The death of Tyler Robinson's cousin one month before the shooting
This is not a detail that has been widely reported. I first came across it in an article by Stuff.nz, the most popular news site in New Zealand, which interviewed several neighbors of the Robinson family in Washington, Utah.
Link to the article + archived version.
Verifying this with online sources, I can confirm that Tyler's cousin Easton did pass away on Aug 15, 2025. He was only 22, being born just a few months earlier than Tyler.
Easton's obit:
Link + archive. Names of the younger relatives have been redacted.
Easton's Facebook profile is friends with confirmed members of the Robinson family. (Link)
Tyler Robinson next to his cousin Easton in a family photo from 2020 posted by his grandmother. His brothers and other cousins are also in the photo.
Again, Tyler next to Easton with his brothers and cousins in a photo from 2017.
Though we don't know how close Easton was with Tyler and his family, the Robinson cousins are pictured together on multiple occasions and I have seen posts of Tyler's family on outings with his cousins. Given that "locals" (neighbors?) knew about the Robinson family's loss despite the fact that Easton didn't live in the same area, I think we can assume that the family kept in close contact and were devastated by Easton's tragic passing. Remember this would have occurred on August 15, less than a month before Charlie Kirk was killed on Sept 10.
I don't think it's implausible that Tyler was seriously affected by his cousin's death, especially one who was so close in age. This event would have weighed heavily on him, confronted him with his own mortality, and perhaps led him to act more irrationally. I am not suggesting that this was Tyler's motive in shooting Kirk, nor that he is definitely guilty of the crime at all. I merely suggest that this could have been a factor in his decision-making.
(This is my first post! I hope I did a good job of explaining this information while respecting the privacy of his family. I'm always open to feedback <3 )
Long overdue but here you go. Wait who am I kidding, this is more for myself than it is for anyone else... no one is gonna read this lol
Future hearings: Jan 16th (1 pm MT), Feb 3rd (1 pm MT), May 18th, 19th and 21st
Key issue 1: Clarification of the publicity order
The state suggested the term witness was overly broad; the court agrees. Henceforth, “witness” applies to all witnesses who are part of the prosecution and defense teams. This includes any witness, including lay (civilian) witnesses, whom the prosecution or defense have a good faith belief will be called to testify at a hearing or trial.
The publicity order regulates the behavior of the prosecution and defense attorneys only. However, attorneys are required to inform witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order and prevent them from making prejudicial statements.
Key issue 2: Cameras in the courtroom
The court’s standing decorum order was violated multiple times. Tyler’s waist and hand shackles were captured on camera, as were conversation and screens from the defense table. Tyler’s family members were also captured by a KSL broadcast separate from the YouTube livestream (this was not addressed in court). Both the prosecution and defense agreed to remove the camera, but Judge Graf declined, choosing to move it to the far side of the courtroom near the prosecution table. If further violations occur in future hearings, however, he will ban cameras (as per the defense and prosecution's motions).
Key issue 3: Discovery
At the time of the hearing, the state had received approximately 13,900 files from law enforcement, 300 of which were duplicates. The state had provided 7,951 of those files to defense. Close to 100% of the LE files had been disseminated.
Key issue 4: Preliminary hearing
Interestingly, prosecution said a three-day hearing would be sufficient to "present the evidence needed to meet that [probable cause] standard," and that "all the inferences go in favor of the state." But in the Oct 24 transcript, prosecution asked for the hearing to last five days!
More detailed rundown of the hearing, based on the original KSL broadcast.
Extreme security measures!
Tyler was transported in an armored vehicle with a police convoy
All roads around the courthouse were closed
Snipers on the roof
SWAT team, sheriffs, bomb dogs inside the courtroom
Doors were zip-tied shut
The stream started a few minutes before court was in session, with the camera placed very close to the defense table, to the extent where the shackle around Tyler’s left wrist and the contents of attorney Kathy Nester’s laptop screen were visible, and conversation between Tyler and his counsel was barely audible. A lip reader hired by the Daily Mail has made the outrageous claim that he was expressing his guilt for killing Kirk; that is patently false. If you listen more carefully, you can make out a few fragments, such as “I saw him sitting in the back” and “roadblocks.” Candace Owens claims that he and Nester had just learned that his security vehicle had been involved in a fender bender, which also happened the first time he was transported to the courthouse (on Oct 24, for his closed hearing), and were laughing at the improbability of that situation. This segment of the stream was later removed from KSL’s upload of the hearing, though it can still be found on other channels.
AP News writes that Tyler’s family members (his parents and younger brother—his youngest brother was absent) entered the courtroom separately and sat together in the front row of the gallery. Tyler entered the courtroom with his ankles shackled and smiled at his family. His mom was crying and holding a tissue, while his dad comforted her and took notes throughout the hearing.
When Judge Graf entered, the cameraperson filmed Tyler standing up. He had to be helped up by Nester and his waist and hand shackles were briefly visible.
---
Judge Graf announced the issues to be discussed in the hearing. He then closed the courtroom for the discussion of the transcript of the closed Oct 24 hearing, ordering the removal of all members of the public.
Defense attorney Richard Novak asked for Tyler’s family members to remain. The prosecution (Christopher Ballard) disagreed. Judge Graf ruled that they should exit the courtroom. Brian Entin reports that the family was ushered out into the corridor with journalists and the rest of the public, and that they didn't seem pleased. His mom was crying as they were led out.
The closed session of the hearing lasted around two hours.
---
Tyler’s family and the public were readmitted to the courtroom. The camera was again trained on the defense table and captured audio of Tyler chatting with his attorneys. (This was later cut from the KSL upload.)
The prosecution and defense then examined the camera. Defense attorney Staci Visser addressed the judge and asked to remove the camera and cut the livestream due to violations of the standing decorum order. Prosecution agreed. Judge Graf did not grant its removal, but said he would ban cameras in the courtroom if further violations occurred (as per the defense and prosecution's motions). For the time being, the camera would be moved to the other side of the courtroom, closer to the prosecution’s table.
Five minute recess for the camera to be moved.
---
The first matter to be discussed was the publicity order. The parties pretty much made the same arguments that were laid out in previous filings.
---
The second matter was the media intervenors’ motion. See previous post by Mango. The media lawyer spoke. Prosecution agreed that media could have limited party status. Defense disagreed. Visser said they were willing to provide notice about closure/classification to media entities, but asked the court to mandate time frames. Apparently filings were submitted at short notice before the hearing, forcing defense to respond in a rush. Visser stressed the need for privacy in this case and argued that providing media entities with advance access to filings might result in leaks. Judge Graf did not rule on this issue (until Dec 29th, when he agreed with defense and denied the media intervenors limited party status).
