Charlie Kirk Medical Examiner Report
This page is about one document: the Charlie Kirk medical examiner report produced by the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner after the September 10, 2025 shooting. It is distinct from (but tightly linked to) the broader Charlie Kirk Autopsy Report overview and the person-focused Charlie Kirk Medical Examiner Name page.
The report was admitted into evidence at the July 2026 preliminary hearing as State’s Exhibit 11 and still has not been published to the public. Everything below is drawn from sworn testimony about the report, later court filings that quote it, and attributed commentary — not from a released PDF.
Tyler Robinson is the accused, not convicted. No living person named here is accused of a crime by this website.
Document identity
| Field | What the record says |
|---|---|
| Document | Medical examiner’s report of examination for Charlie Kirk |
| Office | Utah Office of the Medical Examiner (statewide; not a county coroner) |
| Hearing exhibit | State’s Exhibit 11 |
| Approximate length | Nine pages (as scrolled for Agent Hull) |
| Format | Hull: “standard form” / standard format the ME uses for law-enforcement distribution |
| Delivery to DPS | Electronically — sometimes email, also compact disc |
| Public status | Not published; admitted for the preliminary hearing only under reliable-hearsay rules |
Agent David Hull (Utah Department of Public Safety) identified the exhibit on the record:
“That’s the medical examiner’s report of examination for Mr. Kirk.”
Full color-coded transcript context: Preliminary Hearing — Day 1. Related trial/forensics path: Trial and Autopsy Report.
How the Charlie Kirk medical examiner report entered court
Foundation through an investigator, not the pathologist
Prosecutors did not call the pathologist who wrote the report to the stand on Day 1. Instead they used Hull to:
- Establish that an autopsy was conducted by the OME.
- Establish that Hull and Agent Davis met the doctor in person at the Medical Examiner’s Office within a few days of the incident and discussed the examination “in-depth.”
- Establish that Hull later received the written report and reviewed it.
- Have Hull look through the nine pages on screen and confirm the exhibit matched what he received.
- Have Hull state the report’s cause and manner language from page one.
Defense counsel Kathryn Nester framed the objection clearly: this was an expert report without the expert present, offered through a non-pathologist who could not be cross-examined on the examiner’s methods, CV, or conclusions the way trial confrontation normally requires. She also objected under the Best Evidence Rule and argued reliability under Rule 1102 still had to be found “in a vacuum.”
Rule 1102(b)(5) and the non-publication order
The State argued Utah Rule of Evidence 1102(b)(5) expressly lists “Medical and autopsy reports and records” as reliable hearsay for criminal preliminary examinations only, supported by Utah Constitution Article I, Section 12. Judge Tony F. Graf, Jr. overruled the hearsay objection and admitted Exhibit 11.
At the same time, both sides agreed the document contained sensitive personal medical content. The State asked that it not be published in the courtroom or viewable on camera. The court agreed, citing dignity and respect (Article I, Section 28 language in the ruling discussion). Practical result for the public:
- The Charlie Kirk medical examiner report exists in the case.
- Independent researchers still cannot read the nine pages.
- News coverage and X court-watch accounts can only repeat what was spoken or later quoted in other filings.
That is why Autopsy Report Not Public remains accurate even after the hearing.
What the report is said to state on page one
After Hull initially said the report listed “murder,” Nester objected that the correct term was homicide. The judge looked at the report and sustained the wording objection. Hull then corrected, reading from page one:
| Field | Language Hull related from the report |
|---|---|
| Manner of death | Homicide |
| Immediate cause of death | A gunshot wound of the neck |
This is the only top-line pair firmly pinned to the face of Exhibit 11 in open court. Everything else the public discusses — bilateral hemothorax, hemopericardium, C2–C7 damage, fragment counts — comes from other filings, ATF paperwork, or secondary quotes that purport to paraphrase the same ME work. Those threads are essential but must stay labeled by source.
Injury language attributed to the same ME work
July 2026 court-filing quotes
Circulating screenshots of a state filing (widely shared by @thisauthentic and others on July 30, 2026) quote the medical examiner findings at “Id. at 3–4,” including:
- Bilateral apical and posterior intercostal hemorrhages
- Pulmonary apical hemorrhages / hematomas
- Multiple disruptions of the thyroid, cricoid, and tracheal cartilages
- Hemopericardium
- Left and right hemothorax
- Subarachnoid hemorrhaging around the cerebellar vermis and parietal regions
Full plain-language breakdown: Charlie’s Injuries. Hypothesis scoring vs .30-06 vs shaped charge: Shape Charge vs Bullet. Geometric tension with “downward” trajectory language: Trajectory vs C2–C7 Damage.
