Prosecutors Defend Their Actions After Defense Targets Them in Charlie Kirk Killing Case

Prosecutors in Tyler Robinson's case are responding to a defense motion to hold them in contempt of court for speaking to the press.

Robinson was accused of fatally shooting American activist Charlie Kirk. His attorneys filed a motion to hold the Utah County Attorney's Office in contempt in a motion filed in April for allegedly breaking a gag order by making improper comments to the media.

In the April 2026 motion, Robinson's defense team claimed that prosecutors spoke publicly about the case in a way that suggested Robinson is guilty.

They noted that during ballistics testing, experts were "unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson," which some media outlets described as significant.

However, the findings were inconclusive.

"It is clear that the UCAO is making public statements about the forensic testing conducted in the case. It is also beyond dispute that the UCAO is offering its opinion as to Mr. Robinson's guilt. Declaring that the state has 'ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder' is the functional equivalent of stating that Mr. Robinson is 'guilty,'" the defense stated in the motion.

In response, prosecutors filed their opposition to the contempt motion, stating that "The Rules of Professional Conduct do not require lawyers to remain silent in the face of unduly prejudicial publicity. Instead, the rules expressly allow lawyers to set the record straight."

Prosecutors said in a filing cited by Fox News, the prosecutor stated that "in his motion to continue the preliminary hearing, defendant misstated the results of the ATF’s analysis of the bullet jacket fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy."

They further pointed to Robinson's team's statement that "the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson," claiming "Defendant’s statement contained a material omission: that the ATF was unable to identify or exclude the bullet as having been fired from the rifle. As a result, Defendant’s statement was misleading."

They added that the media "pounced on defendant’s incomplete, and therefore misleading, statement," publishing headlines claiming that the "recovered bullet did not match Defendant’s rifle, that this 'bombshell' finding exonerated Defendant, and that this prosecution was therefore fatally flawed."

Furthermore, the state claimed that they simply explained the ATF’s conclusion, and expressed confidence that it had "sufficient evidence to move forward and prove its case at trial, and reiterated that Defendant is presumed innocent and that the State has the burden to prove its case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt," when the media asked them for their response "to Defendant’s pleading and the media stories it spawned."

"A general statement that the prosecution believes that it has the evidence necessary to carry its burden at trial tells the public nothing more than what the prosecution’s decision to file and continue to pursue this case necessarily communicates—that the prosecution believes it can prove its case," the prosecution's motion added.