---
Judge Graf announced that he would be issuing a ruling on the media intervenors' motion and the transcript of the closed Oct 24 hearing on Dec 29th. Nester asked for Tyler to appear through audio as she did not want him to be present without counsel. My post on that hearing here (not updated yet).
---
The final matter was scheduling future court dates. Nester said defense intended to argue the motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorneys' Office and another yet-to-be-filed motion on the pre-trial publicity order during the Jan 16 hearing. The Feb 3 hearing would be for the motion to ban cameras from the courtroom.
Judge Graf mentioned that he had 1,409 cases and Tyler smiled.
Ballard said that prosecution had been anticipating defense's motions to arrive before Thanksgiving, but their motion to disqualify had only been filed "last night."
The parties settled on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 1 pm for the second hearing.
---
Judge Graf agreed with prosecution that the publicity order was overbroad and clarified it.
---
Ballard asked for Erika Kirk to be designated as the victim representative. The defense and the court agreed.
---
Prosecutor Chad Grunander gave an update on discovery. He said the state had received approximately 13,900 files from law enforcement, 300 of which were duplicates. The state had provided 7,951 of those files to defense. Close to 100% of the LE files had been disseminated and the state had received a large batch within the past few days.
-
Onto scheduling the preliminary hearing. Grunander said a three-day hearing would be sufficient to "present the evidence needed to meet that [probable cause] standard," and that "all the inferences go in favor of the state." Nester disagreed and said that defense had not known that this request would be made that day, and asked to resolve the motion to disqualify before setting the preliminary hearing. She said defense had yet to receive significant discovery material.
In response, Grunander said the preliminary hearing was only for establishing a probable cause, and that discovery would not be fully completed until the trial anyway.
Nester pointed out that the county attorney had made the public decision to announce the state's intent to seek death on the day of Tyler's arrest, which was unusually rushed, and that prosecution had not fulfilled their obligation to provide discovery material to justify that decision.
Judge Graf said there was no prejudice in setting a date for the preliminary hearing and that it may be moved in the future. The selected dates were May 18th, 19th, and 21st.
Great news: Tyler Robinson's attorney, Michael N. Burt, represented Lyle Menendez in 1993-94
Deseret News (Salt Lake City) reported yesterday that two additional lawyers will be joining Kathryn Nester as co-counsel. Their names are Michael N. Burt and Richard G. Novak. (link)
Michael Burt was the second lawyer for Lyle Menendez in the Menendez brothers' highly publicized first trial in 1993-94. He has been praised for his sensitivity and compassion towards his client. In a 1995 interview, he argued that the brothers' crimes were not "senseless," but rooted in the abuse they suffered as children (link). He is a staunch opponent of the death penalty and is editor-in-chief of the California Death Penalty Defense Manual. He also serves in the Federal Capital Trial Project, which assigns experienced attorneys to assist defense teams in federal death penalty cases (link). Burt's efforts (along with lead counsel Jill Lansing) convinced half of the jury to return a manslaughter verdict, as opposed to first-degree murder put forward by prosecution, resulting in a mistrial.
This is great news for anyone wishing for Tyler Robinson to be defended by attorneys who have his best interests at heart. I will also be posting more about his other attorneys.
Can the UCAO’s violation of the gag order help the defense get rid of the death penalty? The Jerrod Baum double-murder case
Jerrod Baum case: Fourth District Judge Derek Pullan declined to hold Utah County Attorney David Leavitt in contempt over video of a news c
Part 2 to the previous post about the defense’s motion accusing the prosecution of contempt of court. As the defense discusses, similar proceedings took place in the Jerrod Baum double-murder case in 2019, also in Utah County. Baum’s attorneys argued that a possible remedy for the prosecution’s violation of the publicity order was for the death penalty to be removed. Though they didn’t directly succeed, the death penalty WAS eventually dropped by the County Attorney. In this post, I’ll briefly summarize the Baum case, how his attempts at getting the prosecution held accountable went, and what it might tell us about Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray’s approach to Tyler’s case. Other familiar names pop up in this story, including Ryan McBride, Chad Grunander, and Sheriff Mike Smith. (It gets pretty wild. This is a *deep* rabbit hole, in particular the allegations against then-County Attorney David Leavitt. I know that approximately zero people will find this interesting but I did!)
When reading this motion, I realized that I’d seen this in the news before: in 2017, Baum slit the throats of a teenage couple, Breezy Otteson and Riley Powell, and threw their bodies down an abandoned mineshaft. They were found the following year. In 2019, Baum was charged, and then-Utah County Attorney David Leavitt announced that he was seeking the death penalty, the first such case for the county since 1984. There were some problems with the prosecution: for one, their narrative relied heavily upon the testimony of a single witness, Morgan Lewis (then known as Morgan Henderson), who had been Baum’s girlfriend and the teens’ friend. Lewis initially lied that she didn’t know the teens, but later admitted that she had been present during the murders.
What were the prejudicial statements?
As with Tyler’s case, the prosecution made prejudicial statements about Baum several times, but they were arguably much more provocative and explicit than anything the Utah County Attorney’s Office (UCAO) has said about Tyler. The first instance was a livestreamed press conference held by then-Utah County Attorney David Leavitt announcing the charges against Baum and that the state would be pursuing the death penalty. These are the statements that were found to be prejudicial by the Utah Supreme Court:
1) [T]he victims in the case were treated like “mere trash” by the alleged killer, Mr. Baum.
2) [T]he alleged killer “is the sort of individual from whom society ought to be protected.”
3) [I]f he authorized the death penalty to be sought in this case, [Leavitt] was “aware that it w[ould] cost Utah County at least a million dollars more in defense funds,” and that if the alleged killer “is given the death penalty, he may never be executed.”
4) [T]he two victims were from Juab County and Tooele County, respectively, and the alleged killer was from Juab County. “[T]here is no connection whatsoever to Utah County other than that's where this crime was committed.”
5) “Had this crime been committed in Juab County, Juab County would be writing a check for a million dollars, if it sought the death penalty.”
6) “If pulling a trigger or injecting a needle would bring [the victims] back, [he] would do so personally.”
7) [H]e would give the power back to the people to decide whether the alleged killer is guilty or innocent and whether he should receive the death penalty. Leavitt then announced his decision to allow the death penalty to be considered in this case.
8) When a member of the press asked whether he was concerned about the lack of physical evidence when there was just one witness, [he] stated that “this witness is credible,” and the “witness’ testimony has been corroborated.” And,
9) “[W]e believe this witness, quite frankly, based on a lot of evidence that the jury will never hear. And so, we know things that the jury will never hear which helps us to believe and strengthens our belief that this man committed [this] murder, these murders.”
