In a significant development surrounding the case of the accused killer of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, defense attorneys are seeking a recusal of the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office. They argue that the prosecutors are entangled in a profound conflict of interest that could potentially taint the proceedings, given their direct ties to the tragic shooting incident.

The defense team for Tyler James Robinson, who stands accused of aggravated murder, has filed documents highlighting concerns about the prosecutorial conduct. According to these filings, accessed by Fox News Digital, senior figures within the prosecution have both personal and familial links to the incident. These alleged connections, the defense claims, led to a decision to pursue the death penalty, influenced more by emotion than by objective judgment.

The shooting took place on September 10, 2025, during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem, drawing a crowd of around 3,000 attendees. Kirk, a well-known conservative voice, was tragically killed during what was part of his “American Comeback Tour.”

In their motion, the defense underscores the presence of a close relative of a top supervisory prosecutor at the event. This individual was reportedly situated about 85 feet away from Kirk at the time of the shooting. Amidst the ensuing chaos, the relative fled the scene, abandoning a backpack that was later captured in photographs of the crime scene, as noted by the defense attorneys.

The aftermath of the shooting left a palpable sense of shock and loss, as Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally wounded in the neck during his public appearance. The implications of this event have now extended into the courtroom, where questions about impartiality and justice are coming to the forefront.

The filing alleges the prosecutor received real-time text messages from the family member describing the chaos and reporting that Kirk had been shot in the neck. Those messages, the defense claims, were immediately shared with County Attorney Jeffrey Gray and other members of the prosecution team before any conflict review or ethical screening was put in place.

Despite that personal connection, the prosecutor allegedly remained actively involved in the case, retained supervisory authority over the prosecution team, and discussed the matter internally, raising concerns that prosecutorial discretion may have been influenced by personal fear, trauma or bias.

Defense attorneys argue no recusal occurred and no ethical firewall was established to isolate the conflict, steps courts typically require to protect a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial prosecution. They contend that even the appearance of bias is constitutionally problematic, particularly in a case where the State is seeking the ultimate punishment.

Tyler Robinson, accused of the murder of Charlie Kirk, appears during a hearing in Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, Thursday, Dec. 11, 2025. (Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune via Pool)

The filing also questions the timing of the prosecution’s decision to pursue the death penalty. Utah law allows prosecutors up to 60 days after arraignment to file a notice of intent, but in Robinson’s case, the notice was filed immediately alongside the charging documents. 

The defense argues the unusually rapid move came just days after prosecutors learned of their colleague’s family member’s traumatic experience at the shooting, raising concerns that emotion, rather than detached legal judgment, played a role in the decision.

Charlie Kirk speaks at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)

To underscore the intensity surrounding the case, the motion includes graphic eyewitness accounts describing Kirk being struck in the neck, blood pouring from his wound and crowds dropping to the ground in terror. Several witnesses described believing a mass shooting was underway, praying on the ground and scrambling for safety as chaos erupted across campus.

Defense attorneys argue that while the trauma of the event is undeniable, it makes prosecutorial neutrality even more essential, not less.

A judge is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion on Jan. 16, 2026. If the court grants the request, the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office could be removed from the case, forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor and potentially delaying trial proceedings, including the state’s pursuit of the death penalty.

The Utah County Attorney’s Office pushed back on the defense allegations in a statement to Fox News Digital, saying it will formally oppose the motion in court.

“We oppose the motion and will file our response on January 5th,” the office said.

Prosecutors said the defense has failed to identify any legitimate basis for disqualification, arguing that the individual referenced in the motion, despite being present at the event, had no meaningful influence on the case.

“Despite being present at the event, the individual identified in the motion knew less about the details of the shooting than non-attendees who were following news reports and social media posts,” the statement said. “The Utah County Attorney based his charging decisions solely on the circumstances of the alleged crimes, without regard for the identity of any specific attendee.”

Stepheny Price covers crime, including missing persons, homicides and migrant crime. Send story tips to stepheny.price@fox.com.