The judge presiding over the case of alleged assassin Tyler Robinson on Tuesday ruled against his defense team’s request to dismiss the Utah County Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case.
Robinson, who is accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, joined the virtual hearing with his camera turned off, as 4th District Judge Tony Graf said the prosecution could remain on the case despite one of the attorneys having a daughter who was at the scene of Kirk’s death on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University.
“Defendant has not established a factual basis for a finding of conflict of interest or an objective appearance of impropriety rising to a constitutional concern,” Graf said.
During the previous hearing, the daughter of Utah County prosecutor Chad Grunander testified, recounting her experience at Kirk’s Prove Me Wrong Tour. Grunander’s daughter testified that she was at the event, standing about 85 feet to the right side of where Kirk was sitting. She said she was looking at the crowd when Kirk was shot and didn’t actually witness Kirk’s murder. She also said she hasn’t experienced any trauma since.
Since Grunander’s daughter didn’t experience any ongoing emotional harm, Graf said, there’s no reason to believe biased prosecutorial judgment could be at play in the case, which includes the prosecution’s intent to seek the death penalty.
Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray’s “decision to seek the death penalty was based upon his assessment that the death penalty is appropriate,” Graf concluded. “He chose not to wait to file the notice because he believed it would cause unnecessary speculation on the part of the public and angst on the part of the victim’s family.”
He also acknowledged that, unlike the jury and judge, the prosecution “need not be entirely neutral and detached in an adversarial system.”
“They are necessarily permitted to be zealous in their enforcement of the law,” Graf said. “The court concludes that the familial relationship at issue, without additional evidence of personal involvement or influence does not create a reasonable perception that the prosecutorial discretion was exercised for improper reasons. Zealous advocacy remains bound by constitutional and ethical constraints, and the court finds that those boundaries have not been crossed here.”
Hearings set on media and transparency
Prior to Graf’s ruling, he shared a couple of preliminary matters he wished to discuss with the parties.
The state informed Graf that the prosecuting team had shared nearly 89% of all of the evidence that is required to be shared with Robinson’s legal counsel.
Graf also noted multiple orders issued by the court late Monday night that could be seen as potential wins for the news media. The orders grant media attorneys limited access to review motions seeking to close hearings, recognize the press’ standing to argue over whether court records should be classified as public or non-public, and clarify how redactions must be handled.
The orders will likely set up more conflicts over transparency between the parties as the case moves forward. The next hearing will be on March 13 and will focus on who gets access to what, in this case, before the trial begins.
“I recognize that you all have challenging schedules,” Graf said, “but this case must have priority, as this court is trying to balance the constitutional rights of all parties and being timely in its process.”
Graf also scheduled a full-day evidentiary hearing for April 17, focused on whether the court should exclude cameras and other electronic media from the courtroom going forward.