That infringes the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (Trial Publicity, Rule 3.6), which stipulate that no comments should be made about the “character, credibility, reputation or criminal record” of a party, suspect, or witness, and “any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant.” The Utah Supreme Court identified the statements about the witness (Morgan Lewis) as being the most problematic, because they implied that the prosecution had access to inculpatory evidence that the public and jury would not be aware of.
After the press conference, one of Leavitt’s deputy county attorneys told him that he should not have made the prejudicial statements, and that he anticipated a defense motion for the UCAO’s disqualification. Leavitt then walled himself off from the case, though he never officially resigned. The deputy ordered an officer to delete the video of the press conference from Leavitt’s official Facebook page. A week later, the judge issued a publicity order.
The second instance was when Sergeant Spencer Cannon, a public information officer for the Utah County Sheriff’s Office, gave two interviews in eight months with local radio station KNRS and discussed the investigation. Cannon also opined on Baum’s character and Lewis’ credibility. Prosecutors (including Chad Grunander, who was assigned to the case at the time) failed to warn Cannon about prejudicial statements under Rule 3.6. They did not monitor Cannon’s communications with the media and did not know about his interviews.
Both instances are pretty clear-cut violations of Rule 3.6. While Chris Ballard’s statements about the bullet testing definitely seem to constitute violations of Judge Graf’s publicity orders and Rule 3.6, they aren’t quite as extreme as Leavitt and Cannon’s statements.
What actions did Jerrod Baum’s attorneys take?
(It’s a bit harder to write about this case with certainty since I don’t have access to the court docs, only news articles, a Utah Supreme Court brief, and one of the judge’s orders attached to Tyler’s motion. But this is what I was able to gather:)
First attempt: contempt of court
In December, a defense attorney for the Utah man charged with murdering a teen couple and dumping their bodies in an abandoned mine shaft be
Baum’s attorneys made at least two attempts to seek recourse for the prosecution’s prejudicial statements. The first was in 2020, when they accused County Attorney David Leavitt of violating the publicity order in his press conference. Like Tyler’s team, they filed an order to show cause for contempt of court, which was granted by Judge Derek Pullan. But unlike Tyler’s team, they initially wanted Leavitt to be held in criminal contempt, only later amending their allegation to civil contempt.
(Side note: I’m glad Tyler wasn’t assigned Judge Pullan. He tried to force two teens to reconcile with their father who sexually abused them and threatened to have police remove them from their mom’s house. The kids barricaded themselves in a bedroom and livestreamed on TikTok in protest. The case is Ty and Brynlee Larson if you’re interested)
Though the conference had been held a week before any publicity order was issued, the defense alleged that the prosecution’s failure to take down a video recording from Facebook after six months constituted a violation—the video accidentally remained up even after a deputy had told an officer to delete it.
The defense wanted the death penalty off the table if Leavitt was to be found in contempt, which they argued was the most appropriate remedy. Failing that, they were also open to disqualifying the UCAO from the case.
However, the judge concluded that Leavitt did not consciously violate the publicity order. The video only had 422 views and anyone who had watched it could easily be removed from the jury pool. He also didn’t believe that dropping the death penalty was necessary to address the issue, but as Tyler’s attorneys have said, he didn’t rule out such a remedy if it was supported by fact. Ultimately, he didn’t impose any sanctions on Leavitt or the prosecution team.
My non-expert analysis: I think Tyler’s motion is much stronger. Baum’s motion hinged upon the prosecution’s failure to delete the video. If it weren’t for the video, they wouldn’t have been able to accuse the prosecution of contempt, because the press conference was held before the publicity order. But for Tyler, Chris Ballard made his comments to the media months after the two publicity orders issued by Graf.
The judge ruled that Leavitt didn’t intentionally disobey the publicity order by leaving the video up. In Tyler’s motion, his attorneys have argued that proof of intentionality is not necessary to a finding of civil contempt, where the person’s conduct is in violation of a court order. Either way, Leavitt’s staff unknowingly left the video up and their intent to delete it was documented, while Chris Ballard actively reached out to media entities and has made no attempt to retract his statements.
Lastly, the judge said that the video was barely known and wouldn’t have had a big impact on the jury pool. But Chris Ballard’s statements were made to prominent national media entities, such as TMZ and USA Today, and were read and reshared internationally.
Death penalty is dropped
A shiver ran through the hearts of some residents in Utah County as they heard Wednesday that Utah County Attorney David Leavitt intends to
In the time between the first defense motion and the second, Leavitt suddenly announced that he would no longer be pursuing the death penalty in any capital case in Utah County. That included Baum’s case—at the time, the only active capital case in the county.
While unexpected, this was in line with Leavitt’s track record of progressive policies as County Attorney. Leavitt explained that he thought the death penalty was not worth the expenses and manpower. He said it did nothing to curb crime; education and prevention did. (I don’t know if the defense’s attempt to remove the death penalty was a factor in Leavitt’s decision, but it probably was?)
Second attempt: prosecutorial misconduct
A judge sanctioned Utah County Attorney David Leavitt Monday for comments he made about the brutal double murder case of Jerrod Baum. But th
The defense’s second attempt to seek recourse was in 2021, when they filed a motion for sanctions regarding prosecutorial misconduct, citing, among six other claims, Leavitt’s press conference and Sergeant Cannon’s interviews. The defense suggested several sanctions, including dismissal of Baum’s case, disqualification of Leavitt, disqualification of the UCAO, change of venue, and expansion of the jury venire (jury pool). (The death penalty was not mentioned as it had already been removed by Leavitt.)
For Cannon’s interviews, the judge said that the UCAO had not exercised reasonable care to prevent Cannon from making his statements, which constituted negligence but not intentional misconduct. Dismissal of the case or the UCAO were disproportionate punishments, and a change of venue would not be effective as the radio station Cannon spoke to was based in Utah. The only sanction the judge granted was an expansion of the jury pool, which effectively did nothing; he had already done so as the result of a previous defense motion.
As for Leavitt’s press conference, the judge agreed that they were “textbook examples of extrajudicial statements.” Again, he refused to dismiss the case or grant a change of venue. He also did not dismiss the UCAO, saying that Leavitt had informally removed himself from the case after the conference and had not participated in any meaningful way until he filed to drop the death penalty. However, most of Leavitt’s statements were prepared remarks, as opposed to spontaneous comments, which warranted a more severe sanction. Therefore, the judge disqualified Leavitt and expanded the jury pool. This again was more symbolic than actually effective for the defense.
Further complaint, reprimand, Utah Supreme Court appeal
The Utah State Bar's discipline of former Utah County Attorney David Leavitt — for his comments about a death penalty case — was proper, the
The defense didn’t just litigate the Leavitt issue in the District Court. They also submitted a complaint to the Office of Professional Conduct. A Screening Panel of the Ethics and Discipline Committee determined that Leavitt had violated Rule 3.6 and recommended that he be publicly reprimanded. Leavitt filed an exception, but the Committee upheld the decision and ordered a public reprimand.
