- Utah County Attorney's Office opposes removing the death-penalty option for Tyler Robinson.
- Robinson's defense argues the court should strike the state's objection.
- Judge Graf to rule on contempt issue and hearsay evidence admissibility on Monday.
PROVO — The Utah County Attorney's Office does not want the option of seeking the death penalty against Tyler Robinson pulled from the table.
Meanwhile, Robinson's defense attorneys are responding by saying the court should ignore the state's request because the judge didn't ask for it.
As both sides wait for the next round of rulings from 4th District Judge Tony Graf, attorneys have been busy filing additional motions and objections this week.
Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing political activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. He currently faces a potential death sentence if convicted.
At his last hearing on June 12, Robinson and his defense team asked the judge to find prosecutors in contempt of court for allegedly violating the court's order not to make extra statements to the media. During closing arguments, defense attorney Richard Novack suggested to Graf that sanctions needed to be imposed.
"I think that the number one remedy in this case is to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty against Mr. Robinson," he said.
This week, the Utah County Attorney's Office filed an objection to that request, stating that Graf's ruling should come before any discussion about potential penalties.
"Defense counsel's request and argument was made for the first time at the evidentiary hearing, before any contempt finding by this court, and notwithstanding the defense's express statement in its reply to the state's opposition that the court should 'hear from the parties as to what the appropriate remedies should be' imposed 'only upon a finding that all elements (of contempt) have been proven by clear and convincing evidence,'" according to the state's objection.
Prosecutors list three reasons why they believe it is inappropriate for Robinson to ask for the removal of the death penalty as a penalty if they are found to be in contempt:
- "Reducing the charge of aggravated murder from a capital felony to a first-degree felony would directly infringe upon the prosecution's exclusive executive branch powers to decide whether and what charges to bring."
- "(Robinson) has alleged civil contempt, not criminal contempt. But an order reducing criminal charges would constitute a criminal-contempt remedy, not a civil-contempt remedy."
- "A reduction in the aggravated-murder charge from a capital felony to a first-degree felony is dramatically disproportionate to the alleged misconduct."
Robinson, however, says the judge should not even consider the state's objection.
"The state's uninvited objection should be stricken, as the court did not direct, authorize, or invite any written post-hearing briefing," defense attorneys stated in their court filing. "The court did not invite the parties to supplement their in-court presentation with written post-hearing briefing.
"The state's uninvited objection is largely a written reiteration of the argument it was invited to make and did make, at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on June 12. It offers no new information or justification for its actions beyond that presented to the court on June 12 and argued thereafter."
Despite asking for the state's objection to be stricken, Robinson and his defense team also reiterate in their court filing that Graf should find the Utah County Attorney's Office in contempt and take away the option of seeking the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.
"In light of the seriousness of the violations by attorneys who have the special obligations set forth … the intent behind their misconduct, and the state's failure to show any contrition other than a vague representation that it has learned something, albeit at Mr. Robinson's expense, the remedy proposed by Mr. Robinson is wholly proportionate," the defense motion states. "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."
Graf will announce his decision on the contempt issue on Monday. He is also expected to rule at that time on whether hearsay evidence will be allowed at Robinson's preliminary hearing, currently scheduled for July 6-10.
Robinson does not believe hearsay evidence is appropriate for a preliminary hearing in a capital murder case. Specifically, Robinson does not believe a video interview by prosecutors with Robinson's roommate at the time of Kirk's death, Lance Twiggs, should be presented as evidence during the preliminary hearing.
At a preliminary hearing, a judge decides if there is enough probable cause for a defendant to proceed to trial on the charges levied against that person. Prosecutors say the bar they have to reach to show probable cause at the preliminary hearing stage is so low that a videotape interview is acceptable.
But defense attorneys argue that it prevents them from being able to cross-examine a witness. In this case, Robinson contends that Twiggs is a key part of the state's case and wants the court to compel him to appear at the preliminary hearing in person.
"Contrary to the state's assertions, Mr. Twiggs is a material witness under any definition of that term. The state's expansive view of the 'reliable hearsay' concept essentially eviscerates any role for the court in the preliminary hearing and purports to make the court even more of a rubber stamp than a grand jury is commonly viewed to be," Robinson's attorneys wrote in their latest court filing on Thursday.
"Given the state's assertion that Mr. Robinson made inculpatory statements to Mr. Twiggs, statements that the state believes establish sufficient evidence to seek the death penalty against Mr. Robinson, it is difficult to imagine a witness whose testimony could be more material," the defense continued. "There is nothing unreasonable about the proposed subpoena. Mr. Twiggs is a material witness whose wide-ranging recorded statement concerning admissions allegedly made by Mr. Robinson is being used by the state to establish probable cause for a capital offense."
