Court Proceeding — Charlie Kirk's Alleged Killer Seeks To Disqualify Prosecutors From Case

Document text

Court Proceeding — Charlie Kirk's Alleged Killer Seeks To Disqualify Prosecutors From Case
Court proceeding — State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson (Case 251403576, 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Utah County). Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track of the Court TV feed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbXryfa8cn4) — verbatim ASR, not a certified court transcript.

Welcome back to CourtTV Live. I'm Michael Ayala. We're going to begin this hour in Utah where the man accused in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is back in court today for a motions hearing. 22-year-old Tyler Robinson is accused of murdering the conservative activist during a rally held at Utah Valley University last year. Today's hearing is focusing on Robinson's defense attorney's efforts to disqualify prosecutors in the case over an alleged personal connection with one of the witnesses or one of the people who was there. They're also arguing that the rush to seek the death penalty against Robinson is evidence of what they call a strong emotional reaction by the prosecution and merits the disqualification of the entire team. Before we take you inside that courtroom, CourtTV's own Matt Johnson has some more background on the case against Tyler Robinson. >> 911. What's the address? >> There's been a shooting at UDU. Charlie Kirk event. >> The crook speaker at UVU just got shot on the head. >> September 10th, 2025. Conservative political activist Charlie Kirk works the crowd at Utah Valley University in Oram, Utah. About 3,000 people are gathered in an outdoor plaza when a single shot rings out. >> Do you know how many massacre there have been in America over the last 10 years The 31-year-old married father of two was an executive director of Turning Point USA, a grassroots organization he founded when he was 18 to rally young voters around conservative causes. My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country, [snorts] Turning Point USA, fighting for the future of our republic. Kirk's assassination shocked the country and launched an intense manhunt for the shooter. >> The shot came from here on campus from a location potentially from a roof. Yes. A longer distance shot from a roof. >> The police presence in and around the university and surrounding neighborhoods was overwhelming as hundreds of officers searched for clues. >> It's disturbing because you don't know if [music] the person is still around. And this is a quiet neighborhood. It's a very quiet, very nice neighborhood. >> The next morning, investigators released surveillance photos of a male suspect on campus. They also released video of a suspect fleeing the scene, and they announced a rifle was found in a wooded area near the university. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We got him. 33 hours after Kirk's death and more than 200 miles away from the scene, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson turned himself into authorities. >> Tyler knew knew it was inevitable uh that he would be caught. He was fearful of a SWAT team hit on his house or he was fearful of being shot by law enforcement. >> Neighbors described Robinson as a good student who attended one semester at Utah State University before enrolling in a technical college to be an electrician. Why would he do that? I mean, what what was he thinking? Because he's smart and he's cute and he's, you know, he's part of our neighborhood. You know, I saw him grow up. He I would have never have thought that. >> Prosecutors said DNA evidence found on the rifle linked Robinson to the shooting. They also detailed texts and messages that Robinson exchanged with his roommate, allegedly admitting that he killed Kirk. Could you state your name? >> Tyler James Robinson. >> Robinson made his first court appearance in a suicide vest and pleaded not guilty. He faces multiple [music] charges including aggravated murder, obstruction, and tampering with a witness. If Robinson [music] is convicted, prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty. >> All right. So, as you heard, he is facing aggravated murder charges as well as obstruction of justice. witness tampering and commission of a violent offense in the presence of children based on political expression. All of those again, as you heard from Matt Johnson there, uh has caused the state to seek the death penalty if in fact he is convicted. Want to quickly frame the issues for today. Prosecutors are seeking to disqualify the prosecutors based on a conflict of interest. Now, let me tell you about that conflict. an 18-year-old child of one of the prosecutors was at the event where Kirk was shot. And here's one of the things that they're claiming creates an issue during that event. He was texting to his father, who is the prosecutor, about what was going on in that event. Now, that child has not been named. Uh the name is redacted in all of what's going on all of the papers involved in motions in this case, but we do know it is the child of one of the prosecutors. So what the defense is saying is that it raises serious concerns about past and future decisionmaking in the case. One of those being the automatic rush to judgment of seeking the death penalty before there was a lot of investigation. And as you heard from Matt Johnson in that piece, there seems to be a lot of evidence against Tyler Robinson. But of course, he hasn't had his day in court and he has not been formally charged yet or actually he's been formally charged but hasn't formally answered those charges. hasn't said or pled not guilty as of this point. They're still waiting to have a preliminary hearing in the case which is going to happen in a couple of months. What I want to do right now to sort of frame again continue to frame the issues is play some sound from the dispatch audio of that day and some of what was going on because that can give you a sense of the type of texts that were going on between the son and the father. This is what he's getting from his son who's at the scene. And again, he's at the scene. There's shooting going on and I'm sure he's afraid for the the life of his son. Let's take a listen. >> By the f of one individual that was shot unknown where the shooter went and let's be advised UVU in Oram has had an active shooter at the Charlie Kirk event. We're getting several calls. We're trying to get more information. Gunshots heard near the library at UVU. They're trying to lock the library down now. still gathering >> maybe the CF building or just east of the library. He's wearing jeans, black shirt, black mask, long rifle is on top of the building on the far north side just east of the library wearing jeans, black shirt, black vest >> to UVU. There was one shot. Uh we are staging at the front of the school by the roundabout. We do have officers following the victim to this hospital. Copy. How many injured do we have? >> Just one person. >> All right. So, all that's going on. The son is texting his father. They're claiming, of course, the defense that that creates a conflict of interest. The state is saying that there's no risk because the relationship between the two doesn't really render that to be a problem. He was the the child in this case is not a material victim. And again, they say material victim, still a victim because he was there, but not a material victim, nor is he a material witness in the case. So, they should not remove the prosecutor's office. The judge will ultimately have to decide. He'll arguments from both sides on this issue when we take you there. We're still again looking at the courtroom waiting to find out um what's going on. Um, okay. So, let's what I also want to do is in the previous hearing that happened, this is the third hearing in the case. The the defense sort of outlined this idea of the problem of this conflict of interest and they began to mention it to the judge who then put it over for today. Let's take a listen to some of that argument back when the previous hearing. We believe that most likely what we would anticipate doing is on January 16th arguing [snorts] our um motion to disqualify the county attorney's office which was just filed. That should give them enough time to respond to that. >> Your honor, um I do anticipate going through and seeing what we can redact and working with the state on that as well and with media counsel. So, >> all right. and we agree that filing a redacted version uh is a good way to go. We can work together on that. As far as the January 16th hearing, the state will do everything it can to respond to these motions as timely as we can. >> All right. So, today's hearing has gotten underway in Utah. I want to take >> Before we turn to the defense's motion, the court would like to address address four preliminary matters. First, in regards to the transcript from the December 11th hearing, council, I would appreciate your input regarding the transcript from the December hearing. The transcript has been designated as private and copies have been are available to the parties. Consistent with the court's prior handling of the October 24th transcript, the court intends to release a redacted version of that hear that transcript. Uh, but I want to get your input uh >> Judge, we we intended to do that as well. Um, we we haven't stipulated we haven't come together to stipulate on a version of that transcript that should be redacted. We certainly can do that and we're happy to do that. >> Thank you, Mr. McBride. We will meet and confer with u Mr. McBride and his colleagues on that. >> All right. How much time is needed by >> Two weeks. >> That's fine. Couple weeks. >> All right. A couple of weeks and then we can address that. Uh, next I want to turn to um address media coverage and place on the record the potential consequences of any willful violation of the court's December 23rd, 2025 standing decorum order. Under Utah Code section 78B-6-310, if the court finds a person guilty of contempt, the court may impose a fine of up to $1,000, order incarceration in the county jail for up to 30 days or both. Any alleged violation will be carefully evaluated and the court will impose only those sanctions which are appropriate and proportional under circumstance under the circumstances. The court will make specific findings on the record before imposing any sanction. In addition, the court may impose the following remedial measures if warranted. First, immediate suspension of video transmission of the >> All right, we're going to take this opportunity. Take a quick break. Keep stay here on Court TV, your front row seat to justice. [music] >> Tragic murder of Keith Cano and his entire family. This one is the most brutal case that I've seen in my experience here. >> The mansion murders trial. Live coverage today on Court TV. >> Tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at 8:7 central, only on Court TV. All right, folks. I want to take you back to Utah where we've been following today's motions hearing for Tyler Robinson. The 22-year-old is charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September of last year on the Utah Valley University campus. Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. And I want to head back into that courtroom now for >> My intention to cause you any embarrassment or discomfort. I simply want to ensure that the guidelines for today's proceedings are clear. Uh Mr. Yielberg, during today's hearing, what is your primary role? >> To provide video coverage of the proceedings for the public. >> All right. Have you read the December 23rd, 2025 standing decorum order? >> Yes, sir. >> Do you understand the guidelines as they relate to your responsibilities today? >> I do. >> Do you need any additional time to review the December 23rd, 2025 standing decorum order or any time to reposition the camera to ensure full compliance with those guidelines? >> Do I need more time? I'm sorry. Was that the question? Do you do you need more time to review the decorum order? And I'll I'll pause there because that was a compound question. Sorry about that. >> No, I I am I am I've read it. I fully understand it. I'm good to go. >> All right. To the second part. Do you need any additional time to reposition the camera to ensure full compliance with those guidelines? >> No, I think we're in a good position now. >> All right. Mr. Yelberg, do you anticipate any difficulties complying with the December 23rd, 2025 standing to quorum order? >> I do not anticipate any problems. All right. And is there anything that the court can clarify to assist you? >> Uh, no. I think we're good to go, sir. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Uberg. Uh, before I let you go, I'll turn to council uh based off the questions asked to turn to you if you have any input or questions. >> Nothing from the state. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, your honor. >> All right. >> All right. [clears throat] And um the court, >> I appreciate your cooperation and it's my hope that we all do our very best today together. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. And and finally, before we turn to the the issue, the motion before the court to the state, could you please provide a brief update on the status of discovery disclosure? Um, yes, your honor. We don't I don't have the percentage of materials that we have that have been disclosed, but I think we're above 90% at this point. Um, there still is discovery coming in. There are reports and so forth coming in from uh various entities. Um, so I think we're moving expeditiously towards uh completing at least this initial uh batch of discovery. Of course, discovery will be ongoing probably for the duration of the proceeding. Uh, but we have provided um nearly all of what we have today. >> All right. And to defense, any input? >> Not at this time, your honor. >> Thank you, Miss Nester. All right. Thank you councel for your patience as a court covered those uh preliminary issues. Let's turn to the defense's motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office. Miss Ne or sorry, Mr. Novak. >> That's fine, your honor. That's okay. We actually have some preliminary um things we want to discuss with respect to the posture of this motion. And I also think at some point the court needs to decide the hearing on this motion remains open and becomes closed. So I'm going to absolutely >> keep bear that in mind in terms of my and when I say we, I mean Mr. Robinson's council. Um, we fully expected that what the Utah County attorneys would do is [clears throat] refer the motion to the attorney general's office so that the Utah County attorneys are not in the position of representing their own interests as potentially conflicted attorneys and a potentially conflicted office and representing the state's interest in the prosecution. Um, we heard informally from the state's attorneys that they were preparing a response and when it would be provided and then what we received, and again I'm bearing in mind that we're in a open hearing at the moment, was a brief where I'm going to say the unsworn representations of two attorneys from that office are basically integrated into points and authority. ities. We don't have affidavit from Mr. Gray or from the the other attorney. We have argument. Um, we noted in our reply that we were surprised, um, that's in footnote two at page four, were representing themselves in connection with a motion alleging that they have a conflict of interest and that the state was not being represented through the attorney general's office. Um, we did some further research on this and and you know, we have some some case law that we can provide the court. I suspect that the court is very familiar with the fact just from its own experience that in appropriate circumstances the attorney general's office can either one represent the state in what was a county prosecution with respect to a disqualification motion so that the boundaries are clear or if uh there's an ultimate finding or conclusion that there's a