In 2025, Leavitt submitted an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing that a more appropriate punishment would have been private admonishment. The court unanimously rejected the appeal.
Has the UCAO made other prejudicial statements, and what might Tyler’s team do about them?
In their motion to exclude cameras (Dkt. 468), Tyler’s team has also argued that Jeff Gray’s “overly detailed and extensive” probable cause statement, and his reading out of that statement at a press conference, constituted violations of several GRAMA (Government Records Access and Management Act) laws aside from Rule 3.6: private records, protected records, access to records. Gray’s preface at the conference, when he described Kirk’s death as an “American tragedy,” was in the nature of a “death penalty phase closing argument,” hence violating Rule 3.6. The statement contains data on Tyler, his parents, and Luna that constitutes a “clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy,” with no prior evaluation that warranted such an invasion, and disclosed the identities of sources “not generally known outside of government.” For these reasons, the defense claims that the affidavit, probable cause statement, and release of Tyler’s mugshot created a “danger of depriving a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial hearing.”
But since the press conference was held before Graf’ issued any publicity orders, the defense can’t accuse Gray of contempt in this instance. They might attempt to allege prosecutorial misconduct like Baum’s attorneys later on—Staci Visser mentions the conference in her affidavit.
Utah County Attorney: David Leavitt vs Jeff Gray
Incumbent Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray replaced David Leavitt in 2023. Why is Gray in this position today and pursuing the death penalty for Tyler? In large part due to the Jerrod Baum case and Leavitt’s decision to drop the death penalty. Gray expressively stated he had never considered running for County Attorney, but decided he had to replace Leavitt. He positioned himself as the no-nonsense, tough-on-crime challenger opposing Leavitt’s attempts at progressive criminal justice reforms. But it gets weirder. There was some intrigue involving petty fights between Leavitt and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office—including an outlandish allegation that he had been “cannibalizing children.” A list of his controversies (went down this rabbit hole for hours, no regrets. Skip ahead if you want):
Dropping the death penalty. Leavitt faced a ton of backlash from the public and legal and law enforcement communities. The families of Jerrod Baum’s victims were only notified shortly before his announcement; they were devastated to learn that Baum would not be executed. The Utah County Fraternal Order of Police and a group of former prosecutors (including Lauren Hunt, who is on Tyler’s case) issued a vote of no confidence in him.
Accusations of cannibalism. A truly bizarre episode. Just weeks before the primary election, the sheriff’s office, led by current Sheriff Mike Smith, re-opened a decades-old “ritualistic child sex abuse” case against a former therapist. The case had already been dismissed previously in 2014. A victim statement mentioned Leavitt and his wife, among dozens of others, as participants in satanic child sex abuse who “cannibalized and murdered” young children. Back-to-back press conferences by the sheriff’s office and attorneys’ office ensued, with Smith and Leavitt trading barbs. Leavitt alleged that Smith had been digging through old files to smear him. He said that one of Smith’s informants was a convicted sex offender who was being charged with rape in Utah County, and who had apparently faked his death and was living under an alias in Scotland. (what??)
In March 2025, the judge ruled to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning that the charges can’t be refiled—a rare decision. He found that the sheriff’s office and prosecutors had withheld evidence that could have helped the defense. Attorneys involved in the case disputed a "disingenuous" statement made by the sheriff’s office, saying they had made “substantial misrepresentations” about the investigation.
Allegations that he had inappropriately helped his handyman. According to Fox 13 News (obviously biased), Leavitt’s handyman was a passenger when the driver was arrested on drug charges. Leavitt allegedly called a deputy and asked him not to impound the car. He claimed that his handyman was being targeted because of his association with him, even though the man had been in jail multiple times for DUIs. Leavitt’s staff, prosecutors at the UCAO, also said that Leavitt had asked them to treat the man more leniently.
Dismissing stalking charges against his brother’s former LDS mission companion. Leavitt personally involved himself in a stalking case of a man who had donated to his campaign and had been his brother’s mission companion (former Utah governor Mike Leavitt??). The man tried to get Leavitt on his side by presenting a binder of information about the alleged victim to his brother. Leavitt claimed that he thought dropping charges would protect the woman from harassment and a delayed trial, but refiled the charges when that was unsuccessful.
There are so many other controversies that I can’t summarize them all here, but it’s a morbidly fascinating mixture of deranged shit and reasonable policies lmfao. This man is wack!
Allegations that he used his political connections, including his friendship with a former Ukrainian president, to unethically adopt a Native American child
He disbanded the Special Victims Unit, a team of dedicated prosecutors working on sex crimes and domestic violence. Leavitt said resources could be spread more evenly and attorneys would face less burnout
He pushed for a more progressive approach to crime, including a pre-filing diversion program (allowing low-level offenders to complete community services, classes, or drug treatment in lieu of being charged), and being more lenient on drug and CSAM offenses
He “did not protect” officers assaulted in the line of duty
He investigated prosecutors over attending a basketball game with a defense attorney friend, who paid for their tickets
Jeff Gray
Utah County Attorney David Leavitt’s 2020 decision to disband the special victims unit and divide such cases among all office attorneys has
Predictably, Gray’s campaign focused on being the opposite of Leavitt. He vowed to overturn the majority of Leavitt’s criminal reform policies, which he claimed even “liberal San Francisco” knew were a “disaster.” When Bolts Magazine reached out to him for a feature on Leavitt’s opposition to the death penalty, he described it as a “violation of [Leavitt’s] oath.” Reversing the disbanding of the special victims unit was also a priority, even though Leavitt’s change had shown positive outcomes, such as an increase in such cases being prosecuted and charges filed.
Gray emphasized rebuilding a strong partnership with law enforcement and the sheriff’s office. He was endorsed by Sheriff Mike Smith and the Fraternal Order of Police; a political action committee with ties to the Utah Sheriffs’ Association began fundraising for Gray days after the satanic child sex abuse case was reopened. Gray demanded an apology from Leavitt for writing in a campaign email that Gray had been spreading rumors about the satanic cannibalism thing; Leavitt disputed it and said he had been describing Mike Smith, but that Smith and Gray were essentially acting together.
And on his campaign pages, he was open about his conservative views, such as rejecting a debate invitation from ACLU (an “agenda driven left-wing organization”) and supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (Doesn’t come as a surprise at all, but he seems pretty damn nasty.)
