PROVO — Attorneys for Tyler Robinson want the court to make it clear that the capital murder case against their client is between the defendant and the state, not the Utah County Sheriff’s Office.
The defense team for the man accused of shooting and killing activist Charlie Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus is asking a judge to strike the latest response filed by the state because they say it reads as though it was filed by both the Utah County Attorney’s Office and the sheriff’s office.
“Where the sheriff’s office has not provided any authority affording it standing to file a pleading in a criminal case, and where (the attorney’s office) has made no effort to distinguish its own position from that of the sheriff’s office, the response should be stricken,” the defense motion states.
That motion, filed Tuesday in 4th District Court, is the latest legal maneuvering as the court prepares for Robinson’s next hearing in a week, during which Robinson is expected to be inside the courtroom for the first time.
Robinson, 22, of Washington, Washington County, is charged with aggravated murder, a capital offense, and facies a potential death sentence if convicted of shooting and killing Kirk on Sept. 10. Kirk, 31 — a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA — was sitting under a tent of an outdoor amphitheater-courtyard area at UVU, speaking in front of approximately 3,000 people, when he was shot in the neck by a gunman on the roof of the nearby Losee Center building.
During his initial appearance in court, Robinson appeared via video from the Utah County Jail. During his second appearance, his attorneys requested that Robinson’s video be blacked out and that only his voice be heard from jail.
On Oct. 9, defense attorneys filed a motion requesting that Robinson be allowed to appear in court in his normal clothes and without restraints.
“Mr. Robinson’s physical appearance alone (during his initial hearing) was and is subject to endless scrutiny and speculation,” the motion argues. “In the face of worldwide scrutiny, permitting Mr. Robinson to wear civilian clothing for court appearances is a minor inconvenience compared to the already present concerns with securing a fair trial before an impartial jury.”
On Oct. 13, Judge Tony Graf signed an interim order allowing Robinson to appear in street clothes and without shackles for the Oct. 30 hearing only. Another hearing will likely be held behind closed doors, so sensitive information, such as courtroom security, can be discussed as the judge considers whether Robinson will be allowed to continue wearing civilian clothing without restraints at future hearings.
The state filed its response to Robinson’s motion on Oct. 20, and the judge agreed to mark the documents as “private” because they contain “information from the court’s security director, Chris Palmer, regarding specific security measures in this case,” according to the filing.
But in their filing on Tuesday, Robinson’s defense team says the state’s response shouldn’t sound like it was co-written by the sheriff’s office.
“Indeed, the sheriff’s office is a witness in this matter. Further, where the Utah County Attorney’s Office has not sought to distinguish its own responses from that of the sheriff’s office, the pleading should be stricken in its entirety,” the defense motion states. “Indeed, having an interest in a criminal case alone does not afford an individual or entity standing to file pleadings, or there would be virtually no limitation on permissible filers.
“In addition, the sheriff’s office should not be treated as a party to this matter because the sheriff’s office is fundamentally a witness. The sheriff’s office holds documents relevant to the matter at hand and its employees are potential witnesses at an evidentiary hearing on the issues of protocol, observations of Mr. Robinson while incarcerated, safety issues specific to this case, and any number of other facts this court must consider when a non-shackling motion is filed,” the motion continues.
The sheriff’s office oversees operations of the Utah County Jail, where Robinson is being held, and is responsible for courtroom security.
The Utah County Attorney’s Office represents the state of Utah in this case, the defense reminded, while the Utah County Attorney Civil Division represents the sheriff’s office to avoid a conflict of interest.
“As stated by our professional rules of conduct, ‘A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence,’” according to the motion. “It is not appropriate for (the attorney’s office) to assume a role as counsel for the sheriff’s office and allow the sheriff’s office to assume standing through (the attorney office’s) participation as a party in this case.”
Robinson’s next hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 30.