conflict of just take over the prosecution or assign it to another county. So, um we're we're very concerned that we're getting off on the wrong foot, if I can use that metaphor, because officers of the court who are both representing their own interests in continuing to be the prosecutors in this case. and representing the state in a situation where there should be what I would call at least temporarily conflict council. I'm not sure that's the term the attorney general uses um representing uh the state's interests. Um there's a Supreme Court decision which is called State V Jimenez J I M Z which I can provide citation for. Um, there are subsequent cases, but it's pretty clear that this is the type of a case. I'm not saying that Jimenez compels that action, but it seems to me to strongly suggest that where there is a showing. Uh, I'm not I'm not sure what the what the threshold showing is. I I don't want to say it's a primmaaccia showing or a reasonable concern, but where there's a a showing that there very well may be a conflict of interest um that hasn't been handled by a particular state attorney's county attorney's office that um what's in the the interest of of the litigation of the public of the parties is for the attorney general to um to step in and the the citation for state vimemenzes if I may um is 588 P2707. Of course I can provide the court with this court actually has the authority to direct the attorney general to step in, not for the entire case at this stage. That's not what we're saying is necessary because that requires a finding of a conflict of interest, but to step in or to designate somebody to step in for the purposes of litigating um that motion. >> Okay. Um, and so we're very concerned that even going forward with an evidentiary hearing where members of the Utah County Attorney's Office are both litigating as representatives of the state in a prosecution and essentially defending their own um propriety of proceeding in this prosecution um is is problematic. Quickly, I want to mention something the judge talked about with the cameraman. You heard him have a conversation with him talking about was he aware of some of the uh precautions from a a previous ruling. And I just want to remind folks that what he did back in October of last year was allow this defendant to wear regular clothes at all pre-trial hearings. He will be physically restrained, but we cannot show those restraints. And we have to make sure anytime we show him, you cannot see those restraints. So that's what he was referring to. Let me bring in my guest. Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Silva Megodichi and Silva, great to see you. Thank you so much for jumping in here on the show. Um, want to quickly talk about what we're hearing about right now. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is regarding a conflict of interest. The defense is saying the state has a conflict of interest. Seems like what they're arguing now is the state who has chosen to represent themselves at this particular hearing. They're saying that according to precedent, according to law in the state, they don't have the right to represent themselves. state attorney should be represent them representing them at this hearing. Let's get your thoughts. >> Well, Michael, it's incredible, isn't it? First of all, happy Friday and thank you, my friend, my brilliant friend, for always having me on. Look, it's got to be something major for Michael. We don't know exactly what the conflict of interest is right now. But the fact that the defense attorney doesn't even want to argue any evidentiary issues, he wants everything to pause so that the judge can consider the conflict of interest. And again, you want to make sure this is such a high-profile trial. You want to make sure that everything is absolutely proper because again, you're absolutely going to have a an appeal no matter what. So, if there is a major conflict, it can toss out whatever rulings, whatever verdicts, whatever anything happens. So, it's actually incredibly the right thing to do for defense attorneys to iron this out now. and it will be up to the judge to decide whether the conflict of interest is so large that again you're going to have a whole set a new set of prosecutors outside of this prosecutorial office. So the defense is doing the right thing especially and it seems like they ethically and professionally believe there's a legitimate conflict here. >> All right, they'll be getting into that shortly. Silva, stand by. What do I do now? Take a quick break. We'll have more of that uh hearing going on out [music] there in Utah for Tyler Robinson and that whole conflict of interest issue. So keep it here on Court TV, your front [music] Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala and we are in Utah this afternoon for a hearing for the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Robinson's lawyers are seeking to have the Utah County's attorney's office disqualified. They say there's a conflict of interest because the adult child of one of the offic's attorneys was at the event where Kirk was killed and was texting during the time of the event with the actual uh DA who be on the case or prosecutor who will be on the case. Let's go back to that hearing now. The defense is again making their argument to the judge as we speak. As far as being prepared, we're of course prepared to go forward with an evidentiary hearing, but we think that it's improvident and we think that what the court should do if the Utah County attorneys um have not or don't if given the opportunity do this on their own is that the court should designate the attorney general's office for the purpose of litigating this motion. Um, the court might ask hypothetically the question, has the Utah County Attorney's Office conferred with the attorney general about this particular question? Um, and we are not in the dark because as Miss Ms. Nester will tell the court as an officer of the court, she's spoken with the attorney general's office and they have not been consulted about this. Okay. So, this is a motion to disqualify county attorney's office based on what we believe is a material significant conflict of interest that it's clear they haven't even tried to address by way of a screening, which of course is a term of art, because their position is no screening was necessary. We're not even here to discuss whether the way in which a particular attorney was screened off was adequate. Their position as their own advocates is we've already decided no screening is necessary. So what we've been told by the attorney general's office, Miss Netor can represent to the court exactly what she was told, but basically that there has not been consultation. And while that is Mr. Gray's prerogative. We think it's wrong and we think that this court needs to exercise its authority to intervene and say in this case for this kind of emotion, the court needs to hear from a representative of the state who does not even appear to have a conflict of interest. So, um, that's our preliminary statement about these issues. And again, I I I hope I've avoided saying anything that should have been said in a closed hearing. I think I was pretty good about that. Um, so that's where we are. um before we even get into the litigation of it. And I don't want to be formalistic and I'm certainly not trying to be confrontational, but I think actually what the court what we think the court should do is the court should strike the Utah County Attorney's response to our motion and direct the attorney general to take up the responsibility for responding to our motion in whichever way. clearly non-conlicted attorneys representing the state think they should how it should be responded to and if I've muddled I always say this to your honor if I've muddled anything or confused anything please say so and I'll and I'll try to clarify. >> Thank you. I do have some questions for you as it relates to this. I I wish to consider uh all the authority that you wish to cite to I mean obviously you came into this hearing knowing that this is something you're going to present uh and this court wants to be uh efficient with time but thorough >> and not jumping to conclusions. Can you give me all the authority that you wish for me to consider in considering your your request today? >> Yes. And I think what we could also do which maybe would be more helpful to the court is that we could um file a short brief on this particular issue. Because I will acknowledge that while we were surprised that the brief was filed by the same lawyers who um are alleged to have this conflict of interest. Um it took us a little bit of time to and we wanted to get that filed in time for today's hearing because the court had set the hearing. It took us a little bit of time to think through these issues. So there are Utah authorities. There are authorities from other jurisdictions. There are also ABA guidelines on the prosecutotorial function which we think strongly suggest that there should have been what I'll just call a referral to the attorney general's office for this particular motion. I can stand here and I can give the court case names and numbers and sections from the ABA standards but it was not our goal to of course put the court on the spot and require the court to you know like go back into chambers think about it for you know some pressured period of time and come back out and make a decision. So if it would benefit the court for us to file something and I don't mean in a month, I mean very soon uh so that the court has thoughtfully presented points and authorities. Um we're happy we're happy to do that. Um as far as I know, the only people who've traveled out of town for this hearing are Mr. Bur and myself. So I'm thinking about the convenience of witnesses and the court and council. Um it's important that we that we do this in a way where the court has the opportunity to um make a thoughtful reason decision as your honor always says. So that's that would be our proposal is that if um the court is open to receiving authorities that we um recess this hearing for you know whatever whatever meets the court's schedule whether it's a week or two weeks or a few days and we can provide the court with something and we'll we'll come back. But but we we do think this is a serious issue because I think the question of who litigates this issue on behalf of the state is in itself wrapped up in this conflict and we want everybody to get this right. Thank you. >> My question for you is knowing this, why didn't you file a motion prior to today's hearing, knowing that this the court would be in this position based off your request to prepare the court, prepare opposing parties, and to be efficient in our use of time. I'm trying to understand I I understand what you're saying and I understand that things evolve, but I I'm trying to understand why that wasn't filed in advance of the hearing to put the court on notice at the very minimum. and just to allow the court to do what the court does. >> I hear what the court's saying and I think we can take responsibility for not sufficiently presenting the authorities that we think compelled what I've just suggested should happen. We noted in our reply brief that the county attorney should not be representing themselves and that's probably an inadequate message to the court. But we did file a motion to disqualify and inherent in a motion to disqualify based on the conflict of interest. We we anticipated would be that the state attorneys would seek representation from a clearly non-conlicted appropriate prosecutorial authority which as I've done further research and Mr. Bird and Miss Visser and Miss Nester and I have all done further research literally up until um earlier this morning. We think it's pretty clear um that this court has the authority to make that I'm going to call it a referral. I think it's an order referring it to the attorney general um if the state if the Utah County attorneys choose not to do so. And the additional information which we did receive today, I'll just tell you that was that there had not been um any communication between the county attorneys and the attorney general's office concerning this issue. Um so I'll fall on my sword. >> All right. So, the judge not happy with the defense there saying, "Hey, why don't you give us a little bit of a heads up that you were going to kind of shift the issues today from the actual conflict of interest to who should be representing the state in the conflict of interest." All right, we'll take a break here. We'll come uh continue with this hearing. When we come back for Tyler [music] Robinson, keep it here on [music] Tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. >> Closing arguments tonight at 8:7 central, only on Court TV. >> Did an affair with the family's Opair lead to double murder? >> I'm going to kill her. I'm going to kill her. >> It's a case of sex, lies, and deadly deception. The Offair Affair murder trial continues Tuesday morning on Court TV. We're heading back to what could be a consequential hearing in the assassination of Charlie Kirk case in Utah. Tyler Robinson's attorneys are asking the judge to disqualify the prosecutors from the case. They say there's a conflict of interest because the adult child of one of the attorneys in the office was present at the incident. Let's go back into court now >> So, I'll fall on my sword if the court thinks I should be sanctioned for not bringing this up sooner. I I hear the I hear the court. But we are um um we're juggling many aspects of this case all at the same time. Some of which the court is aware of, >> some of the which the court um uh probably is not aware of, but the court can imagine. >> No, and I appreciate that. It's not the intent to sanction you. I understand that um issues come up and there's a lot going on and so it the court appreciates your cander and representation today. Uh so these these items can evolve and so the court is not finding fault with you. I was just hoping that as as as it requires a lot of time and resources for you and for fellow attorneys and and for the opposing party and and for other parties, we just might want to make sure we use make the best use of our time when we're together. Um I hear everything the court is saying. I take it to heart. I understand um what the court's saying and we are cognizant of the time that the court devotes to preparation for these hearings. Um [clears throat] and uh so that's that's all I can really say. That's right. And and and and also for Mr. Robinson himself and the victim of representative uh Miss Kirk as well. We we just want to um do our best and I understand and I'm not finding fault with you, sir, or or your team. I just we've all been in court. We all know what happened. So, I understand. I I'll turn to the state. