The man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk can still face the death penalty if he is convicted, despite a Utah judge finding that one of the prosecutors violated a court order governing public comments about the case.
In a ruling issued Friday, Fourth District Judge Tony Graf determined that Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard acted improperly by making comments to the media that went beyond what was permitted under the court’s pretrial publicity order. However, the judge rejected defense attorneys’ request to remove the death penalty as a possible punishment, concluding that such a sanction would be legally inappropriate and disproportionate under the circumstances.
Tyler Robinson, 23, is charged with aggravated murder and several additional felony offenses in connection with the September 2025 shooting death of Kirk during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors have alleged that Robinson intentionally targeted Kirk because of his political beliefs, a factor that could support the aggravated murder charge and make him eligible for capital punishment under Utah law if convicted. Robinson has not entered a plea and remains jailed without bail.
The latest dispute centered on comments Ballard made to reporters regarding forensic evidence. Robinson’s defense argued that the prosecutor violated the judge’s gag order by publicly discussing evidence related to a bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body and by expressing confidence in the strength of the state’s case. Defense attorneys contended those remarks risked tainting the jury pool and sought the extraordinary remedy of preventing prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty.
Judge Graf agreed that Ballard crossed the line by publicly suggesting the prosecution had sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The judge found the prosecutor in civil contempt and ordered the prosecution to pay the defense’s attorney fees associated with bringing the contempt motion.
“The court finds that striking the death penalty is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and legally unavailable in this civil contempt framework,” said Graf.
At the same time, Graf concluded that stripping prosecutors of the ability to seek the death penalty would exceed what Utah law allows as a sanction. The judge also noted that the defense itself had contributed to public confusion by filing court documents that suggested ballistics testing excluded Robinson’s alleged weapon, prompting prosecutors to respond publicly. According to the ruling, while Ballard’s additional comments violated the order, eliminating the death penalty would not be a legally permissible or proportional remedy.
Instead, the court announced several measures designed to protect Robinson’s right to a fair trial. Those steps include expanding the pool of prospective jurors and conducting more extensive screening during jury selection to identify anyone who may have been influenced by extensive media coverage surrounding the case.
The ruling represents another setback for Robinson’s legal team, which has filed numerous pretrial motions in recent months challenging evidence and seeking to narrow the prosecution’s case. Earlier this week, Judge Graf denied a defense request to require Robinson’s former roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, to testify in person during the preliminary hearing. Prosecutors instead intend to rely on Twiggs’ recorded statements, in which he allegedly told investigators Robinson confessed to the shooting and discussed hiding the rifle afterward.
The preliminary hearing is currently scheduled to begin in early July, where prosecutors must establish probable cause for the case to proceed to trial. They are expected to present surveillance footage, forensic evidence, witness testimony, and alleged messages that investigators say connect Robinson to the fatal shooting.
If Robinson is ultimately convicted of aggravated murder, prosecutors may continue seeking the death penalty, meaning a capital sentencing phase would follow any guilty verdict. Friday’s ruling ensures that option remains available despite the court’s finding that a prosecutor violated the pretrial publicity order.
