOW from FOX anchor Josh Breslow to break down what the week’s testimony means for the case.

Mark walked through the weight of the evidence, the immunity deal given to Robinson’s roommate, and the two paths a defense team typically weighs when the evidence looks this one-sided.

He also explained why a change of venue probably won’t help, what the gag order dispute is really about, and what happens next now that a probable cause ruling is expected in September.

SETTING THE SCENE

On July 10, 2026, LiveNOW from FOX anchor Josh Breslow spoke with Mark Astor about the final day of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing.

Robinson is accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk. The hearing had run for four days by the time this segment aired.

Prosecutors had already presented testimony from law enforcement who responded to the scene. They also played a pre-recorded interview with Robinson’s roommate, along with text exchanges that reportedly include an admission from Robinson.

Mark joined as a legal analyst, drawing on his background as a former prosecutor, to explain what the evidence means and where the case goes from here.

THE BREAKDOWN

Mark started with the big picture. Four days into the hearing, he said the sheer amount of evidence against Robinson stood out most.

The state’s star witness, according to Mark, is Robinson’s former roommate, Mr. Twiggs. Prosecutors introduced messages Robinson allegedly sent him, along with things Twiggs says he heard and saw.

Josh asked about the roommate’s pre-recorded interview, played instead of live testimony. Mark explained that Utah’s rules allow this in a probable cause hearing.

What stood out to him was the immunity deal. Prosecutors granted Twiggs immunity in exchange for his statement, which meant they avoided subjecting him to cross-examination at this stage. Mark said that decision could matter later, at trial.

From there, Mark laid out two ways he’d approach the defense if he were representing Robinson.

The first, and the one he called the priority, is keeping Robinson off death row. Mark was blunt about it: the evidence is overwhelming, so that’s the uphill fight.

The second is an alternate theory: point to someone else. Mark noted DNA reportedly found on a towel connected to Twiggs, and floated the, in his words, “way out there” possibility that Robinson’s admissions were really him covering for his roommate.

Mark reminded viewers how the burden works. A prosecutor has to convince all 12 jurors. A defense only needs to convince one.

Josh asked how all this public evidence affects jury selection. Mark said the defense will likely argue that potential jurors have already seen the evidence pointing to guilt, which could taint the pool.

He expects the defense to push for a change of venue. But he thinks the judge will keep the case where it is, since the hearing itself was open to the public.

Even if a venue change doesn’t work, Mark said it gives the defense something to raise on appeal later. That’s really the throughline of the defense strategy: build a record now that can support an appeal if there’s a conviction.

Mark said the ultimate defense goal is avoiding death row, whether that happens through trial and appeal, or through a plea that trades life in prison for skipping a trial altogether. He noted that decision may ultimately involve the Kirk family.

The judge is expected to rule on probable cause in September. Mark expects more pretrial motions after that: attempts to move the case, exclude Robinson’s alleged admissions, or challenge the reliability of the scientific evidence.

He credited the judge for handling pressure from all sides, prosecution, defense, and the media’s attorney, while keeping the record clean for appellate review.

Finally, Josh asked about the gag order dispute. The defense has accused prosecutors of violating it by commenting publicly on a bullet fragment tied to the case.

Mark’s answer was direct: prosecutors shouldn’t be commenting on evidence outside the courtroom at all. He said doing so risks tainting the jury pool and could hand the defense grounds for a reversal on appeal, something he never did as a prosecutor himself.

He closed by noting this is still just a preliminary hearing. He expects the judge to find probable cause and said the defense’s real goal this week was locking in testimony they can use later, in front of an actual jury.

Frequently Asked Questions

The following questions are drawn directly from Mark Astor’s analysis during this segment.

KEY LEGAL TERMS REFERENCED IN THIS SEGMENT

This case is being heard in Utah, so no Florida Statute or Constitution citations apply. The terms below are defined in plain language only.