Gray won 73% of the vote compared to Leavitt’s 27%. Understandable, given the drama around Leavitt, and the fact that there was no other candidate. As far as we can tell, Gray is much less likely to go easy on Tyler. He has signalled that he’s more open to plea deals than Leavitt, who preferred to bring cases to trial, but he might view Tyler's case differently than the sexual assault cases he was discussing in that context. In the time before the Kirk shooting (Jan ‘23 to Sept ‘25), he also didn’t seek the death penalty in any new case—though he said his office would seek it again in the retrial of Douglas Carter, a man whose conviction and death sentence were vacated by Judge Pullan (same judge as in Baum’s case) and by the Utah Supreme Court in May ‘25 after revelations that law enforcement had seriously mishandled the original investigation.
I’ll stop here—I’m on my eleventh page in Google Docs lol. I’ll have to do more research on Gray’s track record as county attorney and prosecutor before I can predict more precisely how he might treat Tyler’s case, but with his flippant attitude during the evidentiary hearings in January and February, his admission that he hadn’t followed any protocol when deciding to seek death and that he hadn’t done anything to shield Chad Grunander from the case, and the current revelation that he likely directed Chris Ballard to speak to the media about the bullet evidence, I’m not feeling great about this. I really hope Judge Graf agrees with the defense that Ballard’s statements were prejudicial. Leavitt's disqualification and reprimand mean it's completely possible for senior prosecutors to be held in contempt, though it's true that what he said was worse, and his other controversies may also have factored in the court's decisions. And no, getting the death penalty off the table as punishment is probably not viable.
Judge Graf will make a ruling on the defense’s motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office (the prosecution team) later. I’ve made several posts about the motion, but not a full summary of what actually transpired, the evidentiary hearings, and the parties’ arguments. It's a bit too late but I hope this will be helpful! It's just kinda satisfying to organize my thoughts anyway.
Background info
Chad Grunander is the Chief Deputy Attorney of Utah County and the head prosecutor on Tyler's case. Jeff Gray, the Utah County Attorney, is seeking the death penalty in this case. Gray testified that he has known Grunander since he was appointed County Attorney three years ago. He selected Grunander for his executive team at the beginning of his tenure. He claims that he is not close with Grunander, has only met his wife but not his children, has never been to his house, and doesn’t spend time (e.g. do sports) with him outside of work.
What happened
*the daughter’s questioning was not streamed, so we don’t have access to her full answers. This is based on her sworn statement in the state’s opposition and news reporting (members of the public were allowed to stay)
Grunander’s daughter, 18, is a student at Utah Valley University and a self-professed fan of Charlie Kirk. She had told her dad she was excited to attend the rally. On that day, she sat on the highest level of the far right side of the amphitheater, around 85 feet away from Kirk’s position. There was no line of sight between her and the shooter on the rooftop of the Losee Center. She filmed some videos on her phone but stopped and was looking around at the crowd, not at Kirk, when the shot was fired. She heard a "loud sound, like a pop, and someone yell, ‘he’s been shot.'" She fled the scene and entered the building behind her, where she learned from talking to other witnesses that Kirk was the person who was shot. She headed to the parking lot and a friend gave her a ride home. Later that day, she saw a video of Kirk getting shot on social media for the first time. She reports that she doesn’t have any lasting trauma from the shooting and has been able to resume her normal activities without issue.
For the state's opposition to the motion to disqualify, she was interviewed by prosecutor Ryan McBride to provide a statement. She was not approached by law enforcement until a week or so before the latest hearing (Feb 3rd), when Utah SBI Agent Mortensen conducted an interview with her and collected the videos she filmed on her phone before the shooting. Gray said it was McBride who advised the SBI to interview her.
Grunander's movements
Grunander was at a conference with Jeff Gray in Layton, an hour away from Orem. It was during lunch break when he received the first handful of messages from his daughter in his family group chat. Grunander was alarmed and immediately told Gray. He called his daughter at 12:29 pm for one minute to make sure she was okay. A few minutes later, he broke the news to his colleagues at the Utah County Attorney’s Office, including prosecutors Chris Ballard and Dave Sturgill; media had not yet reported on the shooting. These calls took place around 12:44 pm.
Around 10-15 minutes later, Grunander left and drove towards UVU. Gray left 20 minutes later to do the same. Gray originally wanted to have lunch first, but decided his "mind was not on it" and he "needed to go there." The two men met up at an In-N-Out in Barnes and Noble, and drove together in Gray’s car to UVU. Gray claims he didn’t enquire about Grunander’s daughter during their journey.
When they arrived at UVU, the campus had been closed off and all the students evacuated. Grunander went on the Losee Center rooftop to examine what he called the “shooter’s perch” and determine how far away his daughter had been from Kirk. He also helped his daughter look for her book bag, took a photo of it lying where she had left it, and asked an SBI officer if he could retrieve it after the scene had been cleared. The men stayed on the campus until around 9-11 pm. In the following days, he communicated with Gray about the bag as well as Sturgill, who was working on the scene.
Text messages
The messages were sent in Grunander’s family group chat, including his wife, daughter, sons, and his daughters-in-law.
The first messages were sent when the daughter entered the building right after the shooting. Then after she learned that Kirk was the victim of the shooting, she sent further messages clarifying that fact.
Death penalty
Gray later found out that two young members of his LDS ward had also been present at the shooting, with one of them being "shook up" by their experience, though he claims he is only close with one of the students’ families.
Gray testified that he had been planning to seek the death penalty even before Tyler was arrested. (Grunander separately said this is unusual and the decision to seek death is normally made after details about the accused are known.) He was present at press conferences with Utah Governor Spencer Cox when Cox repeatedly said that he wanted to pursue the death penalty. Gray said that he shared his own plans to seek death with Cox, and he did not clarify to Cox that this decision was his alone, not the governor's.
After Tyler was arrested, Gray had "informal" discussions with his team about whether or not they would be filing a notice of intent to seek death, even though his mind was already made up. He didn't exclude Grunander from any of these conversations.
Gray ran for Utah County Attorney on a campaign promise to seek the death penalty in all appropriate cases. In a previous case, State v. Michael Aaron Jayne, he claims that the delay (5 months) in announcing the decision to seek death caused rumors among the press that it would not be sought, resulting in emotional "hardship" and "misinformation." In Tyler's case, he was even more concerned about publicity, which is why he announced the intent to seek death on the same day charges were filed.
Grunander is the lead prosecutor on the Jayne case, and he said that it's typical for Gray to consult him on whether or not to seek the death penalty in such cases. He agreed that in the majority of cases, the intent to seek death is announced after the preliminary hearing, not concurrently with the filing of charges as with Tyler.
