Zach from WolvesAndFinance Exposes Erika Kirk's Questionable Victim Representative Status in Tyler Robinson Murder Case
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Exclusive Details on Charlie Kirk's Death: Spinal Injury, Autopsy Findings, and FBI Investigation Revealed
24:22
TriggerSmart Reveals Why Frangible Ammunition Changes Everything About Charlie Kirk's Shooting
24:25
Zach From WolvesAndFinance Uncovers Alleged Military Fraud Connected to Charlie Kirk's Death at Fort Huachuca
38:44
Zach from WolvesAndFinance Exposes Erika Kirk's Questionable Victim Representative Status in Tyler Robinson Murder Case
Zach from WolvesAndFinance raises serious questions about Erika Kirk's legal standing as victim representative in the Tyler Robinson murder trial. Under Utah law, individuals who appear to be involved in a crime are disqualified from asserting victim's rights, yet Erika Kirk's inconsistent alibis and suspicious behavior on the day Charlie Kirk died suggest she may not meet the legal requirements. As the prosecution rushes the trial citing Erika's victim rights while the defense struggles to obtain evidence, Zach proposes an alternative: Candace Owens, as Charlie Kirk's close friend, has equal legal standing to file as victim representative and could request a thorough investigation instead. The question becomes whether the judge will honor Utah law impartially or reveal potential bias in this increasingly controversial case.
On April 17th, an evidentiary hearing took place in the Tyler Robinson murder case. Something about this hearing troubled Zach from WolvesAndFinance—something he believes others have overlooked regarding Erika Kirk's role in the proceedings.
A unique aspect of this case is that Erika Kirk hired a lawyer and filed an invocation of speedy trial rights. She filed this document claiming status as the victim representative, asserting her right to a speedy trial. This is something unique to criminal cases in the state of Utah and not done in other states. In Utah, victims have rights in the trial.
The first obvious question is that Erika Kirk is not the victim. She was not the person who was shot. How can she file this document? Well, if the actual victim in the crime dies, then a close family member can file on their behalf as the victim representative. That is what Erika Kirk is doing.
Fox News reported that Erika Kirk put the judge presiding over her late husband Charlie's murder trial on notice by invoking her right to a speedy trial as the representative of a victim of crime. Utah is the only state to have such a law. In a court filing, she accused defense attorneys of dragging their feet as they attempt to kick the prosecutor off the case.
What Utah Law Actually Says
Utah statute 77-38-9 states that in cases in which the victim is deceased or incapacitated, upon request from the victim's spouse, parent, child, or close friend, the court shall designate a representative or representatives of the victim to exercise the rights of a victim under this chapter on behalf of the victim.
That seems to explain how Erika Kirk can take on this role. But there's more.
Section 4 states: "The representative of a victim of a crime shall not be the accused or a person who appears to be accountable or otherwise criminally responsible for or criminally involved in the crime or conduct, a related crime or conduct, or a crime or act arising from the same conduct, criminal episode or plan as the crime or conduct is defined under the laws of the state."
That is broadly written and the intent is clear. If you are a suspect in the crime, you cannot claim victim's rights. For instance, if you are a wife that murders your husband, you cannot then walk into court and say you want to assert your victim's rights. You do not get victim's rights if you are somehow involved in the crime.
The law actually states that it is merely the appearance of being involved that disqualifies you. It says that the representative of the victim shall not be a person who appears to be involved in the crime. If someone just appears to be suspicious, it disqualifies them from asserting victim's rights.
The Legal Test Erika Kirk Must Pass
People need to understand this: just because Erika Kirk was Charlie Kirk's wife does not automatically give her these rights. She has to pass this legal test in order to exercise these rights under Utah law. In Zach's opinion, she does not pass this hurdle.
Months later, we are still not sure what Erika Kirk was doing on the day that Charlie Kirk was murdered. There are reports that she was in a parking lot at a hospital with her mother. There are also reports that she was not with her mother but was at the airport. Zach came upon information that Erika was at the office of Hopkinson Aircrafts when she received the news that Charlie was dead.
What was she doing? And why can't we get a straight story from Erika Kirk?
In Zach's opinion, the fact that Erika Kirk keeps lying about her alibi makes her suspicious and should invalidate her from claiming victim's rights. To be clear, Zach is not saying that Erika Kirk is the murderer—he does not know. What he wants to see is a fair trial. And what is happening is not fair.