• Preliminary hearing / probable cause hearing: A pretrial proceeding where a judge decides whether there’s enough evidence for a case to move forward, not whether the defendant is guilty.
• Use immunity: A deal where a witness’s own statements can’t be used against them, in exchange for their cooperation.
• Cross-examination: The opportunity for the opposing side to question a witness after they’ve testified.
• Change of venue: A request to move a trial to a different location, usually over concerns about finding an impartial jury.
• Gag order: A court order limiting what attorneys and parties can say publicly about a case, meant to protect the jury pool from outside influence.
• Contempt of court: A finding that someone violated a court order, which can carry penalties.
• Appeal / reversal: A request for a higher court to review a conviction, which can overturn it if legal errors affected the outcome.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The evidence against Tyler Robinson, including alleged text admissions and testimony from his former roommate, is substantial, according to Mark.
• Robinson’s roommate received immunity and gave a pre-recorded interview instead of live testimony, a step Utah law allows at this stage.
• A realistic defense strategy likely centers on avoiding the death penalty, given the weight of the evidence.
• Mark expects the defense to seek a change of venue, though he thinks the judge will keep the case where it is.
• The judge is expected to rule on probable cause in September, with more pretrial motions likely to follow.
• The gag order dispute centers on prosecutors allegedly commenting publicly on evidence, something Mark said prosecutors should never do.

MARK’S ANALYSIS FROM DAY ONE OF THE HEARING

Mark also joined LiveNOW from FOX on the first day of the hearing, breaking down what a preliminary hearing is for and what to expect from the week ahead.

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Josh Breslow: Right now, I do want to take you out to the latest on a big story that we have been covering here. As today, the week-long preliminary hearing will come to an end for Tyler Robinson, seen right there on your screen, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk. Over the course of the week, there was testimony from law enforcement who responded to the scene, along with the presentation of evidence in the case, a pre-recorded interview with Robinson’s roommate and lover, conducted a few months back, was also played, as well as text exchanges were read, including an alleged confession from Robinson.

[Recorded Clip Played in Court]: How about political issues? So, did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights?
No, not really. Usually, if he did talk about politics stuff, it was relating to Trump or current like policies being like issued or voted on, I think, but yeah.

Josh Breslow: And that was just a very small portion of what was played in the courtroom. There again, a pre-recorded interview from earlier on this year. Mark Astor is a criminal defense attorney joining us now live to talk much more about all of it and help break it down, Mark. Thank you so much. You’ve been joining us throughout the week, and we definitely appreciate you being here.

Mark Astor: Yeah, thanks for having me again, Josh. Good to see you this morning.

Josh Breslow: Good to see you. And first off, we are now four out of five days in here. Today is the final day. What has maybe stood out to you overall about what we’ve seen over the past four days?

Mark Astor: Well, I think a couple of things. Obviously, the enormity of the evidence against Mr. Robinson, and obviously, you know, the state’s star witness is Mr. Twiggs, who talked about all the admissions, all the things he heard, he saw. I mean, the messages that were sent to him by Mr. Robinson. So there is a lot of evidence in this case against Mr. Robinson. So very interesting. The trial should be a lot of fun, at least from a legal perspective, anyway.

Josh Breslow: And when you talk about that video from the former roommate there, it’s important to note, as I said off the top here, that it was pre-recorded. It was actually recorded, I believe, back in April. Is it normal for something like that to be done, where you have a recorded interview played out to the judge versus maybe something where the person shows up and testifies live there in person.

Mark Astor: Yeah, so I think what’s important to understand, Josh, is that the rules in Utah do allow at least in a probable cause determination hearing for the prosecutor to pre-record the testimony of a witness and obviously I think what really stood out about that was from a defense perspective is that he’s been offered immunity which I thought was rather interesting considering he supposedly didn’t have anything to do with this and that may play into the defense’s hands in terms of a trial strategy and I’m happy to talk about that. But that was interesting that he’s been given immunity, and obviously they didn’t want to subject him to cross examination. They’ll save that for trial.

Josh Breslow: And talk a little bit about that because you were talking about you know the defense, the prosecution, kind of the arguments there that they have if this goes to trial, and how the roommate kind of plays into that. Break that down for folks.

