Tyler Robinson’s defense lawyers are asking a Utah judge to strike prosecutors’ latest filing opposing their request to remove the death penalty as a sanction for alleged violations of a gag order.
Robinson’s team argued in a filing Thursday that it would be an appropriate sanction after prosecutors talked about the case outside of court.
“The only way that this Court can demonstrate that its orders, and the ethical rules that counsel must obey, are not optional when it comes to the State’s attorneys, even in this case, is to impose the sanction undersigned counsel have urged upon this Court: striking the State’s death notice,” reads the filing, signed by defense attorneys Kathryn Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burt and Staci Visser.
Prosecutors have countered that they did not violate the gag order or any other court rules when they “set the record straight” after what they call a misleading statement from a defense filing led to viral news coverage suggesting that the ATF could not match the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk to the suspected murder weapon, Robinson’s grandfather’s rifle.
CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION: DAILY MAIL ACCUSED OF ‘MEDIA MALFEASANCE’ OVER BOTCHED BULLET ANALYSIS
The ATF could neither identify nor exclude Robinson’s grandfather’s rifle as the source of the bullet fragment recovered from Kirk, describing the tool mark analysis as inconclusive, according to court records. But the caliber was consistent, and a spent casing was also a match.
Prosecutors have said they plan to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted of assassinating Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025.
The back-and-forth has evolved into a war of words, with prosecutors accusing the defense of releasing misleading information through court filings, and the defense accusing prosecutors of “hubris” when responding in a string of media interviews they claim violate a gag order.
CHARLIE KIRK CASE STALLS AS ACCUSED SHOOTER DELAYS PLEA AND EYES MEDIA LIMITS
Robinson’s lawyers want the prosecution’s written opposition stricken because the judge didn’t specifically ask for it. During a hearing Friday, the court directed parties to address the defense’s allegations of contempt and the potential consequences for it orally — but didn’t ask the sides to file written briefs, Robinson’s lawyers wrote.
Prosecutors also didn’t coordinate with the defense before submitting their objection earlier this week, they argued.
The defense wants prosecutors punished for speaking about the case outside the courtroom — and Robinson’s lawyers are arguing that taking the potential death penalty off the table as a result would be an appropriate response.
FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X
Prosecutors say that would be an overreaction.
“A reduction in the aggravated-murder charge from a capital felony to a first-degree felony is dramatically disproportionate to the alleged misconduct,” wrote Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride.
SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER
Neither the gag order on Robinson’s case nor state court rules prohibited prosecutors from correcting what they saw as the defense’s misleading court filing, he argued.
State law “expressly allows attorneys to make ‘statements that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer,'” he wrote.
Prosecutors have denied wrongdoing and insist they were allowed to “set the record straight.”
LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST
The claim, which prosecutor Christopher Ballard described as misleading and “misstated,” generated millions of views from just one report — and inspired additional coverage in local and national media.
It also boosted unverified claims that other people could have been responsible for Kirk’s murder.
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? FIND MORE ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB
But the defense left out a crucial piece of context, according to Ballard, in another filing.
“The ATF was unable to identify or exclude the bullet as having been fired from the rifle,” he wrote, emphasizing the missing information in italics.
“Defendant reinforced this misleading inference by following it up with, ‘the defense may very well decide to offer the testimony of the ATF firearm analyst as exculpatory evidence,'” he added.
Judge Tony Graf Jr. is expected to announce his decision on the matter in a virtual hearing Monday.