Issue of the conflict
Gray said his office doesn't have a written policy that stipulates how to deal with potential conflicts of interest, or evaluate whether a prosecutor needs to be screened off from a case. He didn't think there was a need to contact any expert or organization for advice, including the Utah Attorney General's office, the Utah State Bar, the Utah County and District Attorneys Association, and the Statewide Association of Public Attorneys and Prosecutors, the latter two of which he is president. He didn't consult any official documents but relied on his "25 years of knowledge of conflicts." Before the Feb 3rd hearing, when the defense asked the prosecution to provide a memo explaining how they determined there was no conflict, Gray provided no legal analysis or justification for his decision.
Grunander had been having both individual and group conversations with other prosecutors on his team about this potential conflict. On September 30th, Grunander headed back to UVU with a UCAO investigator, Cole Christensen, to determine how far away his daughter had been from Kirk when he was shot. He took a photo of a Fox News broadcast, which showed his daughter's bag in the amphitheater, to figure out her position (I believe it's the dark blue backpack in the middle). He ran a tape measure from that location to Kirk's location and found that the distance was 85 feet.
On Oct 1st, Grunander emailed the defense alerting them his daughter's presence at the UVU event. He explained that he didn't think this created a conflict for him, but that it was his practice to disclose possible arguments with respect to a conflict. He said that his "disclosure, our abundance of caution, our professionalism, integrity" should not be seen as a concession that his team believes there's merit to the alleged conflict.
On Dec 18th, right after the defense had filed their motion to disqualify, Gray returned to UVU with UCAO Sgt. Cole Christensen to investigate whether Grunander's daughter was in the shooter's field of view. They determined that she would not have been visible, was not in the shooter's line of fire, and therefore had not been in the zone of danger. As Tyler has been charged with aggravated murder, which stipulates that the perpetrator must have knowingly put someone other than the victim at a great risk of death, this rules out the daughter from being referenced in this charge. Richard Novak pointed out that Gray had made himself a witness to evidence through this intervention.
On Jan 10th, the state filed their opposition to the defense's motion, written by Gray, which extensively references the daughter's statement as to what she saw. Gray claims he hadn't talked to her or helped shape her statement, and that he doesn't know if McBride, who conducted the interview, had had any conversations with Grunander about it.
Later developments
The past two hearings have been spent questioning witnesses as to the motion to disqualify. Utah SBI Agent Dave Hull was also questioned so the state could prove that Grunander's daughter was not a material witness to the shooting.
On Jan 16th, the defense announced their request for the motion to disqualify to be heard by the Utah Attorney General's office and not the UCAO, but this was denied in the last hearing.
I'm just going to paste the defense and state's closing arguments here, sorry for any typos or mistakes.
Defense (Richard Novak)
Thank you. Your Honor, there are legal issues and there are factual issues that we think that the Court needs to look at very closely. I would ask the Court because I only have 10 minutes to look at both the briefing in the original motion, and I will point out some specific cases that we think the Court should pay attention to, as well as the briefing in the, what I'm going to call the renewed request. And they're both informative. The briefing and the renewed request doesn't just go to the question of should this court encourage, that's the language that the statute hints at, the state attorney, the County Attorney to refer this to the Attorney General, but it also refers to when a trial court does or does not abuse its discretion with respect to recusal.
The last witness—and I'm going to go with the principle of recency here—the last witness's primary purpose was to focus on this question of whether the adult child, student, at UVU is what the state has referred to as a material witness or a critical witness. And that is actually, either intentionally or unintentionally, a distraction from the real question here. This is not a question of whether in order to prove its case the state needs to call as a witness a family member of the prosecution. Okay, that could in another situation be a source of a conflict. But the issue here is that the most experienced and most senior prosecutor in the office other than the elected county attorney, Mr. Gray, should have been walled off from this prosecution until this court had an opportunity to consider whether disqualification is necessary. And it is important to note a couple things that Mr. Grunander said. One of them was that he'd never seen in his experience a decision to seek the death penalty made without regard to information about the accused. And there's a hint there that there was an emotional response to Mr. Kirk's death, which there's a strong implication creates an appearance of impropriety.
And so this Court doesn't have to make a finding that there's a conflict of interest, an actual conflict of interest. What the standard says, and that's the standard that Mr. Gray read into the record from the organization of Utah prosecutors that he's the president-elect of, which refers to the public perception of the integrity of the prosecutor's office and the public confidence in the handling of the case. Okay. So that was standard 1.3-3C. The failure of Mr. Gray to at least temporarily wall off Mr. Grunander to seek guidance from any other prosecutor, ethics expert, the Court, the State Bar, people who are leaders or members of SWAP, the Attorney General's office demonstrates both a very and an inappropriately casual approach to this issue. And it also demonstrates that what Mr. Gray did is he put his need for Mr. Grunander to lead this case ahead of the ethical consideration of whether that might create an appearance of impropriety. Not an appearance in Mr. Gray's opinion, not an appearance in Mr. Grunander's opinion, but an appearance in the public eye. And that's actually your Honor's project, if I may, is to determine what a reasonable member of the public would think of this scenario.
The other thing that is important here is that we are dealing with a proceeding where the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the parallel constitutional right in Utah require, and this Court has heard it already and the Court’s going to hear it over and over again, a heightened standard of reliability. This is not just a court proceeding and it's not just a criminal proceeding. This is a capital proceeding which is, at this point in time, sort of almost the only proceeding where the Eighth Amendment comes into play, and so this Court needs to view the appearance of impropriety under this heightened standard of reliability.
A couple Utah cases that I think that this Court, we would ask this Court to look at very closely. State v. McClellan, Utah Supreme Court 2009 Utah 50; State v. (?) 2014 I'm sorry. Yeah, that's a court of appeal decision. 2014 Utah appeals 207. Mr. Gray should have implemented a firewall and he didn't and that has created this problem. And then what we see is isolating Mr. Grunander's daughter from the investigation, isolating her in some way so that she hasn't provided a statement, she hasn't provided videos until we bring this issue to the Court’s attention. The decision as to what charges to file, the decision as to whether or not to seek the death penalty, should never ever have been made in consultation with Mr. Grunander, even if he's the most experienced homicide prosecutor in the office, even if he has one of the longest tenures, and even if it's Mr. Gray's ultimate decision because now we don't really know and the Court doesn't know and the Court just can't defer to the prosecution. That's the whole point of the Court having the supervisory power over this issue.
What influenced Mr. Gray? I would also point out that Mr. Gray did not disclose until asked while under oath that two members of his faith community were also present there. That was not disclosed to us when he found out about it, and that he has a relationship with the family of some young person who was also negatively impacted.
