Defense attorneys for the individual accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk are urging a Utah judge to disqualify the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office from the case. They assert that the prosecutors are entangled in a significant conflict of interest directly linked to the tragic incident.

In a legal document accessed by Fox News Digital, Tyler James Robinson’s defense lawyers claim that senior figures within the prosecutor’s office have “personal and familial ties to the crime scene.” They argue that these connections have compromised the office’s impartiality, leading to an emotionally driven decision to pursue the death penalty.

Robinson faces charges of aggravated murder for the September 10, 2025, shooting that resulted in Kirk’s death during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem. The event drew an estimated crowd of 3,000 attendees.

The motion highlights that a high-ranking supervisory prosecutor in the Utah County Attorney’s Office had a close relative present at the event during the shooting. This relative was reportedly just 85 feet away from Kirk at the time of the incident and fled the chaotic scene, abandoning a backpack that was later photographed as part of the crime scene, according to the defense.

After the gunfire erupted at Charlie Kirk’s appearance at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was tragically shot in the neck and killed during his “American Comeback Tour” speech. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images)

The defense filing further alleges that the prosecutor received real-time text updates from their family member, detailing the ensuing chaos and confirming that Kirk had been shot in the neck. These messages were reportedly shared with County Attorney Jeffrey Gray and others on the prosecution team before any formal conflict review or ethical checks were conducted.

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.