Mark Astor: Well, so I think there’s two. If I’m defending Mr. Robinson, I think there’s two ways to look at this. Number one, probably the biggie is how do we keep him off a death row? Because the evidence is overwhelming. So can we keep him off a death row? That’s number one. Number two, if we don’t think that we can, is there an alternate theory? The alternate theory is he didn’t do it. You’ve got the wrong guy. Well, who’s the easiest person to point the finger at? Probably Mr. Twiggs. Probably Mr. Twiggs. Why? Well, you have some evidence. At least I think there was a towel that was found that has his DNA on it, and maybe the defense, if they’re really looking for something here, can point the finger at him and say, “Look, you got the wrong guy.” There’s a reasonable theory here that was actually Mr. Twiggs, and our client was just covering for him. So all these admissions are not really admissions. It’s Mr. Robinson covering for Mr. Twiggs, and I mean that’s way out there. But it’s an alternate theory, and if they can’t keep them off a death row, and they’ll have to make that decision, you know, probably before trial, how they’re going to proceed, then that’s a potential alternate theory. You got to remember, the prosecutor needs to convince 12 people, the defense only needs to convince one. So that’s the beauty of our system. But it’s an interesting theory, especially as there may be a little bit of evidence to support that.

Josh Breslow: When you talk about a preliminary hearing, it’s essentially, and you and I discussed this, but it’s essentially a mini trial, so to speak, because we’re hearing from the witnesses, the law enforcement officers who arrived there on the scene the day that Charlie Kirk was killed. You also have the roommate who is testifying, so to speak, in that video, the pre-recorded interview there. How does it make it kind of difficult to seat a jury? How does that factor in when you know this case could go to trial here, and folks are seeing all of this? They’re seeing the evidence, hearing it, and could potentially be jumping to conclusions before they actually go into the trial itself.

Mark Astor: Yeah, I think this is going to be, this could potentially be part of the pre-trial litigation that’s going to go on. I mean, the defense is going to say, “Hold on a second, Your Honor, you’ve allowed potential jurors to see the bulk of the evidence. Certainly, the evidence that points to guilt. We can’t get a fair trial here.” I would imagine they’ll probably try to move this case into a different county, but at the end of the day, I think the judge is going to say, “Look, I mean, the public’s entitled to see this. They could have come in the courtroom and sat down and watched. So, what’s the difference here?” But there’s a lot of evidence here, and they’re going to have to do a really good job during jury selection of getting 12 jurors who are going to be able to say, you know what, we can presume I’m innocent, and we can listen to the evidence, and we can be fair and impartial, and we’ll make a decision only based on the evidence. So this case is far from over, Josh. There’s going to be a lot, a lot of pretrial litigation and challenges that are going to come down the pipe. This is going to take a little time to get us to where we need to be before we can see the jury.

Josh Breslow: And I was going to say there’s always the possibility of filing for a change of venue, but in this case specifically, you have people not just there in Utah where this happened, but I mean across the country who have watched all of this play out and are familiar. So a change of venue probably wouldn’t do much of anything.

Mark Astor: It might not, but from a defense perspective, it’s going to give them something to argue on appeal because at the end of the day, they’re really trying to keep them off a death row. So how do we do that? We may have to go through the trial. There’s a conviction, and then there’s an appeal. So all of these things that the defense is doing, all of the cross examination, all of the pretrial motions, everything is going towards, okay, if we lose this case, what can we argue on appeal? Because if there is a conviction and we can get a reversal, is there an opportunity for us to potentially settle the case where instead of death row, we get life, and that really is their ultimate goal here, to keep them off a death row. And so let’s not lose perspective of that. You know, even as a defense attorney, you know what the evidence is, you know what it shows, and you know the uphill battle you’re probably facing when you’re defending this individual. So let’s keep that in perspective. What the real goal here is.

Josh Breslow: If the judge does find probable cause, and we’ve heard that the judge is expected to make that ruling in September, so just a couple months from now, what is the next step in this? What happens next? Does it immediately go to trial? I have to imagine there’s more hearings that still have to take place.

