Robinson’s Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Blurring Lines Between Sheriff’s Office and State Role
Attorneys for the man accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk are pushing back against prosecutors, claiming they have blurred the line between their duties as state attorneys and representatives of law enforcement.
Tyler James Robinson, 22, faces multiple felony charges — including aggravated murder — for the alleged shooting of President Donald Trump ally and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk during a September event at Utah Valley University.
According to court filings, Robinson’s legal team argues that the Utah County Attorney’s Office (UCAO) improperly acted on behalf of the Utah County Sheriff’s Office, effectively allowing the sheriff’s office to participate as if it were a party to the case rather than a witness.
Defense Pushes Back on Court Procedure
On October 9, Robinson’s attorneys filed a motion requesting that he be permitted to appear at all hearings in civilian clothing, citing the case’s high public profile and the potential impact of prison attire on the presumption of innocence.
Judge Tony F. Graf, Jr. issued an interim order five days later, requiring Robinson to serve the motion to the sheriff’s office corrections division by October 15 and for the prosecution to respond by October 20. Robinson’s rebuttal was due by October 22.
The prosecution’s response — which was classified and not available to the public — prompted Robinson’s defense to file a motion to strike. They argue that the UCAO overstepped by defending the sheriff’s office instead of maintaining neutrality as a prosecuting authority.
“Conflating Its Role”
“The Court recognized that it would be inappropriate and impermissible to order a non-party in a criminal case to respond to a defendant’s pleading,” Robinson’s attorneys wrote, referencing the judge’s decision to ultimately remove the sheriff’s office from direct involvement.
The defense contends that law enforcement agencies like the sheriff’s office are “fundamentally witnesses”, not parties to criminal cases. Their role should be limited to providing testimony and maintaining records relevant to the proceedings.
“Finally, it is concerning to the defense, as it should be to the Court, that the UCAO has conflated its role in this case,” the filing states.
The motion further claims that while the UCAO maintains separate divisions for prosecution and civil representation, it has “abdicated its role as a party in this case to counsel for the Sheriff’s Office.”
“It is not appropriate for UCAO to assume a role as counsel for the Sheriff’s Office and allow the Sheriff’s Office to assume standing through UCAO’s participation as a party in this case. The opposite is likewise true — it is not appropriate for the Sheriff’s Office to assume a prosecutorial role in this case, but that is what has occurred,” the motion concludes.
Next Steps
Robinson’s attorneys are now seeking to strike the prosecution’s response from the official record, arguing that the lack of separation between the two offices undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
Robinson’s second waiver hearing is scheduled for October 30, where he is expected to appear in person.