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anything further that you wish to >> No, like I could provide the court with more citations, but I'm just wondering if that's really the best way to give the court a list of verbal citations. I think with all consideration for um and we probably have Yeah. with all consideration for um the fact that the court wants to be thorough and careful um and we do as well. um we don't want to shoot from the hip, but I I I think that we just decided that this was something that we needed to bring to the court's attention in a much more wholesome way. Um once we understood um not only the way this was um developing but you know frankly the way um the Utah Supreme Court, the ABA guidelines um courts of appeals subsequent to state vimenez um and you know the information that we received today from the attorney general's office which isn't a secret. It's just we had a conversation and we learned that there hadn't been any consultation. If there had been consultation and the attorney general had said, "No, we're think we think you're good to go." Then that would be different and that's what we learned this morning. >> All right. Well, I'll go ahead and take those authorities right now. If you'd like to list them, Court is ready. >> So, the second one would be State V. Robertson and that is also Utah case 886 PC 85. There's the ABA prosecution standards. I would refer the court to section 3.1.7 and 3.2.5. Um, and those are, I think, the places to start. >> Is there any Utah rule on point that addresses this issue? >> So, the case of state vimenez, which I referred to, which is the Supreme Court, does actually site a statute. >> Okay. Okay. anything further that you wish for this court to consider at this point in the proceeding as it relates to this issue? >> No. And depending upon the statements of council, we may we may have some response if a court permits it. >> Of course. Thank you. Turning to the >> your honor, I'm not sure why this is coming before us today. um if it was such a surprise to them uh more than a week ago, I don't know why they wouldn't at least notify the court. Um I too represent the state. I'm an elected official constitutionally elected to represent the state. Um where does this end? Um I don't know these cases. I I'm very interested to see whether or not um they refer to trials. I know that the attorney uh the Utah attorney general's office um they've done the same thing that we have in rule 11 motions where one council um on the team crossexam or examines uh their boss in fact on the matter. Um, so I just think this is ambush and another stalling tactic to delay these proceedings. There's no reason that they could not have at least filed the motion and asked for uh asked And where does it end? Do we get to respond to their motion to have the attorney general's office respond or or does the attorney general's office have to respond to that one, too? Um, I I'm not Well, anyway, I I've I've stated my um it should have been done far earlier if if that was their ca if that was their claim. And I'm if I could just turn the time over to Ryan in case he has something else. >> Thank you, Mr. Gray. >> Ryan, >> and excuse me. I you know, this is uh we're tag teaming this somewhat because it's a surprise uh to us as it is to the court, but um in the in the 5 minutes I've had to read Reed Robertson and Jimenez, um which could have been provided to me before this hearing, it looks like those cases don't stand for conflict of interest cases. there actually does the attorney general's office have have the authority to prosecute cases that occur within a um prosecution district or county attorney's jurisdiction and the answer is yes. It's not about taking conflicts from the the few minutes I've had to uh this is of course the first time this has been raised to us. Um the defense has known that we were going to respond to this motion for some time. We requested an extension for our filing deadline back in December. The defense agreed to that extension. Um our reply was filed January 5th. Um the defendant's reply was filed thereafter. Um and in that reply, the the tone of that reply is um mentioned that they thought that perhaps a special prosecutor would be appointed to handle the conflict case. But in the alternative says we'll be able to we we want to subpoena uh witnesses to establish the facts that are laid out in the state's opposition motion. >> All right, let me bring in uh criminal defense attorney Silva Marijian who's been joining us this hour and listening in. Silva, you know, little bit of fireworks in the courtroom. Judge talking about the fact that look, you could have let us know judges do not like when you waste the court's time. Um, you heard the uh state attorney get up and say, "Look, this is an ambush." I want to get your thoughts. Was this an ambush? And if it was, what type of ambush by the defense? >> You know, Michael, it's so hard as defense attorneys. You know, I've been a defense attorney now for 18 years. I was a public defender. Now I'm private. This is one of the most high-profile cases that we have in the United States. These defense attorneys, I don't think this was a p purposeful ambush. We all know every single day as defense attorneys, this is not the only case we handle. We do have a team, but lastm minute things come up where we don't have time and we do the best that we can. Do I think it's purposeful? I don't. But the prosecutors, they have the right to make that argument. You know, maybe right before the motion hearing, what I would have done is turned over my authorities to the prosecution and given them the heads up. I think that that's just personal and professional courtesy to say, "Look, I'm going to bring this up to the judge. I didn't have time to give it to you before or email it to you last night, but out of professional courtesy, this is what I'm doing." There's a decorum. You know, it's funny. I always say this in the criminal world, you would be astonished, and I know you know this, Michael, how civil that criminal attorneys can be, both prosecutors and defense attorneys. We have coffee together, we have drinks together, we go out together. There's a lot of friendship and just ethical friendliness that happens that sometimes you don't even see in civil court. So, you know, the defense, I think, is doing the best they can with the time they have and the resources they have. But again, if I was a prosecutor, I would make the same arguments because you can tell, Michael, they're in shock. Like, they don't even know how to really argue it. So, I can understand. But the judge has a very interesting aspect that he has to answer. Is it going to undermine Will this conflict undermine public confidence in a fair trial? That's what this comes down to. >> Yeah, that's what it comes down to for sure. Uh we'll see what arguments we're able to get to today. Not sure what we will. Silva, thank you so much for joining me this hour as always. Great to see you folks. Stick around. Judge Ashley Wilcott will [music] be joining me next for more of that motion hearing for Tyler Robinson. So stay with us. We'll be right back after this short >> [music] >> Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Ashley Wilcott. >> And I'm Michael Ayala. And we're both here today giving you your front row seat to justice. And we are in Utah this afternoon where the man accused in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is back in court today for a motions hearing. It's 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and he is accused of murdering the conservative activist during a rally held at Utah Valley University last year. >> Now, today's hearing focuses in on or was supposed to focus in on Robinson's defense attorney's efforts to disqualify prosecutors in this case over an alleged personal connection with one of the witnesses or one of the folks who experienced what happened that day to Charlie Kerr. >> It's gotten a little fiery. They're upset notice wasn't given prior to the hearing today of the arguments. Let's go back into court now where the state is responding to the defense's motion. >> And that was what we understood was going to happen today. Uh you have a family member of a prosecutor who has been subpoenaed. Um an affidavit has been supplied to the court. We believe that affidavit is adequate, but uh it wasn't adequate from the defense perspective. So they subpoenaed that person. Um prosecutors have been subpoenaed for today's hearing. We have two investigators that have been subpoenaed for today's hearing. Um, and we are ready to go, your honor. Um, I think that the motion or that the request the defense has made assumes that a conflict does exist and that um and that there's uh an inability of the uh party who has been accused of a conflict to defend themselves. And I just don't think that that's true. If there is a conflict, which is the question that this court is to decide, the case will be referred. Until that conflict has been established, the case is properly in the jurisdiction that in the in the jurisdiction that has statutory authority over that offense. And until that conflict has been established, um the Utah County Attorney's Office has this case and can defend its involvement in this case. But I got just a moment to review my notes and see if there's other points we want to make on this. Um there is one other point I wanted to make which is the the idea that the case would be referred that alleging a conflict would cause a special prosecutor to be appointed. um that really assumes that there is a that there is a conflict and until that conflict has been has been established there is no duty for the case to be uh referred to another jurisdiction or another special prosecutor to handle and it raises um some of the issues that have been brought up in some of the case law um regarding uh creating or [clears throat] alleging conflicts. Um there's a lot of case law that talks about um how it can be a tactic to uh try and remove cases from one of one prosecutor's authority to find a more lenient prosecutor, find a more favorable prosecuting authority that's not going to seek, for example, in this case the death penalty. Um and there's a lot of case law that talks about you can't call opposing counsel as a witness in a case um unless they're absolutely necessary. And the reason is because it can be a a forum shopping effort. And we're concerned with that same kind of um motivation or tactic that could be uh used in this case or other cases like it. Anytime you as opposing counsel, you don't like the offer you're getting, the way the the prosecution is being handled. you allege a conflict of interest and all of a sudden the county attorney's office has to spend $10,000 to hire a special prosecutor just to handle that one issue regardless of whether or not it's um supported or whether or not a conflict exists. That's a concern we have. We're ready to go forward today. We think the evidence that will be presented today will um uh illuminate the issues adequate that your honor can make a decision about whether or not a conflict exists. And we don't need to delay this proceeding any further. Um, we're confident uh the court will uh see the facts as they are and be able to make that determination. >> Mr. McBride, so the motion has been made by defense to continue this hearing to allow the filing of a a motion addressing more fully this issue. And to that request, what is the state's reply? >> We object to that to that um motion um to continue or to strike. Uh we asked the court to go forward today. Um we think the motion is untimely. Um the court has or the prosecution has subpoenaed witnesses and uh every delay that happens, the witnesses that we have, we have now family members of the prosecution being subpoenaed um these people are ready to move forward and get this out of the way. Longer we delay this, the more anxiety uh that this uh procedure has. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. McBride. uh to defense. Any response? >> Um first I want to say this is not about >> This is not about tactics at all. And >> Michael, I was watching your coverage of this hearing and now as I get into the arguments being made. Wow. And I think the prosecution was smart to say, "Listen, it's exactly what you said. There's no conflict at this point. In our opinion, court, you decide. And if there is one, then the special prosecutor gets hired." >> Yeah. Because I thought the state's argument made sense that if at any time a defense attorney decides he doesn't like the prosecutor, he doesn't like the offic he's being given and he alleges a conflict of some sort, then you got to bring in, which costs money, as you heard, $10,000, bring in these other attorneys to argue that the the the system would grind to a halt. >> And and attorneys would do it all the time that they could to try to make it grind to a halt. Is it a delay tactic or not? That's something else the judge is going to have to decide. Yeah, that's really he's going to argue that now it's not. So, let's go back in and listen to what the defense attorney has to say The Utah County Attorney's Office informed us in late October that that we needed to know about this and we informed them, fine, that's your position. It's not a conflict of interest. We think it is and we intend to litigate it. So, it's not a tactic. It's not something that we've made up out of old cloth because, like I said, we found a a needle in a haststack. It's something that they properly brought to our attention, but we firmly believe that the law supports the conclusion that that particular prosecutor should have been screened off. There's good case law screening, which we did fully cite in our briefs in a tightly way. And there was no effort to screen off that prosecutor. And that has now created a problem for the whole office. That is not made up out of whole cloth. And like I said, it's not about tactics or lenience or delay. This isn't delaying anything, at least on our part. The other thing that I want to point out is to say that until this court decides there's a conflict of interest, um, somebody else shouldn't be handling this issue is circular because by that point in time, you've already the court would have already allowed the conflicted attorneys to represent the state in a hearing on their potential conflict. So I actually think the way that you avoid that circular argument and the um sort of harm that arises if the court were to find that there is a conflict um is to um at least temporarily have the attorney general's office handle this. Um yes, Mr. Gray is an elected official, but that doesn't mean that his office doesn't have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interests arise. A judicial officer decides to become a prosecutor. A prosecutor decides to become a judicial officer. That's actually where most of the case law comes from. As your notes, a defense attorney changes careers and becomes a prosecutor. There has to be a screening. The case law is very clear that the screening has to be adequate. There's been no screening here because Mr. Gray decided we don't think there's a conflict of interest. And what we're saying is it's not a needle in the hay stack. It's not a tactic. It's not a fiction. It's not a, you know, a a a thin read. Um the evidence that the court has uh suggests number one that there's a very good possibility that as a legal matter there's a conflict of interest. That's why we need to have an evidentary hearing because the court doesn't have all the facts. and number two that the Utah County Attorney's Office because they decided early on without consulting with anybody that they didn't have a conflict of interest didn't put any screening mechanisms in place. And so I understand that um they want to defend the decisions that they've made, but the question is shouldn't the state be represented by somebody else in the course of this court resolving whether the those decisions were right? Because to quote the law and to quote the ethics, the Utah County Attorney's Office is now serving two masters. I don't like that word, but that's the word in the in the doctrine. They're representing themselves and they're representing the state. >> All right. Again, there you hear from the defense. No, judge. This is not a delay tactic and this court's going to have to decide how to proceed today. We're going to have more of this motion hearing. You don't want to miss this >> tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. >> Closing arguments [music] tonight at 8:7 central, only on Court TV. >> Did an affair with the family's Opair lead to double murder? >> I'm going to look at her. I'm going to kill her. >> It's a case of sex, lies, and deadly deception. >> The Opair Affair murder trial continues [music] >> [music] >> Let's turn now back to Utah where we have been following some exciting motions hearing for Tyler Robinson. >> The 22-year-old is charged with killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk back in September of last year at the on the Utah Valley campus. Now, prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted of this crime. We want to go back into court together now. Right now, the defense is responding to the state's objections to those motions >> And that's why the attorney general or somebody else designated by the attorney general should be representing them um in this matter. And I