Utah prosecutors push back against contempt motion in Charlie Kirk murder case

PROVO, Utah (KIFI) — Prosecutors in the case of the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk are pushing back against a defense motion to hold them in contempt of court over recent comments to the media.

Tyler Robinson faces charges of aggravated murder and multiple felony counts following the fatal shooting of Kirk at Utah Valley University.

In April, attorneys for Robinson filed a motion claiming Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray and his staff violated a standing gag order. The defense argues that the prosecution made improper comments to the media, pointing to coverage of a ballistics test that came back inconclusive.

In their motion, the defense argued that the Utah County Attorney’s Office is overstepping by publicly offering its opinion of Robinson's guilt before a jury can deliberate, according to reports by ABC 4 in Utah.

“Declaring that the state has ‘ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder’ is the functional equivalent of stating that Mr. Robinson is ‘guilty.'" stated the defense in its motion.

The prosecution has formally requested that the court dismiss the contempt motion, maintaining that they did nothing wrong. According to their filing, the public statements were not an attempt to bias a jury, but a necessary move to correct what they termed "misleading" claims made by the defense.

Prosecutors argue that the defense omitted a crucial detail regarding the ballistics report.

"Defendant’s statement contained a material omission: that the ATF was unable to identify or exclude the bullet as having been fired from the rifle. As a result, Defendant’s statement was misleading,” the prosecution stated in its motion.

Prosecutors say they were just answering media questions and that state rules allow them to answer media questions to clarify public misconceptions about a case. The UCAO further argued that they were only asserting that they believe they have enough evidence to carry the meet the burden of proof at trial.

“A general statement that the prosecution believes that it has the evidence necessary to carry its burden at trial tells the public nothing more than what the prosecution’s decision to file and continue to pursue this case necessarily communicates—that the prosecution believes it can prove its case,” the prosecution’s motion states.

Judge Tony Graf has not yet ruled on whether the prosecution’s comments constitute a violation of the gag order or if the contempt motion will be dismissed.