KUER0%

Judge in Charlie Kirk case denies preliminary subpoena of Robinson’s roommate 2%

By Martha Harris0%

6/22/2026, 8:30:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Burden of Proof, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 9.2% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 218 faulty-reasoning hits from 566 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 9.6% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,600 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.70% of the article peer group.

A Utah judge shut down a request by Tyler Robinson’s defense to make his former roommate and romantic partner testify in person at the upcoming preliminary hearing. 
Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder in the killing of political influencer Charlie Kirk, has yet to enter a plea in the case. 
When Kirk was fatally shot last September, Robinson was allegedly living with Lance Twiggs in St. 
George. 
In his ruling, Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf used the name Lance Twiggs and he/him pronouns. 
The defense, however, in its filings states that Twiggs’s chosen name is “Luna” and uses she/her pronouns. 
Twiggs has since moved out of state. 
According to prosecutors, Twiggs allegedly told investigators after the shooting that Robinson admitted to Kirk’s murder. 
At the upcoming preliminary hearing, scheduled for July 6-10, prosecutors plan to show a recorded statement from Twiggs given under oath in April. 
State and federal prosecutors gave Twiggs “use-immunity,” meaning those statements can’t be used against Twiggs in the future. 
The upcoming hearing is procedural to demonstrate probable cause and will give the public more insight into what evidence the state has to make its case against Robinson. 
The defense wanted to subpoena Twiggs to testify in person at the hearing rather than the recorded statement. 
That would allow the defense the opportunity to cross-examine and try to undermine Twiggs’ credibility as a witness. 
Prosecutors opposed that motion, saying it wasn’t necessary at the preliminary hearing stage, which requires a lower burden of proof compared to the jury trial. 
Graf denied the defense’s request to compel Twiggs to travel from out of state to testify at the preliminary hearing. 
Graf read his written ruling aloud Monday and explained that the court is supposed to view evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution at the preliminary hearing. 
Additionally, the judge said he isn’t supposed to weigh in on the credibility of evidence or wade into the issue of conflicting evidence. 
To grant the defense’s subpoena request, Graf said attorneys would’ve needed to show that Twiggs’s live testimony was needed to share specific evidence that could likely counter the prosecution’s ability to show probable cause at the preliminary hearing. 
But the judge said the defense hadn’t shown that. 
The subpoena was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the defense could try again. 
Graf also denied a defense motion to block the state from using hearsay to establish probable cause at the preliminary hearing. 
That’s when a person testifies about something that someone else told them. 
Two other outstanding issues await rulings. 
Graf punted those to Friday because new arguments were filed late last week. 
The first is whether prosecutors should be held in contempt of court for comments they made to media outlets about a bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body. 
The defense has argued this violated the court’s restrictions on speaking about the case outside of the courtroom. 
Prosecutors said they planned to seek the death penalty if he is convicted when they filed the charges. 
A ruling is also awaited on the defense’s request to ban cameras from the courtroom during the preliminary hearing. 
Throughout this case, Robinson’s attorneys have repeatedly sought to prohibit cameras in the courtroom. 
Graf previously denied the defense’s request to have a blanket ban. 
The defense is now appealing that to the Utah Supreme Court. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 2.7%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 3.6%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 2.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Martha Harris: 5.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.8%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 2.7%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 2.4%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Martha Harris: 5.9%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias5.3%This article: 3.2%Martha Harris: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 3.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.5%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.7%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.8%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 3.9%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 3.5%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.2%Martha Harris: 5.6%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion3.2%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.6%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.4%Martha Harris: 0.4%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.4%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.9%Martha Harris: 2.1%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.1%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

566 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech431writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 28 words • 100.0% coverageTony Graf • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 38 words • 0.0% coverageTony Graf • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tony Graf

33%flagged-word coverage
135 attributed words100% of attributed speech40% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tony Graf: 20.7%20.7%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Tony Graf: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.