do want to say one more thing if I may, your honor, and I prelocate the court's patience. I think that the way we raise this issue in our reply brief is not as um accommodating to just letting it go as council suggests. is we asked the question is whether it is even appropriate for the UCO to litigate this issue on its own behalf. While the UCO may have provided this court with the information that it has deemed relevant to this issue, the scope of the disclosures and litigation of this motion should have been assigned to another state agency such as the attorney general. We didn't suggest that this court should appoint a special prosecutor for all purposes um or that um the filing of this motion means that the Utah County Attorney's Office is automatically disqualified from the litigation. That's the point of the motion is whether they had a conflict of interest and if they did whether they handled it. And it's our position correctly. And it's our position that the answer is yes and no. So I understand there are witnesses here. People are ready to go. Um we think that um the court should either accept briefing or agree with us that the referral is appropriate. And I want to cite if I may the citation by the Supreme Court in Jimenez. So this is 588 P2. It's 707, but this is at 708. This is the statute quoted by the Supreme Court. If at any time after investigation by and a finding and a recommendation from the district judge involved that the county attorney in any county is unable to satisfactorily and adequately perform his duties in prosecuting a criminal case without additional legal assistance, the attorney general shall provide such assistance. That's very broad. What that means in this case is it's inappropriate for the Utah County Attorney's Office to represent itself when it is also representing the state. And that in for this motion, this court has the discretion, we would say, respectfully the obligation to designate the attorney general to represent the state, the people of the state of Utah in this motion. And depending upon how the court rules on the motion, then we have to see what happens next. So, is it your position that the court has discretion to make that decision? >> I think that the court has the discretion to say to the Utah County attorneys, you shouldn't be representing yourself in this case at this stage as to this motion only. Continue to do what you do while this motion is pending and we will resolve this motion. I am not suggesting that they should stop the work that Mr. Mr. McBride talked about about preparing discovery, having their agents interview witnesses. Um, we want to get this motion resolved in a timely way. It is not a stalling tactic. But, um, I'm not saying, let me let me be very careful because I I don't want to misinterpret the court's question. I'm not saying that whatever this court decides is the right decision because the court has discretion. We believe that the law requires that the state that the county attorney's office be represented by somebody else for this motion. What I'm saying is the to compel that when the state attorney and the attorney general haven't done anything about that yet. I'm not saying you that the court I mean I don't know what the what the standard of review on appeal would be. So, I'm not just saying it's it's an abuse of discretion standard. What I'm saying is the legislature gave this court the authority to direct refer to the attorney general representation in a criminal case where there's a showing of a potential conflict of interest. And I, you know, I've been a a criminal litigator although on this side for a long time. So I understand what council's talking about is sometimes defendants come up with um questionable grounds and move to disqualify. And I don't think that that's a finding that the court can make in this case. It was actually, as I said before, the Utah County attorneys who were concerned about this enough that they brought it to our attention. We have profound disagreements about the significance of the conflict and the way it was handled. >> Okay. And otherwise I think I would be repeating myself if I said anything more without answering a direct question. >> All right. I I do I just have a brief question. Do you have your witnesses here today? >> All the witnesses are here. We have no problem as a pragmatic issue going forward. Our witnesses are um the subpoenas that we served which were filed with the court. Okay. So, but so to be clear, I don't think the court is inferring this. We're we're not unable to proceed if that was the court's conclusion. We are prepared and the witnesses are here. I'm just saying we think that it would be improvident and it could result um in errors of law and it could result in problems down the road. >> Thank you. Do you need any additional time in regards to your argument to continue this hearing based off the the citations you've provided the authorities you've provided the court? No, thank you. >> All right. Thank you. What this court intends to do is this is an important issue and I realize the totality of of what's been presented and and my question in regards to your witnesses is it was informatory. I just wanted to see if if depending on what the court rules if if the parties I don't want to disadvantage either party um in in in that. So uh this is an important issue and this court wishes to take a a brief recess. I want to look at what's been provided uh and and make uh see where the court needs to go. It's I I want to inform myself uh take a moment to look at it and as opposed to just making a snap decision uh and and taking into consideration all parties and the constitutional rights of all parties as well. With that, we will be in a brief recess. I I I always hesitate to give a time because sometimes >> let's bring in defense attorney, former head prosecutor Bob Bianke to help us break all this down. This judge is very measured. I appreciate the way he's saying everything. But the defense argument that until the court says it's a conflict, someone else has to come try this matter. The thing that sticks out to me though, Bob, is that hearing wouldn't be about the merits of the case. So why would they have to bring in a different prosecutor? Where do you fall on it? >> I was having a hard time following it to be honest with you. you know, surprised towards the end, at least from what I was hearing, that their argument is is that the prosecution can continue to interview witnesses, continue to investigate the case, continue to do discovery. We're only talking about what it was they did uh prior to this and until this ruling can be made. My argument would be if I were in their scenario, it is a conflict. It's unwaveable. There's an appearance of impropriy. It's an actual conflict. They should cease all actions at this point in time. That's how I would be arguing. It seems like a contradictory message the defense lawyer is sending. >> Yeah, it really didn't make any sense that saying, "Look, we're going we're going to, you know, exclude you from the case, but while we figure it out, you can continue to work on the case." Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. But Bob, do you see this as an ambush by the defense, a tactical thing? They claimed it wasn't, but clearly it looks like they're looking for a little bit more delay. And delays do tend to help the defense in situations like this. >> Delays definitely help the defense. And let's also keep in mind the defense tries to create like what radiation does through X-rays and you keep radiating and radiating and hopefully a cancer will develop. That's what they're hoping. I hate to use that analogy, but that's the one that came to mind. In essence, what they're doing is they're throwing every single legal argument and building a record and hoping that they can make enough of a record with enough judicial decisions that eventually if there's a conviction because in the evidence in the case to me seems rather overwhelming that it can be reversed on appeal. Keep in mind, last point, the criminal defense lawyers that are dealing with death penalty cases, their main mantra is not so much to get the person out from underneath anything other than the death penalty. So, the longer you can keep going and the more issues, the better. >> In a case like this, Bob, of this magnitude, if you were the prosecutor, is there any opportunity that you might say, you know what, judge, we're going to avoid this issue. we're going to have the attorney general or special prosecutor handle this now that this has been raised because we do not want this to be an issue. Would you do that or not at all? >> Great issue. Uh question, judge. Every good prosecutor, and we see this from analyzing uh cases throughout the country, has an obligation to protect the verdict. And we see too many times cases being reversed because prosecutors overreached and did not use that discretion that even though I don't have to, doesn't mean I shouldn't be careful here. So, personally, if I felt this was an issue sufficient enough, and I don't think that this is, I would bring the attorney general in in order to prophylactically protect the record. I just don't see it here because I think that this issue is so specious or not relevant or not legally justifiable, but if I did, I would bring them in to make sure I was protected. >> Yeah, that's an interesting take. I mean, my take would be essentially as a prosecutor. This issue had never come up before and it's in a unique reading of the president according to the state saying that defense is reading this in a unique way. So, it was something that I wouldn't have been aware of or been on my radar. You know, this had to have come up before and they probably handled it in this way without this challenge by the defense. So, I'm not sure, but we'll see. All right. Um, stand by, folks. Right now, court is, as you heard, on a brief recess. We're going to take you back there once they return. So, I want you to stay with us [music] here on Court TV, your front row seat to justice. What we think the court should do is the court should strike the Utah County Attorney's response to our motion and direct the attorney general to take up the responsibility for responding to our motion in whichever way. Clearly non-conlicted attorneys representing the state think they should how it should be responded to. >> Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Michael Ayala here with Judge Ashley Wilcott. That was from today's motions hearing for the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk. >> Lawyers for Tyler Robinson are seeking to have the Utah County's attorney's office disqualified. They say there's a conflict of interest because the adult child of one of the offic's attorneys was actually at the event where Kirk was killed. >> Now, the judge called a brief recess to look over the arguments. And when they return, we're going to take you back inside that courtroom as soon as they get going. And just quickly, um, the judge is basically looking at this issue as to whether it's appropriate for the state to represent themselves in issues of, uh, dealing [clears throat] with conflict of interest >> and for the court to then determine in the court's discretion, is there a conflict or not, right? >> All right, [snorts] we're going to keep you posted on that. In the meantime, we want to switch gears back to Washington State where we're catching you up on key testimony in the cheating fire chief murder trial. Former battalion chief Kevin West is accused of killing his wife Marcy to run away with his mistress. Prosecutors say he strangled Marcy to death in their home while Kevin's defense claims that she died after a seizure triggered by an intense massage. >> And on the stand now, the defendant's sister Amy Davis says she is on direct >> Good afternoon, Miss Davis. >> Good afternoon. and his name is Clint. Um, what is your relationship, if any, to Kevin? >> Um, Kevin is my brother. >> So, you were born um, >> we're two and a half years apart. We grew up very close. >> Um, very close in school. Our friends, we all have the same friends. >> You grew up in Eugene? >> Eugene, Oregon. >> All right. And, uh, now at some point, did you become aware of of Marcy while you were still living in Eugene? >> Yes. Um, it was in 2000, I believe. um when she worked at Peace Health um and um yeah and my brother and my dad at the time shared a house and I met her first at that home >> at your mom and dad's house >> um they lived um no it was a duplex um my brother and my dad briefly um shared um a space there and um I met her at that home. >> Okay. And uh what was your how was your first meeting along with? >> Yeah. Yeah. And uh so now you're you have you stayed in pretty good touch with your family? >> Yes. >> Um and you understand you got married to Marcy at some point? >> Yes. >> Did you go in the wedding? >> I did. I was in Yeah, I was in the wedding. >> Oh, you're in the party? >> I was. >> Okay. Where was the wedding? >> Um it was at um McMinn's. I think it was Forest Grove, but I could be wrong. Okay. >> Um it was one of the Mcmans. It was a beautiful wedding. >> So they got married. Um you were called when they had kids. Yeah, I was present for um Ted being born. >> Okay. >> And Megan um I was I was on the way, but I missed it with N. But I was there at the hospital. >> And uh you know, when I asked you if you stayed in touch with Ken, did you also stay in touch with with Marcy over the years? >> Um family gatherings, camping trips. Um yeah. Um we'd go visit with them and I didn't communicate with her um usually by phone. Um, but you know, we saw each other, you know, at our events that we had. >> How how close would you say we were to Marcy? >> Um, I wouldn't say we were close. Um, I loved I loved my sister-in-law. Um, but we're we're just very different personalities. Um, yeah, I'm I love everyone in the room kind of person and um she's just um nonresponsive. >> You've answered the question. >> Okay, thank you. And uh now were you did you see them often enough to where you were able to review their relationship with them? I'm talking about fire. >> Yes. >> And what were your observations of their quality or their relationship? >> Um it was um strained. They had um you know good times, bad times, but it was very strained. >> Was it always that way? Um it wasn't always that way, but from the beginning I feel like um there was just very different interests and but you know they had lots of love for each other and you know we saw that through the kids and she poured everything into her kids. >> Okay. So Marcy you cared a lot about her kids. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And and you're saying that together they raise the kids well. >> Um um yeah, I mean they thankful for um you know investing in their kids. Um Kevin's an amazing dad. Marson is very responsive and um calm down character potential. I'm going to let the answer stand over listen to the question and answer that question first observations about any party. Try again probably more my question. So um do you recall a time when this relationship seemed to change? You said it was good in the beginning. At one point can you relate it to any? Um yeah um there was um a lot of issues around um she she didn't like the fire department. Um that was always a big thing. >> So was it when you went to work for the fire department? Is that what you said? >> Um I you know in the beginning um I think it it it was it was fine but um she didn't want any part really of the fire department. Um and she made that clear that I was present arguments about that. >> Next question. Now over the years, did you have any time to spend uh like overnight time at their home? >> I did. >> And so they moved away in the early 2000s, right? >> Yeah. I'm not exactly when, but yes. Yes, you're correct. >> Moved up here. Over the years, typically, how often would you stay overnight with them at their house? Like any given year or so? um a handful of times at least um when they were at their first home. I stayed quite a bit, my daughter. So, >> and then um when when you at the last home, do you remember the last home they lived in? >> Yeah. >> You remember when they moved in there? >> Um the one on um in the Yes. >> Okay. Sorry. Um I don't recall exactly. It might have been 20. >> I don't know. I just didn't speculate. I apologize. >> From the time they moved in until, you know, until Marcy passed away, were you staying there fairly regularly for that for whatever period of time? >> Yeah. You know, um again, a handful of times. Um I was there. Um but I I can't tell you how many times. >> When where would you sleep when you were there? >> Um I would usually sleep in the guest room. Um, I I've pretty much slept in every room, but I would usually sleep in the guest room up um the stairs right to the E, turn right, and go straight back. >> Okay. And did you go up there with anybody else or is it just you? >> It was usually um my three daughters. Um uh yeah. Um now they're adults. Um but yeah, um usually it was Katie and Ally, my my my two my middle and my youngest. >> Okay. And so when you stay there, would you say it was you're I'm trying to get an idea how often you stay there. Was it every month? Every six months? How often do you think fall? >> Maybe um two two three times um every maybe four to six months. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean I honestly I can't put a a exact but it's more I would say anywhere between five and 10 times. >> Okay. Every other month. Something like that. >> Something like that. >> Okay. And would you stay for just one night or two? >> No, we um we usually go out for um at least Friday through Sunday or we'd say a week or >> we're going to pause that testimony there because we know now the court is back in session. This is on the motion hearing for Tyler Robinson who is accused of killing Charlie Kirk. We're going to get you back inside that courtroom right after this very short [music] Tragic murder of Keith Cano and his entire family. This one is the most brutal case that I've seen in my experience here. >> The Mansion Murders trial. Live coverage today on Court TV. Did a secret affair with the family's Opair lead to a double murder? What you need to know before we take you inside the trial [music] that has everybody talking. >> Opening statements with Julie Grant. [music] I I just think this is ambush and another stalling tactic to delay these proceedings. There's no reason that they could not have at least filed the motion and asked for uh asked for time to brief it. And where does it end? >> All right, back now to what is a consequential hearing in the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah. >> That's right. Tyler Robinson's lawyers are asking the judge to disqualify the prosecutors from the case. They say there's a conflict of interest because the adult child of one of the attorneys in the prosecutor's office was present at the incident. The judge is back on the bench now after a very short recess to review the arguments, the case law. presence of all parties and um to all parties. I appreciate your patience. uh issues brought up are important and of course wanted to take the necessary time to examine what has been presented and and make a decision on how we move forward today under defendants or defense's argument and the defense relying upon Jimenez and Robertson cases if there is a showing of conflict of interest under rule 1.7 then the court should exercise its discretion and require the Utah Attorney General's Office to stand in for the Utah County Attorney's Office. Mr. Novak seated that there has to be a very good possibility of a conflict or showing of a conflict. No authority was given to the standard of proof necessary to satisfy that showing. This court wishes to address the issues or the issue of the showing of conflict of interest under rule 1.7 and regard with regards to the first question whether the prosecutor has a conflict of interest under rule 1.7 the defendant asserts the following facts and I'm drawing from the motion itself and reading from it. One of the prosecutors on the case was a family member who along with approximately 3,000 others attending Turning Point USA at UVU on the day of on Friday Kirk was shot and killed. The family member texted the prosecutor almost contemporary and uh I can't speak today contemporary aneously that I said that word right with the advance and shared that they had heard the gunshot and that they had run with the crowd and other observations, feelings and reactions. Thereafter, the prosecutor went to UVU and investigated how far away his family member was to the shooting. The family member had left a backpack while they fled. Prosecutors determined that the family member was approximately 85 ft away from Charlie Kirk when he was shot. In my view, those are the alleged facts that the court must consider to answer the first question. Does the prosecutor by virtue of his relationship with a family member who witnessed the shooting have a conflict of interest? just looking at my notes. I appreciate And so turning to defense, I accept the facts as you have alleged in your motion as true. Is there any reason to call witnesses to answer the first question before the court? And before you answer that, I understand that there are other relevant facts that pertain to the effect of the alleged conflict. Those facts would include whether the prosecutor was properly screened from the case, what conversations he had with other prosecutors, and whether the family members experience impacted the state's decision to seek the death penalty. It is the defense position, as I understand, those facts may need to be explored through witness testimony. But if we're just talking about the first question, whether the prosecutor has a conflict of interest under rule 1.7, is there a need >> Yes, your honor. I understand that the court is trying to get to the threshold question that we have put before it with respect to who should be representing the Utah County Attorney's Office in this motion. But the answer to the court's question is yes because it's not just the mere transactional event that this um that the offspring witnessed the shooting. Um it is the evidentiary development will get at and again we were only provided with an affidavit which was very if I may narrowly drawn at communications that happened after that between that offspring and their parent between that offspring and other family members that that may have been communicated to the parent of communications between the parent and other people in the office impact. Okay, so now I'm going to just say if I had found out that my child was at an incident where somebody was shot and killed, I would have an incredibly strong emotional reaction even if they were safe. Okay, so give me a second. Okay. Um, there was a horrible shooting incident at Brown University a few weeks ago and um, I have a child who lives within 20 mi of there who was in Providence that day and everybody in our family was really freaked out until we knew that they were safe. And then even when we knew they were safe, the question was, "What did you see? Did it affect you?" Turned out everybody's fine. But it's not just, oh, I was there, right? And and and my family [clears throat] member didn't witness a shooting. Wasn't in a crowd with 3,000 people who all had to run and take cover in case there were more shots fired, in case there were some other harm that occurred. Okay. So, it's not just the fact that this person was 85 ft away from Mr. Kirk. It's that that begins to that that you know that scratches the surface if I may of the um the totality of the circumstances which we think um created a a conflict of interest. So the answer is yes and that's why both the parent and the offspring are here and are under subpoena and agreed to be and agreed to testify. Obviously, it's the court's proceeding, but nobody has moved to quash. And I think it's obvious that that's because we need further factual development. And our reply brief, if it did anything, it communicated to the court the case law, which shows that this is a fact intensive inquiry and that affidavit are required. And here we don't have affidavit from the parent or from Mr. Gray. We have argument in a brief, but we also believe that testimony from the offspring is necessary and they're here and they agreed to be here and they agreed that Ms. Visser could sign an acknowledgement of service of the subpoena. So, so the very very long answer to the court's question is yes, definitely we need we need to have an evidence here. But isn't the defense required to to um make the threshold showing from from the facts that you're asserting? Uh isn't isn't that where we begin? Not necessarily the state's response, but don't don't you have a responsibility to show uh that there's a that you've uh made a thresh threshold showing of what you're asserting would would rise to what you're asserting in your motion. So the state uh so the Utah County attorneys informed us that this um offspring was present in a crowd was caught up in um the ensuing chaos heard a shot fired. >> All right, let's quickly bring back in our guest. Still with us, defense attorney, former head prosecutor Bob Bianke. Bob, you heard the judge there sort of leaning in the direction of don't you have to make some sort of preliminary findings here in your arguments? What do you make of what he was saying and where he might be headed? >> First, I got to say this use of the term offspring, I just I can't stop. Uh it's just such a peculiar term to me. In any event, um it was exactly what I was thinking, guys. What is the primaachi showing with my term before I even get to witnesses? Have you alleged anything in your paperwork that shows that I should have a hearing in the first place? So, there's no reason to have the hearing unless you've articulated an area of law that requires me to call witnesses. For example, to what are you just guessing that this child or this offspring had some sort of effect on the father that had some sort of effect on the case? You've shown me nothing, so I'm not going to give you the hearing. So, I think the judge is just basically pinning them in there. Does the defense have to make a threshold showing from your perspective, Bob? >> Yeah, I mean, my feeling is they do. I You just can't go in there willy-nilly and subjectively throw out randomly that there's an issue. In any case, a judge is always, you know, judge is going to always ask you, well, what is the showing? What is the basis upon which you're requesting this? You just can't guess. You got to give me something in fact in order for you to get some sort of testimonial hearing. That's routine in any motion. >> And Bob, it sounds like you're saying there may not be this ability to show that threshold showing, which then I'll ask you, the ultimate issue in this case as to whether this prosecutorial office should be excused from this case. Sounds like they don't even have enough certainly for that. That's exactly the point. The moving papers have already articulated the defense's argument and the only issue here is an ethics rule. Is there an actual conflict of interest? Show me. What is it? They haven't really articulated any. And the second is there an appearance of impropriy. That is a reasonable citizen would feel that the office is compromised and you haven't shown me anything. And if I don't see anything, you don't get your hearing. That's what the judge is saying. >> All right. Fair enough. Bob Bianke, thank you so much for being with us this hour. Always a pleasure to have you on the show. >> Have a wonderful weekend to Michael Ayala. I'm staying here because you don't want to miss it. Don't go anywhere. More of today's motion hearing for Tyler Robinson. [music] We'll be right back here on Court TV, >> [music] welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Judge Ashley Wilcott. We are following an exciting motions hearing in Utah in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. The attorneys for accused killer Tyler Robinson are asking the judge to disqualify the prosecutors from the case, citing a conflict of interest. Now, the defense has just raised this and is claiming that the daughter of the deputy county attorney was at the political event when Charlie Kirk was shot. Let's head back to court now. Arguments in this case are continuing. behind witness the trauma of other people. Um, we can't really get beyond that without the fact. And if what the court is saying hypothetically is, I want you to go sit down and interview people, that's one thing. But if the court's saying that we somehow should have more information than the county has given us, we can't do that without evidentiary development. Okay. We have questions about whether there were more non-recorded communications that we haven't been told about. Um I think we have a good faith that the court could imagine that a family would talk about such an incident and it wouldn't just be the text messages that the court has in the exhibit. And I don't purport to say anybody should run their family the way my family [clears throat] operates. I'm just talking about what I think would be natural, which is families talk about [clears throat] these things because we want to take care of our kids and we want to make sure they're okay. And then we need to make sure [clears throat] that our responsibilities, to the public, and to justice aren't impacted by our personal experiences. And I think that we can only get at that, your honor, um through evidentiary development. >> All right. And that's why and and I think that the state would agree with that because that's why they provided the court with some affidavit and some fact in the course of argument. So I think that it needs to be fully developed through the very limited number of witnesses that are present. >> I understand. Um let me turn to the state. What's the state's position? >> So I want to make sure I'm understanding there's two there's two layers here, right? The first layer is when an alleged conflict arises, does the in this case the county attorney's office have to conflict the handling of that allegation to another, you know, special prosecutor, attorney general's office, right? Your question is doesn't the defense have to make an initial showing before that first conflict has or or occurs [clears throat] that requires that delegation? >> Yes. >> Okay. My answer is yes. I mean otherwise we have to have a hearing to determine if another entity has to handle the substantive issue and then you have to have another hearing to determine if there actually is a conflict. I think there has to be at first a a a showing that there is, you know, a basis for a conflict. Otherwise, someone can come in and say, I think there's a conflict without any evidence whatsoever. Um or not evidence that's that's that's uh credible. I think and for that reason, I think the court should be able to make this threshold showing based on the affidavit, right? the affidavit and the facts have been profered. I think there's enough there for you to say yes, the county attorney's office can handle this motion on it on its own or no, this motion needs to go to the uh attorney general's office, whoever whoever else um to handle the substantive issue of whether or not there's a conflict. >> All right, there um we're not going to miss any of the arguments. There's some ads that we're not showing. So, let's talk about what this argument is. The court went back and looked at case law, looked at the arguments, considered them, and said, "Okay, there's a threshold question." The threshold question is, should the attorney general be handling the actual conflict hearing? Of course, the defense is saying yes, and the state is saying no, not unless there's a threshold showing by the defense, which we can rely on affidavit. So, the court's going to have to make that decision. Now, when there's a conflict of interest and when the attorneys disagree as to whether or not exists, it is the court's discretion. So, he may have to hear arguments. He may have to hear witnesses. That's what we are in the middle of figuring out. Now, let's go back in >> to determine whether