Prosecutors in Utah have detailed why they believe a key witness in the Charlie Kirk murder case should not be compelled to appear in person at an upcoming preliminary hearing, underscoring that his prior sworn statements are already protected and consistent.
According to The Post Millennial, court filings reveal that witness Mr. Twiggs was granted "use-immunity" for a detailed statement he provided to prosecutors on April 20, 2026, as part of preparations for the preliminary hearing.
The filing notes, "On April 20, 2026, in preparation for the preliminary hearing, Mr. Twiggs gave a recorded statement under oath and after an admonition that any false statement would be punishable by law and could be charged as obstruction of justice. Mr. Twiggs was also given use-immunity by the United States Attorneys Office and the Utah County Attorneys Officemeaning that his statements at that April 20 meeting could not be used against him," the document stated.
Prosecutors emphasized that Twiggs April 20 account aligned with what he told investigators months earlier, shortly after the defendant Robinson surrendered. They wrote that Twiggs April statement was "consistent with" a September 11 interview in which he allegedly "told investigators that Robinson had admitted via electronic messages to him and others that he had killed Charlie Kirk. Investigators photographed the messages from his phone."
In those statements, Twiggs reportedly recounted a series of incriminating admissions attributed to Robinson, tying them directly to the charges now pending. Twiggs had described in the statement "several of Defendants statements to him: that Defendant killed Charlie Kirk (count 1, aggravated murder, and count 2, felony discharge of a firearm), that he hid the firearm (count 3, obstruction of justice), disposed of clothing (count 4, obstruction of justice), and that he told Mr. Twiggs not to speak to law enforcement (count 4, witness tampering)."
The prosecution further clarified the nature of the alleged communications, underscoring the digital trail that modern investigations increasingly rely upon. The filing stated that "Most of these statements were through electronic messages from Defendant and one came from a handwritten note."
This evidentiary backdrop surfaced in a prosecution brief opposing the defenses attempt to force Twiggs to travel from out of state to testify at the preliminary hearing. The state argued that Twiggs "is not a material witness for the preliminary hearing," and therefore the defense application for his attendance should be rejected.
Prosecutors accused the defense of offering assertions rather than evidence to justify cross-examining Twiggs at this early stage, where the states burden of proof is intentionally limited. "Defendant has not made the required showing that Mr. Twiggs cross-examination would be material to the preliminary hearing.
Rather, Defendant merely declares, rather than demonstrates, that Mr. Twiggss cross-examination would be material," the court document stated. "Regardless, given the States limited burden of proof, Defendant has not shown that Mr. Twiggss cross-examination would be material under any applicable definition of that term."
Login