Defense Tries To Stall Justice For Charlie Kirk With Last-Minute Legal Tricks

Can You Prosecute a Murderer if Your Child Was at the Crime Scene? The Legal Battle Rocking the Tyler Robinson Trial

The air in the courtroom shifted the moment the defense team stood up, not to argue their motion, but to drop a procedural surprise that threatened to derail the proceedings entirely.

At stake was not just a scheduling delay, but a fundamental question of impartiality that could strip the current prosecution team of their power to try one of the most polarized murder cases in the country.

This isn’t just about a murder trial anymore; it is becoming a battle over the integrity of the legal system itself. Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, is at the center of a firestorm, and his legal team is pulling every lever available to remove the Utah County Attorney’s Office from the case.

At a Glance

• The Defendant: Tyler Robinson, 22, facing aggravated murder charges.
• The Incident: The fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk on September 10 at Utah Valley University (UVU).
• The Controversy: A Deputy County Attorney’s adult child was in the crowd when the shooting occurred.
• The Defense Move: They argue this familial tie creates a “conflict of interest,” making the prosecutors too personally invested to be fair.
• The Surprise: The defense tried to force the State Attorney General to step in for the hearing, but the judge denied the request, calling it an “ambush.”

The “Ambush” Allegation

Legal hearings usually follow a strict script, but Friday’s session went off-book immediately. Defense attorney Richard Novak argued that the Utah County attorneys shouldn’t even be allowed to argue against their own disqualification. He demanded the Utah Attorney General’s office step in to handle the dispute.

The prosecution was visibly frustrated. They labeled the move an “ambush,” noting they had no prior warning this argument was coming. They accused the defense of using procedural hurdles as a stalling tactic to delay the trial.

After a brief recess to cool the temperature in the room and review the law, the judge sided with the prosecution, allowing the hearing to proceed without bringing in the Attorney General.

The Core of the Conflict

Why is the defense trying to kick the prosecutors off the case? It comes down to a concept called “conflict of interest.” In the American legal system, prosecutors are supposed to seek justice, not vengeance. If a prosecutor has a personal stake in a case – like a family member being a victim or witness – it can be argued they are too emotionally compromised to be fair.

In this case, the defense points to the fact that a prosecutor’s child was present at the rally when the shots were fired.

“While the second person in line was speaking with Charlie, I was looking around the crowd when I heard a loud sound, like a pop. Someone yelled, ‘he’s been shot.’” — Affidavit from the prosecutor’s child

The defense argues that this proximity turns the prosecutor from a neutral officer of the law into a “victim’s parent,” potentially clouding their judgment on plea deals, evidence, or sentencing.

Prosecutors Push Back

The State argues this is a stretch. They emphasize that the child in question is an adult, not a minor, and crucially, they did not actually witness the shooting or identify the shooter. They were simply part of the large crowd.

From the prosecution’s perspective, mere proximity doesn’t equal bias. They maintain there is no ethical breach that requires them to step down. The judge’s decision to move forward suggests the court is skeptical of the delay tactics, but the final ruling on whether the prosecutor’s office stays or goes is still looming.