Defense attorneys for the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk are asking a Utah judge to remove the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office from the case, arguing prosecutors are compromised by a serious conflict of interest tied directly to the deadly shooting.
In a court filing obtained by Fox News Digital, attorneys for Tyler James Robinson allege that senior members of the prosecutor’s office had “personal and familial connections to the crime scene,” failed to step aside and allowed emotion to influence the decision to seek the death penalty.
Robinson is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10, 2025, shooting that killed Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem, where an estimated 3,000 people were gathered.
According to the motion, a top supervisory prosecutor in the Utah County Attorney’s Office had a close family member in attendance at the event when the shooting occurred. That family member was approximately 85 feet from Kirk when he was shot and fled the scene in panic, leaving behind a backpack later photographed at the crime scene, defense attorneys say.
The filing alleges the prosecutor received real-time text messages from the family member describing the chaos and reporting that Kirk had been shot in the neck. Those messages, the defense claims, were immediately shared with County Attorney Jeffrey Gray and other members of the prosecution team before any conflict review or ethical screening was put in place.
Despite that personal connection, the prosecutor allegedly remained actively involved in the case, retained supervisory authority over the prosecution team, and discussed the matter internally, raising concerns that prosecutorial discretion may have been influenced by personal fear, trauma or bias.
Defense attorneys argue no recusal occurred and no ethical firewall was established to isolate the conflict, steps courts typically require to protect a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial prosecution. They contend that even the appearance of bias is constitutionally problematic, particularly in a case where the State is seeking the ultimate punishment.
CHARLIE KIRK’S WIDOW FIGHTS TO KEEP NEWS CAMERAS IN COURTROOM FOR ACCUSED ASSASSIN’S TRIAL
The filing also questions the timing of the prosecution’s decision to pursue the death penalty. Utah law allows prosecutors up to 60 days after arraignment to file a notice of intent, but in Robinson’s case, the notice was filed immediately alongside the charging documents.
The defense argues the unusually rapid move came just days after prosecutors learned of their colleague’s family member’s traumatic experience at the shooting, raising concerns that emotion, rather than detached legal judgment, played a role in the decision.
To underscore the intensity surrounding the case, the motion includes graphic eyewitness accounts describing Kirk being struck in the neck, blood pouring from his wound and crowds dropping to the ground in terror. Several witnesses described believing a mass shooting was underway, praying on the ground and scrambling for safety as chaos erupted across campus.
Defense attorneys argue that while the trauma of the event is undeniable, it makes prosecutorial neutrality even more essential, not less.
A judge is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion on Jan. 16, 2026. If the court grants the request, the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office could be removed from the case, forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor and potentially delaying trial proceedings, including the state’s pursuit of the death penalty.
The Utah County Attorney’s Office pushed back on the defense allegations in a statement to Fox News Digital, saying it will formally oppose the motion in court.
“We oppose the motion and will file our response on January 5th,” the office said.
Prosecutors said the defense has failed to identify any legitimate basis for disqualification, arguing that the individual referenced in the motion, despite being present at the event, had no meaningful influence on the case.
“Despite being present at the event, the individual identified in the motion knew less about the details of the shooting than non-attendees who were following news reports and social media posts,” the statement said. “The Utah County Attorney based his charging decisions solely on the circumstances of the alleged crimes, without regard for the identity of any specific attendee.”