Mark Astor: Yeah, I’m sure the defense is going to make various motions. We talked about trying to move the case. There may be some other evidence they try to exclude. Perhaps they try to exclude the admissions. Perhaps they challenge some of the scientific evidence and say, “Well, it’s not reliable.” There’ll be some things, but again, it’s all about preserving that record. And I have to give credit to the judge. First of all, he was getting it from all sides, prosecution, defense, the lawyer for the media, and he was calm. He was really great, and also now he’s said to the lawyers, “I want you to brief this.” And again, he’s making sure that record is protected. Eyes are dotted, T’s are crossed, so that when an appellate court looks at this, and I think that’s where we’re going, they’re going to say, “Look, the judge did everything right here.” So there’ll be some pre-trial litigation, but ultimately there’s going to be a trial here, unless the Kirk family says to the state, “Listen, we don’t want to go through this. We want you to plead this case and give him life,” and that could happen. So if it does, you know the defense is going to feel like they got to win, and maybe we don’t have to put Erika Kirk through the nightmare of a trial, so we’ll have to see how this plays out. Interesting, interesting case.

Josh Breslow: Oh, definitely. And my last question for you here is actually about the gag order that is in place. I’m hoping to kind of clarify because we know that the defense has asked for the prosecution to be held in contempt because of comments that they made about a bullet fragment that was found in Kirk’s body, possibly near Kirk’s body, and the defense said they should not be going on a media tour as a result of kind of the restrictions that were placed there by the judge. Can you kind of break down for me overall that argument? Really, what a gag order is altogether?

Mark Astor: Yeah, I mean, again, it goes down to affecting the jury pool. We don’t want, especially the prosecutor, talking about evidence, commenting on evidence. I mean, that’s supposed to be done in the courtroom. To be perfectly honest with Josh, I don’t understand why the prosecutor would ever make any comment to the press. I mean, the prosecutor should just be doing his or her thing in the courtroom. Remember, as a prosecutor, it’s not just your responsibility, your obligation to represent the state and try and get a conviction. You also have the obligation to make sure Mr. Robinson gets a fair trial, because if he doesn’t, an appellate court is going to say, “Listen, you shouldn’t be talking to the press. You commented on the evidence. You tainted the jury pool. We’re going to do this again. We’re going to reverse this conviction.” When I was prosecutor, I didn’t make comments about pending cases, I don’t understand why the prosecutor would ever do this. Beside the fact you face the wrath of the court, just do what you need to do. Don’t comment on the evidence. Let the defense attorneys do that. Let them get yelled at by the judge. But as a prosecutor, you do your argument in court, and other than that, you keep quiet. You do not post comments or say anything about the evidence. It’s a good way to insert error into the record.

Josh Breslow: All right, Mark Astor, thank you so much for taking the time to join us here, helping to break it down. Of course, today is the final day of that hearing. Anything we miss that you want to make sure we add here before I let you go?

Mark Astor: No, I mean I think you know we’ll see, we might see one more witness from the defense, but you got to understand, this is just a preliminary hearing. The defense understands the judge is almost certainly going to rule against them, and this is an opportunity for them just to lock in some testimony to be able to make more arguments to a jury. So I think we’ll have to see how they use the evidence that was gathered over the last four days in any preliminary arguments that are made. So this is, if you enjoy the law, this is going to be interesting times, and I appreciate you having me on again, Josh. Thank you.

Josh Breslow: Of course, and we’ll continue to speak with you here as we follow the case. Thank you again for being here with us.

Mark Astor: You’re welcome. Good to see you this morning.

ABOUT MARK ASTOR

Mark Astor spent the early part of his career as an Assistant State Attorney in Palm Beach County, Florida, where he prosecuted thousands of criminal cases and served as Chief of two County Court Divisions.

He brings that background into his role as a legal analyst, which is why producers at FOX News, LiveNOW from FOX, and local CBS and ABC affiliates call him when a complex criminal case needs a clear explanation.

His law practice is a different matter. As a Marchman Act attorney, Mark Astor and Astor Simovitch Law focus exclusively on behavioral health law: helping Florida families navigate Marchman Act petitions, Baker Act proceedings, and the legal intervention process when a loved one is in a mental health or addiction crisis and refuses help.

If that’s the situation you’re in, schedule a free confidential consultation or call us at 561-419-6095.

A NOTE ON MARK ASTOR’S MEDIA COMMENTARY

Mark Astor’s appearances as a legal analyst cover a wide range of legal cases in the news. This commentary draws on his background as a former prosecutor and his 30-plus years of courtroom experience.

It does not represent the services offered by Astor Simovitch Law, which does not handle criminal defense matters. For criminal defense needs, please consult an attorney who practices in that area.