Which agency conducted the death investigation into Charlie Kirk and where was the coroner's report filed?

1. Who led the criminal investigation: Utah law enforcement with FBI involvement

Local and state Utah authorities led the on‑scene and criminal probe into the shooting, publicly releasing images and details and saying they found the rifle believed used; the Utah Department of Public Safety and other Utah investigators worked the case while the FBI posted updates and offered a reward and was involved in evidence and tip‑handling ^{[2] [4]}. National outlets consistently reported that U.S. investigators released footage and evidence and that more than 7,000 public tips and hundreds of interviews had been collected, underscoring joint state‑federal activity ^[2]. The FBI’s public page on the “Utah Valley shooting” documents its operational role, including a $100,000 reward for information ^[4].

2. Who handled the medical/legal death determination: Utah Office of the Medical Examiner

Utah’s system employs a state Office of the Medical Examiner rather than county coroners; that office performs required autopsies and issues autopsy reports for homicides in Utah ^[3]. Reporting and specialized explainers note that high‑profile homicides like Kirk’s are subject to an autopsy by a forensic pathologist under the state medical examiner’s authority ^{[5] [6]}. A local source quoted a coroner‑type finding about the bullet’s location in Kirk’s body, showing medical examiners were involved in determining and describing the wound ^[7].

3. Where the coroner/autopsy report is filed and public access limits

Utah’s Office of the Medical Examiner maintains the autopsy records and provides copies to certain parties under state law, but the office does not routinely publish full autopsy reports to the general public; reporting explicitly states the state medical examiner’s office said the autopsy report would not be made public ^[3]. Public reporting indicates the state will need to enter the autopsy report into the court record at trial, meaning parts of it could later surface in judicial proceedings, but initial disposition rests with the state medical examiner’s records system ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Conflicting coverage and what is not (yet) in the public record

Major news organizations (Reuters, PBS, FBI releases) document the criminal investigation steps and federal involvement ^{[2] [4] [8]}. Local and explanatory outlets report that Utah’s medical examiner handles autopsies and that full reports are not routinely released ^{[3] [5]}. Available sources do not mention a public posting of a full coroner’s report online, nor do they provide the complete autopsy text; they instead note restricted access and potential disclosure via court filings ^[3]. Some secondary outlets and spokespeople have described medical findings (e.g., bullet location), but full forensic documentation is not present in the cited reporting ^[7].

5. Why this matters: transparency, jurisdiction and political pressure

Jurisdictional clarity matters because state medical examiners control forensic records while law enforcement (state and federal) directs criminal evidence and prosecution ^{[3] [2]}. The case’s political salience — national figures, a large public response and intense online debate — increases pressure for transparency, yet Utah’s statutory practice limiting routine public release of autopsy reports constrains immediate disclosure ^[3]. Federal involvement (FBI) can accelerate evidence analysis and tip triage but does not replace the state medical examiner’s control over the autopsy file ^{[4] [3]}.

6. What to watch next

Expect court filings and trial discovery to be the primary path through which the autopsy and related medical records become publicly visible; reporting notes the state may enter the report into the trial record ^[3]. Follow official updates from the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner, Utah law enforcement press releases and the FBI’s “Utah Valley shooting” page for authoritative releases of forensic or evidentiary material ^{[3] [4] [2]}. If a prosecutor files charges and proceeds to trial, the autopsy report and associated lab results will likely surface in court documents and news coverage ^[3].

Limitations: sourcing here is constrained to the documents provided; available sources do not include the full autopsy report text or a publicly posted coroner file and therefore cannot confirm details beyond summarized statements in those sources ^{[3] [7]}.