(CN) - Attorneys representing a man accused of killing the famous right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk argued on Friday that the Utah County Attorney's Office should be disqualified from prosecuting the case due to a perceived conflict of interest.

Attorneys for the accused gunman, Tyler Robinson, argued that conflict of interest comes from an unnamed Utah County Attorney's Office prosecutor who has an 18-year-old child who was among the crowd where Kirk was shot and killed while he was speaking at a Utah Valley University event, in Orem, Utah, on Sept. 10, 2025.

"We are very concerned we're getting off on the wrong foot because we have officers of the court who are both representing their own interests in continuing to be prosecutors in this case and representing the state in a situation where there should be at least temporarily conflict counsel representing the state's interest," defense attorney Richard Novak told the court. "The court needs to hear from a representative of the state who does not even appear to have a conflict of interest. That's where we are before we even get into the litigation of it."

But Fourth District Judge Tony Graf Jr. ultimately said that there was not sufficient evidence just based on court filings to reach the threshold of a disqualification. In a separate ruling, Graf denied a motion to close evidentiary hearings from the media, despite agreement from all of the parties - including attorneys representing news organizations - to the contrary. 

Conflict of interest

Novak suggested that the court should designate the state attorney general's office or appoint another county prosecutor's office to litigate the case, at least temporarily. 

Robinson's attorneys argue that the unnamed prosecutor's relationship with a witness to Kirk's killing could violate Robinson's right to due process. But the Utah County Attorney's Office prosecutors said that the motion to disqualify their office was just another tactic to delay the case and to get a more lenient prosecutorial team. 

"Where does this end?" Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray asked the court in response to Novak. "I just think this is an ambush and another stalling tactic to delay these proceedings."

Graf asked defense attorneys if it was their position that the court had discretion to decide on designating a new prosecution. 

"I think the court has the discretion to say to the Utah County attorneys, 'You shouldn't be representing yourself in this case at this stage,' as of this motion only," Novak said. "We want to get this motion resolved in a timely way. It is not a stalling tactic." 

According to Robinson in a December brief, the county attorney's office did not employ a screening protocol after the potential conflict of interest was discovered and that the personal involvement of the prosecutor in the case was shared among the county attorney's office, including Gray.

According to the prosecutors, the prosecutor's family member sent a text to a family group chat that Kirk had been shot, while the prosecutor and Gray were at a conference. The two both left within 20 minutes. Gray later added that they met up at an incident command center at the university.

The prosecutor's family member was about 85 feet from Kirk when he was shot, according to the county attorney's opposition to the motion. 

Even if there is a conflict of interest, it would not extend to the entire office, the prosecutors said. The prosecutors also argue that a relatively minor emotional reaction would not have an impact on the prosecuting team.

Novak disagreed.

"If I had found out my child was at an incident where somebody was shot and killed, I would have an incredibly strong emotional reaction, even if they were safe," he said. 

Gray testified to the court as a witness that he was not particularly close to the prosecutor or his family. The family member did not have any useful information to provide, he told Novak. Prosecutors argue the family member, who was a student at the university, would only be able to provide a cumulative testimony that could also be provided by the approximately 3,000 other witnesses to the shooting.

Gray testified that he did not think that there was a potential conflict of interest that necessitated consultation with the state attorney general's office. The decision to disclose the relationship to the court was done out of an abundance of caution, he said.

Gray later went to the university with an investigator to determine if the position of the prosecutor's family member was relevant to the line of sight of the gunman, he said. 

Surveillance footage at the university shows the suspected gunman on top of a roof around the time when Kirk was shot. Robinson turned himself in to authorities the evening after Kirk's murder.

Robinson was charged with murder in relation to Kirk's death. He has not yet entered a plea.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Robinson is also charged with obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness, violent offense committed in the presence of a child and felony discharge of a firearm. 

Robinson, 22, sat silently during the proceedings.

A media circus

Robinson's attorneys also asked the court to exclude the camera from live coverage of the hearing after the camera operator zoomed in on Robinson speaking with his legal team. The clips could then be used by a lip reader to decipher what he said, defense attorney Michael Burt told the judge. 

"His demeanor, his conversations have nothing to do with the newsworthiness of this case," Burt said. "It's creating massive prejudicial publicity for us."

Graf said that the footage of Robinson speaking violated a decorum order from the court and he prohibited the camera from filming Robinson going forward. 

Robinson's attorney Staci Visser argued in a previous hearing against the media livestreaming Robinson, in which his shackles were visible. In an effort to protect witnesses and not prejudice the public, the parties agreed on a motion that would close some of the hearings from the media.

"We're not perfect," McBride said. "Names slip. It's happened before. I'm concerned about the risk that could happen if one of the attorneys slipped and identified those who ought to be protected."

But Graf denied the motion to close the hearings. 

"Honestly, the name of the prosecutor is a relevant fact," Graf told the courtroom. "You both have a duty with regards to how you present. If you're talking about a name that needs to be protected, that's on you how you speak. It seems inappropriate to create a safety guard to prevent you from making a mistake by accidentally saying a name. That would be an inappropriate reason for closing the court."

McBride implored the judge to reconsider. 

"In this case I don't think a privacy interest could be greater," he said. "This case has polarized the nation in many ways. There have been death threats that have been made against other witnesses ... We are extremely concerned that a person who does not need to be subject to death threats, to harassment, to doxxing, to all of those things that can be avoided."

Graf said that he would allow the court to be closed on a witness-by-witness basis. 

"This court does not agree that the entirety of the evidentiary needs to be closed," he said. "It's a very broad approach to a narrow issue."

Graf ended the four-hour hearing on Friday in the middle of Gray's testimony. The hearing on the disqualification will continue at Robinson's next hearing, which is scheduled for Feb. 3.

Source: Courthouse News Service