This m line of sight analysis, this pie that has been, PIE, that has been diagrammed is not the question. That is not the question. The question is whether Mr. Gray should have isolated the prosecutor whose child was there, and I say this with all due concern and respect, could have been injured in any number of ways. People could have been hurt leaving the scene. And I'm not saying that in any way to minimize the effect that that experience had on Mr. Grunander and his family. I think as I said in court last time, I've been through this where I learned that my child is somewhere where there was a shooting and until I knew my child was safe, that was, you know, an overwhelming emotional experience. So, the problem is that Mr. Gray approached this in an incredibly casual way. There isn't a single memorandum he testified to this, documenting the process of whether there's an actual conflict or an appearance of conflict. The mere disclosure of it to us and us bringing it to the court does not wash this clean. That is our concern. I also want to cite the Court because I'm running out of time, to a decision that is not a Utah decision, but it's cited on page 12 of our motion, which is Tate 925 Southwest 2nd 548, a Tennessee decision where basically the Court says where there were no screening procedures and the prosecutor as to whom there was an appearance of impropriety maintain the role of a supervisor and there was open discussion of the case with him. There should have been a disqualification and what the Court did there is it disqualified the entire office.
So this problem could have been avoided if Mr. Grunander had been screened off, if Mr. Gray had sought this Court’s guidance early. The PE– the state, I'm sorry, they were in court on September 16th. This could have been brought to the Court’s attention in September. Counsel were appointed shortly thereafter. We could have addressed this a long time ago and now frankly it's too late. So we understand that there is pressure on the judicial system to move this case expeditiously. There is also a countervailing and, we believe, stronger need to make sure that there's a heightened standard of reliability that there is no conflict and that there is no appearance of conflict. And if that takes a little bit of time for another prosecution office to get up to speed, the investigation's going to continue. The discovery production is going to continue. The lab work's going to continue. None of that is going to change. So, we would ask the Court—I'm not reserving any time in rebuttal—I'm going to ask the Court to grant the motion, both parts of it, which is to make a finding that Mr. Grunander should have been walled off and that Mr. Gray's failure to do so, and sort of the casual way that Mr. Gray approached this whole thing, requires unfortunately the disqualification of his office and the appointment of a new group of prosecutors to be responsible for this case.
The case will continue. What we are asking the Court to do today does not in any way change the fact that Mr. Robinson is charged. He's charged with an aggravated homicide. We all have to deal with that. But we have to deal with it in a way where there is no question that the decisions that have been made or decisions that will be made in the future, which is some questions that were brought up to Mr. Gray by his own counsel, and the public's confidence in the outcome of this case are tainted by what should have happened and did not happen. And I appreciate the Court’s time.
State (Ryan McBride)
I know everybody in here is going to blame me if they don't leave in 9, which is 5:00. So, the reality is, your Honor, the adult child is not a witness here. She didn't see Charlie Kirk get shot. She didn't record him get shot. She didn't see his wound. She didn't see him get carried off. She’s just not a witness. And as a result, there's really no conflict here.
Now, I understand that conflicts go beyond just that, but most of the cases that we look at where there's some kind of conflict are where there's confidential knowledge that has been obtained by the prosecutor, right? A defense attorney becomes a prosecutor and now has confidential knowledge about that person, right? That's the typical conflict we see, has some kind of proprietary or financial interest, right? That's the kind of conflict we usually see. Occasionally there are personal conflicts, but there's a lot of good case law that talks about what kind of conflicts constitute that personal interest. And I think the best case law on this is cited in our opposition to the renewed motion to refer the matter. And in that case, State v. Newman, the Court found— this is a Missouri case. The Court found no conflict of interest in prosecuting a defendant for murder even though the prosecutor had done business with the victim, knew him personally, and served as a pallbearer at the victim's funeral. In Gwinnett County, District Attorney nor his Georgia office had a conflict of interest even though his chief investigator dated and later married the victim in a case that the office was prosecuting. In Kansas, prosecutor's office did not have a conflict, even though the defendant threatened to blow up the very courthouse and also that also housed the District Attorney's office.
I mean, these are cases where the prosecutor has a close relationship with the actual victim of the crime. Look, if Mr. Grunander were related to Charlie Kirk, we would acknowledge there's a conflict here, right? But we're not even close to that. The adult child is not even a witness in this case, is not a witness to the murder. Is the child a witness to the circumstances? Sure, but so are 3,000 others, as well as dozens of video recordings. She's not a witness. She's not necessary in this case. And as a result, there's no conflict here.
Now, is he going to be motivated because she was present? Is he some kind of, somehow going to be motivated to do something he otherwise would not? Well, again, maybe if she were injured, maybe so. Maybe there would be a good argument there. Maybe. It still doesn't rise to the level of these cases that I've talked about, but that's just not the fact. She has not been traumatized. She has not had to seek therapy. She has not had to miss class. She has, it's not affected her friendships. As a result, the idea that Mr. Grunander is going to be motivated by some kind of retribution for what happened to her is just flatly false. The idea that the defendant was charged for killing someone because a prosecutor's child was present when it happened is just, it's almost laughable. He's being prosecuted for killing someone because he killed someone. At least that's what the evidence will show, we believe.
The idea that he has been, that the death penalty has been elected because a relation of a prosecutor was there is also is just laughable. It's because someone was shot and killed. That's why the charges were brought. I just don't think that that proposition is palatable at all. The evidence is what this case was charged on, both at the charging level and at the death penalty level. None of this was motivated because of some relationship. And I think that anybody who looked at this would agree that you don't charge someone with murder because a witness was affected by it. You charge someone with murder because someone was killed, right?
The defense has tried to elevate the standard here by looking at best practices, the SWAP's statewide association of prosecutors best practice. Even so, I think it's been misstated. The standard says that when there's an appearance of conflict, the prosecutor should, I quote, “consider recusal.” Well, that's the question. They should consider it, right? It doesn't say it mandates recusal or disqualification. And that's not even the ethical standard that this court goes by. That's the best practice. And the best practice was followed in this case because once that once that fact was known, there was a discussion. Of course, it was disclosed immediately. It was disclosed five days after defense counsel was appointed. The idea that the child was isolated is just flatly false. She just was not a witness. and the followup with her showed as much.
The standard is is there a significant risk that representation of the state will be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer? In this case, the decision to prosecute and the prosecution of this case will not be limited in any way. Moreover, if anything, the interests would align regardless. The motivation here is clearly not because of the presence of this child. It's because Charlie Kirk was murdered in front of everybody. She's not a material witness. Everybody knows Charlie Kirk was shot and killed and murdered brutally. Everybody knows that. I don't think that's going to be what this case is about. It's going to be about identity. And neither the child nor any of the other 3,000 witnesses present really have a whole lot to say about who this was that did that did the shooting.