The real question you need to ask yourself is: do you think Erika Kirk is suspicious? If she even has the appearance of somehow being involved in criminal activity related to Charlie Kirk's death, she cannot claim victim's rights. Zach believes Erika Kirk has tricked the judge into recognizing her as the victim representative when she is not actually eligible.
How Erika Kirk's Filing Is Affecting the Trial
At the hearing, the prosecutor argued that Tyler Robinson's defense should not be granted a continuance because the defense wants more time to prepare for the preliminary hearing:
"It's unnecessary and it's going to infringe on the victim's right to a speedy trial, as well as the state's ability to present the case. Justice delayed is justice denied, as the saying goes. And that's because it affects a victim's right to a speedy trial. And if the continuance was granted, it would affect the victim's right to a speedy trial."
The prosecution stated they need to speed up this trial because of Erika Kirk's victim's rights. He said it three times. That paper that Erika Kirk filed is having a very real impact on this trial.
The defense had this to say about Erika Kirk:
"And we also don't want Mrs. Kirk and her family to have to go through it again because that's actually in my opinion the greatest harm to surviving victims in a case like this is the long run when cases don't proceed as the constitution requires."
The judge then asked: "So how do you propose the court balance your request for a potentially large, a long delay against the constitutional rights of the victim or representative, Miss Kirk, in her right to a speedy disposition of the case?"
This is disturbing. The defense council and the judge are worrying about Erika Kirk. If Erika Kirk could be considered a suspect in any way, she should not be influencing the outcome of this case against someone else.
Defense Claims They're Not Getting Evidence
The defense council stated they are not getting the evidence they are requesting, so they need more time. The judge is saying they do not get more time because of Erika Kirk.
Another important question is why haven't the FBI and the ATF provided data files that they utilized six months ago? The prosecution has this information—they're just not giving it to the defense. This is deeply unfair.
Another potential suspect should not be able to push through a speedy trial so that Tyler Robinson does not have time to put on a thorough defense. That is a violation of Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial. Zach believes this is grounds for a mistrial.
The judge is arguing from the bench that this case should be impacted by someone who could be considered another suspect. This clearly goes against Utah law concerning victim's rights. Defense council should be fighting against Erika Kirk's assertion, not going along with it.
Turning Point's Suspicious Behavior
The people at Turning Point are also acting suspicious. They did a podcast on the Charlie Kirk show where they showed their frustration over why the court case was taking so long.
"What would your bet be on when we might finally start empaneling jurors for this trial?" someone asked.
"Early 2028. I would put the over-under on early 2028, just the nature of capital cases and in a case like this as well. It's already being foreshadowed that there are going to be many technical types of challenges to the evidence," responded Blake Neff and Andrew Kolvet.
Why do they look so upset that the trial is taking so long? Andrew Kolvet is literally holding his head. Zach finds this behavior very suspicious. Why are they so concerned about taking the time to make sure that justice is done?
The fact that all these people at Turning Point along with Erika Kirk are trying to rush through this investigation seems to be a pretty good reason why we should all slow down and take a closer look at all of this.
A Potential Solution: Candace Owens as Victim Representative
Zach believes he has found a solution. Going back to Utah Law Statute 77-38-9, notice that one of the people who could be classified as a victim representative includes a close friend.
Candace Owens was a close friend of Charlie Kirk. She has the text messages and video to prove she was a close friend. Under Utah law, Candace Owens herself can file as a victim representative for Charlie Kirk. She could file today.
Unlike Erika Kirk, Candace Owens can request that the investigation be thorough and that justice is done. Candace Owens can request that the defense council should be given the time that they need.
Under Utah law, Candace Owens has just as much right as Erika Kirk to be recognized as the victim representative. In fact, Zach argues that Candace Owens has more rights than Erika Kirk because Erika Kirk has the appearance of somehow being involved in the crime.
The judge will be required under Utah law to honor a request from Candace Owens. He cannot accept one victim request while ignoring the other because he has to remain impartial.
Technically, the judge does have the discretion to do whatever he wants. But if he does not accept a request from Candace Owens, it will show everyone that he is biased and the trial is a sham.
Zach hopes that Candace Owens steps up and asserts her rights in the trial of Tyler Robinson.