or not the issue of whether or not there's a conflict should be conflicted. >> Okay. I I I think there may have been a little bit of confusion there and I'll take responsibility for the question in regards to the threshold showing uh so threshold showing of a conflict of interest under rule 1.7. So the the AG's is is a is an it seems to follow after in time to see if there's a conflict initially. So, in regards to establishing that uh defense and and I don't wish to speak for you, but my understanding is you wish to call witnesses to to put that evidence on. >> Then I misunderstood the court's we need to take testimony in order for this court to make a finding on one under 1.7 that conflict free council should represent the state in this motion. I am not suggesting and I didn't mean to that That's not what So, so if I misunderstood the court's question, I thought the court was saying, "Do we even need an evidentiary hearing on your motion to disqualify it [clears throat] enough for the court to just read the papers?" >> But that was not Was that your question? >> Well, that and I'll take full responsibility uh on my question. I was that was really the push on it because my understanding is that determination needs to be made uh based off what you told us uh in the beginning. Um that showing of a conflict of interest um there has to be very good possibility of a conflict or showing of a conflict is the very first step before we go down the further road of addressing the AG's office. And so I was alluding to based off that, does that require an evidentiary hearing from your perspective? >> I don't think that it requires an evidentiary hearing, but I don't want to um predict or make assumptions about the court's view. I believe that the um Utah County Attorney's disclosure to us on October 20th um of this situation and our assessment that it creates a conflict of interest is not frivolous. It's not taken for the purposes of delay or tactics. It's a real potential conflict. I don't know what the threshold showing is that permits or requires the court to authority under what is now in justosition to the you know the Utah legislature changes its code so often like we have to figure out all the new code numbers but it's now section 17-6 68-304 which gives the court the authority to appoint um the attorney general in this situation for this purpose 1768304 as opposed to the code section cited in Jimeus the law is the same but the code sections have changed but what I'm saying is I don't want to predict or gamble with what showing this court thinks is necessary in order to appropriately exercise its discretion to make that referral. And so if the court says I need more, then we should have an evidentary hearing because the the the important thing is to get it right, not for me to bargain on whether our papers show enough. The only thing that we know that we can show in our papers is what we were told and what we were given. and we were given um some text messaging between family members and maybe some some other people. I mean, the court has that it's an exhibit. Um that's all we really have. And so I don't want to just say, "Oh, yeah, there's enough there." And then have the court say, "No, there isn't." Because it may be that the court wants to take some preliminary permit us to take some preliminary testimony in order to make that decision. But what I really think in instead of starting an evidentiary hearing on a motion to determine if there should be a referral, I think that there's a sufficient showing that there should be a referral by this court um because of 1.7 under the court's authority under Utah code section 1768304 before we even begin to take testimony. I mean, the fact that Mr. Gray is going to be the first witness we call already s and s and and that the state hasn't moved to quash because it's a frivolous subpoena or it doesn't have we there's no basis in the factual predicate to examine Mr. Gray about these things suggests that there's a problem here that Mr. Gray's office is representing Mr. while also trying to represent the state. And that's an inherent problem. And I understand it's a thorny question. It's what's the what's the showing that's necessary? And does the court have discretion or is the court compelled to is the court going to commit error if it doesn't? That's why I think that maybe some some thoughtful briefing is an appropriate thing to do um before we start an evidentiary hearing uh and then realize that we got off on the wrong foot because there should be somebody else seated at council table when two members of the state's attorney's office who are members of the pro. We do need to take a break, but first we have this update in the sleeping mother stab case out of Florida. Just days before his trial, 15-year-old Derek Rosa plead guilty to killing his mother. He was only 13 years old at the time. Rosa was in court for a status conference today when attorneys on both sides informed the judge about the plea deal. >> Has anybody promised you that something different than that was going to happen if you play? Is anybody forcing you, threatening you or making you enter this plea against you? >> The state has um filed a new information secondderee murder. Do you wave any defects in the form of this Mr. or Mr. Judge? Thank you. And I will ask you at this point, would you like to enter plead guilty to the charge of murder? Well, you know what? You have your basis now or I'm going to ask you this. Do you wish you had your plead guilty to the charge of murdering the second degree with a weapon? >> Yes, thank you. >> Rosa agreed to plead guilty to seconddegree murder in the stabbing death of his mother, Ina Garcia. The judge listened to a couple of victim impact statements, including an emotional one for Rosa's stepfather, Frank Ramos, who told Derek through an interpreter that he was like a son to him and that losing Ireina destroyed their family. After that, Rosa made this The judge sentenced Rosa to 25 years in prison followed by 20 years of probation. All right, next we're going to take the break. When we return, we'll get you back to the motions hearing for defendant Tyler [music] Robinson in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. Also, we are learning new details about the man accused of killing [music] his ex-wife and her new husband in Ohio. And after three trials, the verdict is finally [music] in for a Georgia woman accused of killing her husband more than a decade ago. [music] Tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. >> Closing arguments [music] tonight at 8:7 central, only on Court TV. Did an affair with the family's Opair lead to double murder? >> I'm going to kill her. I'm going to kill her. >> It's a case of sex lies and deadly deception. The Opair Affair murder trial Welcome back to Court TV where we are tracking several cases. First in Ohio, a grand jury has just indicted Michael McKe for [music] the murder of his ex-wife and her dentist husband. The indictment includes four counts of aggravated murder and one count of aggravated burglary for the deaths of Mon'nique and Spencer Tepe. McKe was arrested in Illinois and is currently waiting extradition to Ohio. [music] In Virginia, former neonatal intensive care unit nurse Aaron Stroman has pleaded no contest to child abuse charges for her handling of newborns between 2022 and 2024. Prosecutors say she intentionally broke the bones of at least one baby. Now, under the plea deal, she faces up to 3 years in [music] prison and will never practice nursing or any related healthc care job again. In New Jersey, court was cancelled [music] today in the mansion murders trial for defendant Apollo Cano. A juror called in [music] sick. And in Georgia, the jury this morning found Susan Ember guilty of murdering her husband, William Jake Ember. The jury did not believe the defense claimed that Jake died by suicide in 2014. Now, this was her retrial after her first conviction was overturned. Sentencing for her is scheduled for January 28th, but several family members wanted to give statements today instead of waiting for that sentencing hearing. In your honor, on behalf of my entire family on every single count that Susan is charged with, we ask that you sentence her to life in prison without the possibility of parole. She's a danger and a menace to society. And the jury made the best decision, not once, but twice. Of course, that was the victim's daughter. Right now, let's head back to Utah for more emotions hearing for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating conservative political activist Charlie Kirk. briefing by all parties and and and listen to the argument today and and I don't believe a sufficient showing has been made for the court just relying upon the briefing itself and um and so I can't make that finding based off well I I would find that that threshold showing hasn't been met based off the briefing and and turning to Mr. Novak. Um, based off that that finding of the Uh our view is that if the court is has concluded that the briefing does proof that the court should at this time make a referral. Then we should begin, the court should begin to take evidence. And there may be a moment where the court says, "Okay, I've heard enough. Now I'm ready to make a referral and we're going to stop and pause and wait for the attorney general to engage and then um we'll have to see where that goes." would maybe be that we have to finish the evidentiary hearing. But you know to um and I can I think all of us can attempt to um prioritize the portions of our examination so that the court can make that finding as early as possible. I'm just trying to avoid doing the hearing twice. I understand >> because right now it's our view the state is not being represented by the attorneys who should be representing it and so if the state's going to come in later and say well we want to redo the evidentary hearing because the state wasn't represented by the right parties. I mean it's just but by the right lawyers that that's something we would want to avoid. You know we want we only do this once out of a courtesy to the court and to um a couple of the witnesses. No, I appreciate that. And can this be accomplished by profer? I don't know what the witnesses are going to say because they've only given us very limited information. Um, the state elected to give us information in their briefing, some of which is, like I said a few times now, is not sworn by affidavit or declaration. It's in the nature of argument. I mean, there are portions of Mr. Gray's brief, he signed it where he makes many, many assertions of fact in the course of arguing the legal issues and none of that is sworn and uh I mean I'm sure that um and I think so [clears throat] so I don't think there can be a profer because I don't know what the profer is. I know that I have a lot of questions about things that we were not that the court was not told about in the briefing and the affidavit. So, so the answer respectfully is no. It can't be done by profer. >> All right. And which witnesses are you intending to call today? And I understand you're saying you wish to to just put on enough and focus on on the key issues, but just just if I were to grant I'm just trying to understand the scope of >> I think Mr. Gray is the first witness. The second witness, >> we may approach Yes. Uh, parties to the bench, please. Okay. All right. With with us to discuss right now, criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor France Borgart. Frs. I think there is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, because the defense just admitted they don't really have enough information to have provided information to the court for that threshold finding that there might be a conflict of interest because the defense doesn't really know what the witnesses are going to say. And just for clarity, the witnesses are number one, a parent who works in the prosecutor's office, and number two, that parent's child who was present at the incident, the event with Charlie Kirk and was texting his parent who works in the prosecutor's office. Your thoughts? >> This is a good oldfashioned fishing exposition. So, look, it's the right motion to file if you're defending this guy. Uh, let's not mince words, judge. Utah is a death penalty state and in fact they still use the firing squad there. That said, they have not made what we would call a primmaaccia showing on the motion. What does that mean? They didn't they didn't put enough in the motion to to to get the court to just grant it. And and now they want to have a an evidentiary hearing and and call witnesses, I guess, in hopes to see if they will get enough. and and you know that's kind of what we call in the business a fishing expedition. That said, I don't see that happening. I if I'm a betting man, I would say a judge says no. I don't think you've reached the level of having an evidentiary hearing where you can put the prosecutor himself on the stand. Um so I I I think this is either going to get delayed, judge, or if it does go to hearing, they'll make a record. But ultimately, I just I'm not hearing a conflict that's such that would knock this this state entity, this prosecuting entity off the case. >> So this judge is thorough. He's measured. France, the defense has said the prosecution said this is clearly a delay tactic. The defense has said, "Oh, no, it's not." Is that part of the strategy, though, in your experience, especially as a former prosecutor when you would see defense attorneys do things? >> Well, so a couple of things. As a defense attorney, delay is always is always the best friend of any defense attorney. Um why try tomorrow what we can try years from now? Uh and in a death penalty case, you you're obligated to zealously try everything under the law to get the death penalty off the table to delay because the longer it goes on, the possibility of of the death penalty being taken off the table may may be a thing. That said, it certainly does feel like a delay tactic, but with death penalty cases, judge, I will give the caveat that they have to protect the record. So, to some degree, even if it is a delayed tactic, they're doing the right thing as a defense team to shield their client because of what he's exposed to. >> And I think as a former judge, this judge is going to be very cautious. he is going to proceed in such a way to give the defense every opportunity to make the arguments needed to protect the record to try to avoid any of this resulting in an appeal. So, I'll be curious to see if the judge decides out of an abundance of caution, we're going to allow a hearing to happen. I don't know what he's going to do. We're going to stay tuned for that. Fran, stand by if you would please. When we come back, we're going to get you back into this hearing to hear more of the argument and see [music] what is this judge going to do about this alleged conflict of interest by the prosecution. Stay [music] Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Judge Ashley Wilcott. Thank you so much for being with us. This is something. We're following a motions hearing in Utah on the Charlie Kirk assassination case. This is a motion just brought up by the defense who represent the accused killer Tyler Robinson. They specifically are asking the judge to disqualify the prosecutors from the case, citing a conflict of interest. Of course, the prosecutors disagree that that's necessary. Let's head back to court where the arguments before the court are continuing. say we view as an appropriate um deference to the requests of the county attorneys. >> All right. To this day, given the given the uh extreme publicity and the issues that surround this case, we would ask that this portion of the uh the hearing be closed. Um we've had communications with council for the media. We believe that they agree to that um after taking a balancing test of uh the public's right to know and the right to an open uh proceeding and the privacy interests at issue. >> All right. One of my concerns that I have and is there any other parties weighing in? >> I I think there may be your honor um both and and here at