Important source hygiene: those pages are not the medical examiner report itself. They are a state brief (or related filing) that quotes the report. Confusing the two was already corrected in X reply threads (noted on the trajectory page).
Doctors reacting to the quoted findings
On July 30, 2026, Candace Owens amplified anonymous YouTube comments from self-identified physicians who said the injury list does not fit a single rooftop rifle path. Credentials are unverified. Their arguments and the fair counterpoints (CPR trauma, cavitation, incomplete excerpts) are collected on Doctors Question the ME Report.
Physical evidence the report (and autopsy) fed into the case
The medical examiner report is the paper face of a physical examination that recovered ballistic material:
- 1 bullet jacket fragment + 4 lead fragments recovered during autopsy
- Jacket described as .30 caliber class
- ATF September 17, 2025 comparison to the seized Mauser: INCONCLUSIVE
- Follow-on FBI VCM testing on a fragile fragment; defense access disputes
Those steps are the heart of Trial and Autopsy Report and ATF Inconclusive Ballistics. The medical examiner report is what the State uses to assert mechanism and COD; the lab reports are what the defense uses to attack rifle identity. Both can be true as process facts without deciding guilt.
Timeline of the Charlie Kirk medical examiner report (as known)
| When | Event |
|---|---|
| ~12:23 PM, Sept 10, 2025 | Shot at UVU; private-SUV “hasty transport” to Timpanogos Regional |
| ~1:03 PM | Pronouncement (timeline reconstructions; see Death Timeline) |
| Late evening Sept 10 / early Sept 11 | Autopsy at OME (Hull testimony) |
| Within a few days | Hull + Agent Davis meet performing doctor at ME office |
| Later (date unrecalled by Hull) | Written report delivered electronically / on disc |
| Sept 17, 2025 | ATF lab report on autopsy jacket fragment |
| July 6, 2026 (approx.) | Exhibit 11 admitted; COD/manner read; not published |
| Late July 2026 | State filings quoting multi-system injuries circulate on X |
For the wider forensic calendar, see Autopsy, Forensic & Medical Examiner Timeline.
Sealing, SB0082, and ordinary process vs suspicion
Utah law and ordinary ME practice explain a large share of the opacity:
- Active capital cases routinely keep ME files from public GRAMA-style release.
- SB0082 (effective May 2025) restricts sharing of autopsy photos and video.
- Court dignity rulings can bar publication even when a document is admitted.
Citizen investigators still argue that selective quotation of a sealed report — enough for probable-cause narrative, not enough for independent audit — is the core transparency failure. That argument is catalogued as a question on CoverUp — Autopsy Sealed Examiner and as a reform target on Medical Examiner Transparency. Sealing is not proof the report is fabricated; non-release is still a public-accountability problem.
Related rumors that are not the report
Keep these separate so the document itself stays clear:
- “No autopsy at all” — Contradicted by Exhibit 11 and ATF recovery language; see No Autopsy Performed (Claims).
- Death certificate signer — Distinct paperwork; see Death Certificate Questions.
- “Mystery woman signed off” — Unverified secondhand allegation; see Mystery Woman Who Signed Off.
- Texas ME on TV — Dr. Kendall Crowns explained neck wounds generically; he did not author the Utah report.
Open questions specific to this document
- Will Exhibit 11 ever be unsealed or summarized in a public redacted form?
- Do pages 2–9 include trajectory diagrams, organ weights, tox panels, and residue tests — and what do they say?
- Are filing quotes complete, or do they omit context that changes the bilateral-injury reading?
- Will the performing pathologist testify at trial so the defense can confront the report’s author?
- How do report timestamps align with transport and hospital pronouncement records?
Laws (Charlie Kirk)
- The full Charlie Kirk medical examiner report (all nine-plus pages), toxicology, residue testing, imaging, fragment recovery notes, and any drafts or amended versions are things that the Charlie Kirk Investigation Laws may result in powerful truths coming out that aren't out yet.
Citizen investigator claims on X (attributed)
- @stratagemmer — Sealed ME report; Hull’s delivery uncertainty; hearsay objections.
- @Joshua_the_car — Hearing COD/manner notes.
- @thisauthentic — Injury-list filing images (July 30, 2026).
- @matt82704417 — State-brief pages with trajectory vs C2–C7 underlining.
- @RealCandaceO — Physician commentary on ME findings.
- @MarioNawfal — Process defense of ordinary ME delays and sealing.
This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.
Interesting
- A foreign paper reportedly reported his death while he was still in transit.
- Five testable questions, including whether the 7:57 PM Discord posts fit custody, frame this index.
- A whistleblower describes loyalty questions put to new hires in digital social engineering claims.