Tyler Robinson’s attorneys accuse prosecution of conflating roles in criminal proceedings

PROVO, Utah (ABC4) — The defense for the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk is pushing back on a recent response from the prosecution, saying that they are involving and representing the sheriff’s office in criminal proceedings.

Tyler James Robinson, 22, is facing several charges, including one of aggravated murder, for allegedly shooting and 

killing conservative influencer Charlie Kirk during a rally at Utah Valley University in September.

On Oct. 9, a motion was filed by Robinson and his attorneys, seeking an order that would permit Robinson to make all court appearances in civilian clothing and without wearing restraints. They argued that because this is a high-profile case, making court appearances in inmate clothing could damage the public’s view of Robinson and sway the jury’s “presumption of innocence.”

The following week, on Oct. 14, Judge Tony F. Graf, Jr. created an interim order on the motion. He ruled that because the motion would not be reviewed until Oct. 30, a temporary order could be reviewed ahead of the hearing.

The court ordered Robinson to serve his motion on the Utah County Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division no later than Oct. 15, and that the prosecution must file a response by Oct. 20. Then, following the state’s response, Robinson and his attorneys were ordered to file a reply by Oct. 22.

On Monday, Oct. 20, the prosecution filed its response to the motion on wearing civilian clothing without restraints. That response was classified, meaning it cannot be read by the public.

Now, Robinson and his attorneys have filed a motion to strike the State’s response, arguing that the Utah County Attorney’s Office (UCAO) was choosing to represent the Utah County Sheriff’s Office instead of fulfilling its prosecutorial duties.

According to the motion to strike, although the court initially required both the State and the sheriff’s office to respond, that was modified on Oct. 14, only requiring the State to respond. By requesting a response from the sheriff’s office, the court was involving them in the criminal proceedings.

“It appears that 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 write about the court’s decision not to have the sheriff’s office respond.

The motion to strike further argues that the sheriff’s office should not be treated as a party because it is “fundamentally a witness.” The parties traditionally recognized in a court case are the defense and prosecution, not local law enforcement.

Because the sheriff’s office is responsible for Robinson while he is incarcerated, has employees who could testify regarding Robinson, and holds important documents in the case, attorneys state that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in proceedings outside of those roles.

“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 motion to strike reads.

While the UCAO has different divisions to prosecute and represent the sheriff’s office, Robinson’s attorneys argue that it “appears to have 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,” Robinson’s attorneys conclude.

The defense asks that the response be stricken from the record because there is not enough distinction between the UCAO’s position and that of the sheriff’s office.

Robinson’s second waiver hearing will take place on Oct. 30 where he will appear in person.