And that's what this case hinges on. There's been no evidence that prosecutor A's child had any effect on the prosecution of this case to date, and there's no reason to believe it will have any effect in the future. The testimony was clear that no one anticipated that based on her lack of value as a witness and the lack of trauma or injury to her. There really shouldn't be any question about that for this court, for the public or anyone else. Thank you.
Erika Kirk files for a speedy trial and increased media access: is this unprecedented?
The Independent canvassed Utah law experts for their legal analysis of a court filing by Erika Kirk demanding speedy justice; here’s what th
Erika Kirk previously filed for a speedy trial. On Feb 2nd, she filed for increased media access and open legal proceedings (Dkt. 370). An article (archive) by the Independent interviewing several legal experts in Utah suggests that these moves are unusual and unlikely to have any impact on the proceedings; as the designated victim representative, her rights are "not even close" to Tyler's as the defendant in a capital case.
The victim's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed in Utah law, but it's seen as "largely advisory." Kirk's filing is "very rare" and attorney Greg Skordas (also the guy who was responsible for getting Tyler legal representation) says he has never encountered a motion like this in his 40 years of practice. Instead, it's more common for the prosecutor to verbally argue this for the victim.
The lawyers agree that Kirk's motions are unlikely to have much if any impact on the proceedings; her rights are overridden by Tyler's right to a fair trial. In a recent case, "a judge’s efforts to enforce a victim’s demand for a speedy trial resulted in an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, where the lower court’s ruling was overturned." I just did some googling and I believe the case referenced is State v. Kent Cody Barlow in 2024: Barlow's lead attorney requested to withdraw from the case due to losses in his family, but was denied by the judge due to the victims' parents' request for a speedy trial. The attorney took this to the Utah Supreme Court, which found that the judge had exceeded his discretion in requiring the attorney to represent Barlow at trial. The judge ultimately continued (postponed) the trial indefinitely. Some familiar characters pop up in this tale too. The prosecutor in Tyler's case, Ryan McBride, argued for the trial to go forward, and Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray described the continuance as a “‘devastating development’ for the victims' families who have the "constitutional right to a speedy trial.” So this case illustrates how the Utah system does value defendants' rights above all, even in a brutal manslaughter/homicide case like this (Barlow was high on meth and crashed into two little boys)—and that Tyler's prosecutors are all too familiar with invoking the victim's right to a speedy trial to dodge questions of fairness and impartiality.
The man accused of hitting and killing two toddlers in Eagle Mountain was supposed to stand trial Monday, but it was put on hold indefinitel
Finally, I wonder what Erika Kirk thinks she's achieving with these motions. As the experts point out, the case is proceeding at a normal pace and it's hard to envision it being sped up any more than it has already been. The last hearing was fairly efficient: Judge Graf imposed a hard time limit and required the parties to wrap up questioning within three or so hours and complete their closing arguments in 30 minutes. Besides, her characterization of Tyler's counsel as “caus[ing] undue delay to the criminal justice process” is absurd—her cronies, allies and mouthpieces like Jack Posobiec, Megyn Kelly, Sen. Mike Lee, JD Vance, and Gov. Spencer Cox have run their mouths and spread complete falsehoods about Tyler and Lance. The defense's allegations of inappropriate conduct from public figures and officials are justified, it's out of fucking control. And the prosecutorial conflict is serious and well-founded—while a prosecutor having an immediate family member who witnessed the murder they're prosecuting isn't a conflict in the traditional sense, we've learned enough from the past two hearings that there was no attempt to wall off Chad Grunander and limit the impact of his anxiety and distress on the prosecution and their choice to seek death.
If Erika really wishes for the trial to proceed more quickly, she and her lawyers must know that a death penalty case will always drag on for years and years, even after sentencing. With these motions, plus recent news about Utah County requesting $2 million from the state legislature to fund Tyler's legal proceedings, I'm wondering if seeking the death penalty is no longer as desirable to her and the prosecution.
Ok so that was a long hearing. Don't have the time to write a full summary yet, but here are the important things:
Tyler's family was present again: his mom, dad, youngest brother L, maternal aunt, and maternal grandma. They arrived at the courthouse with Kathy Nester (Tyler’s lawyer). His other brother A, who attended the last hearing, wasn't there. According to Fox News and Deseret News, Nester walked up to them during recess to chat and gave one of them a chocolate bar. They appeared “visibly upset” when Graf announced the ban on filming Tyler for the rest of the hearing. The camera showed the family many times so I wonder if there's no longer an order banning photography of them?
Before the hearing began, Judge Graf made it clear that any further violations of the standing decorum order like last time (filming Tyler's shackles and the defense's materials) would be met with serious consequences, including disqualification of the TV station, a fine, or even incarceration.
Unexpectedly, defense asked for the hearing on their motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office (see my post for background info) to be referred to the Attorney General's Office, as they thought it was unreasonable for the attorney's office to be representing themselves and the prosecution in this conflict. They asked Judge Graf to order the AG's office to step in and represent the prosecution, and for the hearing to be postponed. Graf asked why the defense had failed to submit this request in advance of the hearing. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray (who was in charge of seeking death against Tyler) protested and called this an "ambush" and "another stalling tactic." Graf took a recess to consider the issue and decided that there was not enough ground to support defense's request. The hearing continued.
Prosecution wanted the next section of the hearing (cross-examining witnesses) to be closed, citing the possibility of slipping up and revealing the prosecutor and his daughter's identities. They mentioned possible "death threats" against them, as there have been against other witnesses (I guess they meant Lance, when THEY were the ones who outed her to the whole world in the first place). Defense seemed to agree. Graf declined; the court would have to make its findings anyway and it would be inappropriate to close the hearing just because someone might accidentally say the witnesses' names.
Also unexpectedly, defense asked Graf to ban cameras for the rest of the hearing or ban photography of Tyler at the very least. They said the videographer had excessively zoomed in on Tyler and his attorney's lips, making it possible for lip readers to interpret their conversations. Prosecution agreed. Graf made the videographer promise not to show Tyler at all for the remainder of the hearing.
Richard Novak (defense) cross-examined Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray for a while, but did not have time to wrap up before the court session ended. The questions were mostly about Gray's relationship with the prosecutor (C. G.) and his daughter and his subsequent visit of the UVU campus to gather evidence. Gray seemed unsure about many of his answers and claimed that he did not know the prosecutor that well, also contradicting portions of the response he wrote for the prosecution.
The defense originally intended to cross-examine the prosecutor, his daughter, a sergeant, and potentially others, but did not have the time to do so. Cross-examination will continue at the next hearing, on Feb 3rd. It seems likely that the preliminary hearing originally set for May will be delayed; the Feb 3rd hearing was intended to be for the defense's other two motions that have yet to be filed (expanding the publicity order and banning cameras).
