By Samantha Kamman, Christian Post Reporter Thursday, January 01, 2026A TV monitor displays a picture of Tyler Robinson, the suspected of killing Charlie Kirk on September 11, in Orem, Utah, on September 12, 2025. | PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images
Tyler Robinson’s defense team is challenging the Utah County Attorney’s office’s involvement in the criminal case against Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer because a relative of one of the prosecutors was present at the event where the conservative activist was assassinated.
Robinson’s defense team filed a motion last month for the court to appoint an independent prosecutor with the 4th District Court, alleging that a lead prosecuting attorney received text messages from a close relative present at the September shooting and then shared those messages with other prosecutors in the case, reports the Utah-based Gephardt Daily.
“Injecting a personal family interest into a capital prosecution creates a substantial risk that prosecutorial judgment has been, or will be, materially affected,” defense attorneys reportedly wrote.
The defense initially raised concerns about a potential “conflict of interest” during a closed-door hearing on Oct. 24, according to a transcript of the proceedings obtained by KUTV. The transcript was released to the public this week with some redactions.
Richard Novak, one of the attorneys representing Robinson, informed Judge Tony Graf during the hearing that the defense planned to file a motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorneys from handling the case.
“So — and I’m not trying to pre-argue the issue, but the Utah County Attorneys have advised us that a family member of one of the attorneys was present at the incident at which Mr. Kirk was shot and killed, that this child — I don’t know if they’re an adult, but I’m not referring to them as a minor,” Novak stated.
Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was murdered at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. The conservative activist was having conversations with event attendees about politics and other cultural issues when he was shot.
Novak told the judge that a family member of an unnamed individual in the Utah County attorney’s office was “within 85 feet of Mr. Kirk when he was killed; had to flee; that the Utah County Attorney’s Office was all advised of this; that law enforcement were actually deployed to the area with her safety and status in mind.”
The judge has yet to rule on the motion.
The primary reason for the Oct. 24 hearing is that Robinson’s defense team filed a motion to permit their client “to appear in civilian clothing and without restraints at all hearings.”
During the Oct. 24 hearing, Novak requested that the sheriffs allow Robinson to have one hand free to take notes, arguing that “there’s no reason why that would jeopardize his safety or the safety of anyone else.”
“It’s a sealed hearing. The public’s not here. So we just can’t imagine any specific reason why he can’t have one of his hands free for writing,” the defense attorney stated.
Ben Van Noy of the Utah County Attorney’s Office said that he objected on behalf of the sheriff’s office, arguing that the decision of whether Robinson should remain shackled is “the heart of what we’re trying to decide.”
The judge asked if there was a way to unschackle one of Robinson’s hands to allow him to write, prompting a comment from the bailiff that was redacted in the transcript released to the public. Following the remark from the bailiff, the judge stated, “All right. Let’s go ahead and proceed with that.”
Novak presented the defense team’s arguments against Robinson having to remain restrained during courtroom appearances, citing the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, Deck v. Missouri, which concerned the constitutionality of shackling criminal defendants.
“This is not a jail. This is your Honor’s courtroom. And what security measures are necessary to ensure everybody’s safety, including Mr. Robinson’s, are your Honor’s decisions, not the sheriff’s decisions,” the defense attorney told the judge.
“So we are not challenging the policy that exists. We’re saying that the constitution requires that this Court make an individualized determination as to whether that policy is appropriate in this case,” he continued.
Novak also argued that Robinson should be allowed to wear street clothes that are “consistent with the Court’s standards for what kinds of clothing individuals can wear” when in the courtroom.
An attorney for the state, Christopher Ballard, countered that the court could conduct noncritical hearings virtually or in a hybrid format, with Robinson appearing from jail. Ballard noted that if Robinson’s on-screen appearance is shown, the screen does not have to show that he’s in custody.
“And I think also this Court should recognize that the rule that [d]efendant’s asking for is contrary to the security plan for this court that the court’s security administrator has developed,” Ballard stated.
Samantha Kamman is a reporter for The Christian Post. She can be reached at: samantha.kamman@christianpost.com. Follow her on Twitter: @Samantha_Kamman