first. >> All right. Well, >> your honor, this is this is Jeff Hunt. Uh can you hear me? >> I sure can Mr. Hunt. Thank you, >> your honor. Thank you for the accommodation and courtesy to allow us to appear remotely. With me is my colleague, David Ryman. We represent the Desireette News, KSL, KUTV, and other news media. We would like to speak briefly to the the closure issue if that's okay. >> All right, I'll hear from you. >> Uh, we did meet and confer with council for the state and council for the defendant concerning closure. And council has explained that they believe it would be impossible to conduct this this hearing or even portions of it in open court without causing prejudice to the privacy and personal safety interests of the family member witness involved. Uh they've told us they believe it would not be feasible or practicable to approach this on a witness bywitness basis or an issue by issue bas basis because they believe the names of the prosecutor and the family member would be used throughout the examination of witnesses. Uh so we have no reason to doubt uh the statements and representations of council and in reliance on those would not be objecting to closure of the evidentiary uh hearing on the disqualification and the referral issues unless the court has a different view and believes that we could parse this on a witness by witness or an issue by issue basis. That said, your honor, we understand that council for the state and the defendant have agreed to review a transcript of any evidentiary hearing and make limited and appropriate redactions so that a public version of the transcript could be released. And with that, there are just a couple other brief points I'd like to make. First, we think that this should be the rare exception to conducting these proceedings in open court. There's a strong constitutional presumption of open and public court proceedings and of course enormous public interest in this particular case. That openy that openness and transparency is an institutional value that serves this court, the participants and the public well. The facts and circumstances of this particular motion given the fact that it concerns a family relationship of the prosecutor uh makes it a very extraordinary and and unique situation uh that that we feel given the represent representations made can justify the closure. Although we do believe in most cases, just the fact that a motion implicates a witness will not be grounds for closure. Second, we just wanted to get on the record that we believe that release of a transcript is not an adequate substitute for the ability of the public and the press to attend and view the proceedings themselves. For this particular evidentiary hearing, that may be the only practical mechanism for the public to obtain some information about the case. But again, we would expect this would be the exception uh and not become a regular practice. And finally, your honor, it's our position that any oral argument on the disqualification motion or the referral motion should be conducted in a public hearing. Um, as this hearing itself has shown, a lot can be done um and argued without disclosing the names of family members or or the witness at issue and jeopardizing those those uh those interests. Council can refrain from identifying the the prosecutor or family member uh to protect the asserted privacy interests and and we have experienced counsel. they could be mindful of that issue during oral argument and it's not unduly burdensome for for them to take those steps and any burden would be greatly outweighed by the public interest and learning more about the motion and having at least an open argument. So we do believe that the argument um and I understand the argument will be made at a later date not today but that should be done in open court that's all I have your honor. >> Thank you Mr. Hunt. Anything further from the parties? Your >> honor, as to the oral argument, um it is our uh it is our request that it be closed. And the reason why is that um we're not perfect. Um names names slip. Uh it's happened in uh trials. It's happened in arguments before. um and concerned uh the risk that that could have um if uh one of the parties, one of the attorneys were to slip and identify um those who ought to be protected. With that said, um a fallback position could be not live streaming the event and requiring any redaction should an inadvertent um mention of a name be made. Thank you, council. One of my biggest concerns is I have to make findings of fact uh that are very specific. I I can't redact my findings when I issue an order and I will have to cite to the relevant facts and and and quite honestly the name of the prosecutor is a relevant fact. I I can't simply glaze over that and make an assertion. It's important because it relates to various factors that that you may address and which has been brought up in briefing. And so this court is is uh going to deny the request to close the hearing as it relates to and I will take this motion witness by witness. I understand that there may be a witness that this is applicable to and the court will entertain that. But because this court has to make findings and has to sight to the facts, I need to be able to do that. And since I'm going to do that anyway, which I will, I'd rather address it in in an open court. And again, I will entertain any motions witness by witness that are going to be called and and be respectful uh of that. Uh but going to Mr. McBride's point, uh you both have that duty. I it it's it's in regards to how you present and and if you're talking about a name that needs to be protected, that's on you on on how you speak. I I It seems inappropriate to create a safeguard to prevent you from making a mistake on accidentally saying a name that I don't I don't believe that's that would be a proper reason to close the hearing just for that. And and I understand the pressure, council. I know it's difficult but um I I I cannot accept that as reason to close the entire proceedings for the evidentiary hearing portion but again as the witnesses are called I will entertain the motion whether to close the hearing uh per witness and and we will address Mr. Novak. >> Yes. >> With that how would we like to proceed? Well, first, is there any clarification needed on this court's ruling as we're proceeding into the evidentiary hearing? >> Um, I I just want to I just want to clarify. Uh, are we are you going to entertain motions to close at the outset of every witness? Is that is that what I understand? >> If the motion is made, yes. >> May we have a moment? >> Yes. >> [clears throat] >> The court not closing the courtroom, but saying, "I'll take it witness by witness." Let's take a break. We'll be back with more in the motions hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. Up next, >> tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at 8:7 central only on Court TV. >> Did an affair with the family's Opair lead to double murder? >> I'm going to kill her. I'm going to kill her. >> It's a case of sex, lies, and deadly deception. >> The Opair Affair murder trial continues Welcome back. Let's head back together now to Utah for more on emotions hearing for defendant Tyler Robinson in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. >> Oh, looks like would it be easier just to go into a brief recess? I don't want to make you feel rushed. You have obviously important conversations. Uh, so the court's intended to enter a brief recess to allow the parties sufficient time to discuss whatever you need to discuss. >> No, I think we're I think I'm comfortable moving forward making a proper right now um and asking you to reconsider that motion. And the reason is because um courts the Supreme Court of Utah uh appellet courts um refer to witnesses by their initials all the time. Um, in our pleadings, we often refer to witnesses uh by their initials. In Supreme Court United States uh opinions, witnesses are referred to by their initials and that's because there's a privacy interest. In this case, I don't think a privacy interest could be greater. Um, this case has polarized the nation um in many ways and uh there have been uh death threats made uh against other witnesses. Um there have been death threats made. My understanding is there's been threats against uh council. Our office has received threats. Um uh doxing is a real thing. You know, uh finding people online, um harassing them online with with the technology that we have now, it's not that hard to find out just about every detail about a person through internet searches, um paid uh subscriptions to um programs that do background checks. Um, and we are extremely concerned that uh we will have a a uh a person that does not need to be subject to death threats, to harassment, to doxing, to um all of those things that can be avoided. We're very concerned that that will happen and happen to this person for no other reason than her than this person's um father is a prosecutor on the case. Your honor, I think that there's a way around this that we can avoid. uh those threats to her, those risks to her, and I think it's by referring to um uh substitute names like we have in the in the public pleading. So, your honor, I would I would just really ask you to please reconsider your opinion. There's stipulation from the media to shut this portion of the of the hearing. There's stipulation from the defense. I think the court in its ruling can refer to um the prosecutor as a prosecutor. Uh I think it can refer to uh the child as adult child. I think that that would be adequate. I think in a sealed record um that there can be references to names. That would be my request, your honor. I I am I I can't ask more adamantly than I am We take no issue with anything the council has said. That's why we completely deferred to the state attorneys, I'm sorry, the county attorney's initial request that all of the briefing as much as possible be um under seal and then redacted. >> Thank you. the the one of the points that when I was considering this as a potential issue is that both parties filed a public version of your motions and you used a mechanism to convey that same information and and I understand it was the choice of the parties to do that to issue to um publish those uh public versions and and the court is fine in regards to uh particular witnesses referring to those terms that were used in the motions, but this court is does not agree um that the entirety of the evidentiary hearing needs to be closed. Uh and and it is a very broad approach to a narrow issue and and I and I understand and I respect the concerns made by Mr. bride and I and I understand that and the court is willing to go witness by witness. If you feel that a particular witness that that needs to be closed, the court will entertain that. I understand the issues of safety and and the court feels um the the urgency and and the importance of that as has as has been uh stated. But this court cannot find that the closure of the entirety of the evidentiary hearing is proper. uh given given the motions that have been filed publicly online and I have to leave it to council in deciding how you present the evidence, how you state the names. I I'm willing to to abide by the format used in those public motions, but this court denies the request to close the evidentiary hearing. And again, we'll take witness by witness uh a motion if if that particular witness needs closure uh uh from well that that particular witness's >> If the court's ready to begin the evidentiary hearing, we would call um Jeffrey S. Gray as the first witness. >> All right. >> If the court wants to take a little break, we can do that, too. >> The courts uh can can move forward. If parties need a break, I'm happy to to give a a break. I know it's we're >> Yeah. Go ahead. In fact, let's go ahead and take a brief break. We need to relocate our court reporter, so this is a natural spot. Joining us to discuss all of this, the many happenings, is Fran Borgard. All right, Fron, thank you for standing by. Listen, I really appreciate this judge. I find him measured, but two things he said that stood out to me. He's like, first of all, if you call the witness out by name, that's on you. That's your fault, even if it's an accident or a mistake. And then he said, second of all, you both filed these motions that are public record. They didn't file them under seal frons. They didn't file a motion to have them under seal. So, you can't do that and then say on the other hand, it needs to be closed because of the privacy. Oh, I think I've lost your sound. Let's see. Are you on mute on your end? If not, hopefully we can get you so we can hear you. All right. We have lost Fron Borgard. I just want to recap for a moment exactly what's happened. And the court has said we can have an evidentiary hearing for the court to have enough information to determine whether or not the defense has presented a primapaccia case and if they have print excuse me presented a primapaccia case of a conflict of interest. Then the court has to determine whether or not there's a conflict and if the attorney general's office or a special prosecutor has to represent the prosecution. Now I think that there's more going on in court. So, let's go back in for more of >> Good afternoon. >> I understand there may be an issue. >> There is, your honor, uh, Michael Berg for Mr. Robinson. We filed today a motion to be heard in the future about excluding cameras in the courtroom. And one of the issues that's reviewed in that motion, which of course court hasn't had a chance to look at it yet, is the cameraman's repeated violation of the portion of the decorum order, which requires that the camera not focus in on Mr. Robinson's lips uh to allow a lip reader to translate confidential communications between council and Mr. Robinson. And that order has been violated in the past. It's been used by the media to interpret falsely the content of conversations between Mr. Robinson and his lawyers. And it happened again just uh while the court was in session. I have the clip and I'd like the court to look at it to see if I'm correct because I think the court will see they're zooming in on Mr. Robinson's lips and it's going to allow the media to offer these same sort of false narratives they have in the past. So, with the court's permission, I'd like to present that to the court. >> Well, Mr. Bert, um, is is it this is the violation or is there anything else? I want to make sure I hear your your argument and and view the evidence in its entirety and and so if there's anything else, I I want to consider it all at the same time. >> Yes. And and for purpose All right, we do need to take a break now. Thank you to France Borheart, of course, for joining [music] us. Coming up next, join Julia Jana for more in the motions hearing for defendant Tyler Robinson [music] in the Charlie Kirk assassination. [music] Order. Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Julia Jana. Thank you for following along with us this afternoon. Before we get you back into court there in Nevada, we are going to give you an update on some other cases that we're tracking here on Court TV. Now, in Florida, [music] the 15-year-old defendant in the sleeping mother stabbed case has pleaded guilty just days [music] before his trial was set to begin on Tuesday. Derek Rosa pleaded guilty to seconddegree murder today. [music] The judge sentenced him to 25 years in prison and 20 years probation. And in Ohio, a grand jury has indicted Michael McKe for the shooting deaths of his ex-wife, Monnique Teepe, [music] and her husband Spencer, who was a dentist. Now, McKe and Mo'Nique had been divorced since 2017. No motive has been given in these murders. He will be back in court [music] on January 23rd. And in Georgia, the third trial of accused killer Susan Ember ended with a guilty verdict on all charges. Her first conviction [music] in the murder of her husband, Jake Amberg, was thrown out. Her second trial was declared a mistrial. And now that she has been convicted in this trial, [music] she faces life in prison when she's sentenced on January 28th. We want to head back now to Utah for a motions hearing that is happening in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. the attorneys for accused killer Tyler Robinson. They've been arguing on a motion to deny media access to an upcoming evidentiary hearing that has already been denied by the court, but they now say that they have more that they want to present to this judge. They've also been trying to disqualify the prosecution team, citing that there's a conflict of interest. And the arguments on that issue continue in this evidentiary hearing. Where we left off is the defense who doesn't want cameras in this courtroom said that the camera pool camera zoomed in at the wrong time on Tyler Robinson. And again, Court TV is not the pool. We often are the pool. We're not the pool here. But let's pick it up with the judge's response. And for purposes of the motion I'm going to make to the court now, which is to either exclude the court either to exclude the camera for purposes of this hearing and of course the court will take up the issue uh with regard to future appearances when the court considers the motion uh or in the alternative to order the cameraman not to focus at all on Mr. Robinson. And so I think for the purposes of that motion, the court needs just to look at the clip that we would uh profer to the court as showing that there was a clear violation of the court's order. >> Thank you, council. I appreciate that. Um before I turn to that, I'll turn to the state if they wish to weigh in the request. >> Um I think it [clears throat] it raises a legitimate concern. I think the court ought to consider the uh evidence that the defense council has. >> All right. It's very brief. We have it on a phone and the court can look at it. >> And has have you shown that to the other parties? >> I have. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. What is the length of the first video? >> And do you want the benefit of the record to articulate what this first clip shows? >> You know, I think the clip shows that the camera is zooming in uh the first clip on Mr. Robinson's lips as he is trying to communicate with me uh sitting next >> Thank you. >> If I may reapproach with the second video here. >> Yes. And your honor, the second video is a clip from a Court TV posting showing Mr. Robinson's lips moving as he's attempting to speak to And your honor, one last thing I'd like to add if I could, which is I think the court very uh correctly and very cautiously admonish the cameraman about your December 23rd order before this hearing began. And he said he understood the order and I think the order is very clear as to this lip reader provision. And I can elaborate further why it's damaging, but I think it's obvious to the court if the if the uh media is allowed to interpret the conversations between council and his lawyer, it it creates all sorts of problems terms of Mr. Robbins's right to a fair trial. And just one more question. I apologize just for the benefit of the record. uh in and in in from your position citing to the standing to court order the violation itself so we can connect it all from your arguments. >> Yes, your honor. I forget the paragraph but there is a paragraph in the court's latest uh December 23rd decorum order. >> It's paragraph 48. >> 48 and it's been a feature of every decorum order. I think we're on the third one, but from the start, the court has prohibited zoomins to allow lip readers to interpret what's being said between council and and the uh defendant. And finally, um I think you led with this in in regards to the sanctions being requested. uh you you cited to the court sanctions and then there was a second one uh referring to and I I want to make sure I wrote it down right cuz >> sure uh something along the lines of not showing Mr. Robinson at all like I want to make sure I understood that request. >> Sure. The uh request was either to exclude the cameras for purposes of this hearing in its entirety because of the violation and because we can't be assured that the cameraman's going to comply with the court's order. The second request is if the court is not going to exclude the cameras, then it should at the very least order the cameraman not to shoot any footage of Mr. Robinson. That the camera should be focused on the court and the witnesses if the court permits that, but it should not be zooming in on Mr. Robinson. His demeanor, his conversations with his lawyers have nothing to do with the newsworthiness of this case. And what it's allowing is very prejuditial information to be leaked to the public through these lip readers and body language interpreters and it's creating uh massive prejuditial publicity for us. So that's the request. >> Thank you, Mr. Burch. >> Thank you. >> I'll hear from other parties if they As your honor, Michael Jud on behalf of the media entities, I want to take the court back to that specific paragraph of the decorum order because I do want to make sure we're on the same page about this. It's the second sentence of paragraph 48 of the decorum order that I understand is that issue here. It does say no visual recording is permitted of a person's lips so as to be decipherable by a lip reader during conferences involving council at council tables or bench conferences with the judge. The zoomin language that you have heard referred to previously doesn't fall in that sentence. The zoomin language comes in the next sentence which says no one may zoom in on anything on council's table or the bench to identify any writing. So those are two separate things. Um the first that we learned about this was during the break. Um I briefly reviewed the two videos that the court has reviewed. I understand that those were 9 seconds and 5 seconds long. Um I identified the provision of the decorum order that I believe applied here. spoke to the pool cameraman about that ensured that the rule about um capturing conversations involving council at council's table or at the bench so that they may be decipherable by lip readers was an important provision um in the court's decorum order that they should be followed. I understand that the uh cameraman understands that rule that any capture of those conversations was inadvertent. I understand the concerns raised by defense in this case about potential prejuditial effect of something that is intended to capture conversations. Um I don't believe that that's what occurred in this case. I believe that uh the court's order should be understood and applied as written and done so uh strictly. Um but I don't believe that there's been a violation here. We've been now on the record for 3 hours. I believe that the total length of the two videos that were shown to the court were 14 seconds long. Whether or not either of those conversations rises to the level of capturing the movement of somebody's lips so that it can be decipherable from a lip reader, I'm not in a position to judge. But I can assure the court that uh the media is aware of that provision of defense's concern about the potential violation of that order and that they will take that seriously. that's already been raised, already been uh discussed. As far as the remedy sought here, I think that excluding all cameras from the courtroom for this important part of this important proceeding uh would be broader than any sort of remedy would be necessary here. Uh as would the direction that the cameras not show Mr. Robinson in any way. I understand that potentially any shot on a still camera, on a video camera of a defendant in a criminal case could potentially be twisted or used by some to try to uh impute some sort of thought or some sort of idea. Um, but I don't believe there's anything in the court's rules. I don't believe there's anything in the ruling so far to date that suggests that the way to address that kind of concern is to say that a defendant, a critical figure in a case like this and one that the decorum order clearly allows to be photographed and videoed um be kept off camera altogether. The media continues to take this seriously before every single hearing. We speak about the decorum order uh and what it requires. We recognize the importance of doing it and that there can be consequences if that's not kept. The media understands and hears that. um and don't do not believe that any further reprimand or any sort of further exclusion is necessary here. >> Well, before I turn to you, I I want to turn to the stage. I want to give all parties an opportunity and then then that allows you to respond to whatever they say. Your honor, >> we have we have nothing to add. We'll submit the issue. Judge, the problem with that explanation, that's the same thing they said last time on December 11th. And on December 11th, there was an same violation, lipreer. I can pull up for the court what the electronic media did with the prior violation. They hired a lipreer. the lip reader purported to derive a confession from the incident and they posted that. It's still up there. So, it's great that they apologize, but once this kind of damage is done, it it is irreparable and we can't continuously have violations where the media gets up and does this miaca uh and they just continue to do the same thing. And I point out to the court, this is the same pattern that happened in the Corberger case that's discussed in the motion we filed today. And eventually the court there had to order that all coverage of Mr. Corberger's face uh was prohibited and we attached that order to the motion that was just filed with the court. And I understand the media's desire for dramatic coverage. I understand how they want to incriminate Mr. Robinson, but that process both is supposed to happen in a trial, not in the media. And it's a serious violation. It's one that the court should not just blink away and say, "I accept the apology." Especially after the court was so clear this morning, calling the cameraman up, asking if he had read the December 23rd order, and his response was, "I'm good to go." meaning he had read it and presumably he read that provision about zooming in on lips. There's no excuse for it. The court should take some action. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. >> Anything further from any of the parties before this court makes a ruling on this issue that's before it? >> No. >> I just want to make one note, your honor. Um those clips that I showed you are just small portions of much longer footage that was available in the live stream. Um, that was just what we needed to compartmentalize to get it to your honor, but it was a much more extensive period of time. >> All right. All right. I appreciate uh this being brought promptly to the court's attention. This is an important issue and uh the court takes it very seriously as it relates to today. Uh well, first um I did put on the record uh very clearly that uh there would be potential consequences for any violation of the court's December 23rd, 2025 standing decorum order for the first part. Well, and and I've also had a chance to view the two clips that was presented. It was shown to all parties. The first appeared to show uh an attorney and Mr. Robinson uh speaking uh for about 9 seconds is is what my memory show uh tells me and reminds me. The second clip was for about 5 seconds. Um I believe it was from a slightly different angle uh but uh it also captured that and in both instances I could see uh Mr. Robinson's lips moving and um I don't remember about the second clip but I believe in the first clip it also showed council's lips moving but uh notwithstanding uh that was in place. I also uh refer to the statement made by uh the council for the news media and going to uh it is paragraph 48 and I will read it in its entirety. No audio recording is permitted of the conference involving council at council's tables or during bench conferences with the judge. No visual recording is permitted of a person's lips so as to be decipherable by a lip reader during conferences involving council at council's table or bench conferences with the judge. No one may zoom in on anything on council's tables or the bench to identify any writings. No, I in regards to the zooming, I know it was there was a a representation and and it's it's easy to as you're reading to kind of combine it, but I'm not finding that zooming in uh relates to the lip reader portion and but that's that's not material. I I do find that um and and I'm not a lip reader so I don't know what the standard is for lip reading but I do note that 9 seconds in that first clip one could see his lips moving and it is it is a significant time for as it relates to this particular issue. It wasn't a passing shot. it was focused on these two persons and and so I find that the decorum order as it relates to section paragraph 48 as it relates to no visual recording is permitted of a person's lips so as to be decipherable by lipreer I find that that has been violated in regards to the second clip 5 seconds where it shows Mr. Robinson and I believe one of the one of council that I was able to view Mr. Robinson's lips moving. It wasn't a passing shot that they just so happened to capture. It was focused on them. I find that that is a violation of paragraph 48 as it relates to no visual recording is permitted of a person's lips. >> All right, we do have to step aside for a break, but do want to clarify some things. First of all, difficult job for a judge in a case like this one to strike that balance between protecting the defendants's rights and making sure that the rights of the public and the media to access courts is protected as well. Now, we're not pool camera in this case, even though those clips, it seems like they pulled them from our live stream. The pool camera, one media outlet is designated to share all of that video with the other outlets. But even when we're showing the defendant, it's not with the intention for a lipreer. It's usually to get the defendant video of them and their reactions to the evidence, but we don't know what other people and other outlets may do with that footage. We're going to listen to more of what the judge has to say in this motions hearing in the case [music] against Tyler Robinson. Moon >> Tragic murder of Keith Cano and his entire family. This one is the most brutal case that I've seen in my experience here. The Mansion murders trial. Live coverage today on Court TV. >> Tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination [music] case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. >> Closing arguments tonight at 8:7 central >> [music] >> Let's get you back into the Utah courtroom now where the evidentiary hearing in the Charlie Kirk assassination case is underway. Now, the judge has just ruled that for the remainder of this hearing, the camera will not photograph Robinson at all. And the first witness is Jeffrey Gray, the Utah County Attorney. you've been associated with the um Utah County State Attorney's Office? >> Three years. >> Okay. And it was it three years ago that you were elected um to be the chief prosecutor of that office? >> Yes. >> All right. And had you ever previously been associated with the Utah County Prosecutor's Office in any other capacity? >> Um I've defended um on criminal in on criminal appeals. I was a criminal appeals attorney for the state of Utah for 23 years. So, um I represented the state of Utah on those criminal appeals, which would include Utah County. Okay. And um did you ever have any professional relationship with the Utah County Attorney's Office in any other capacity other than the appellet work you did before you were elected? >> Um [snorts] not to my recollection. No. Okay. Um, because we're in an open session and based on some of the guidance from the court, um, I'm going to ask you questions. Um, well, let me back up. How many prosecutors are in your office right now? >> Well, that are with with our courts that are actively engaged in in our court system is three 30. And then we have screening prosecutors as well. And that that would be another seven or eight. >> Okay. So, I'm going to try to >> I I should stop because I I also my executive team um they don't have courts. So, there's another five of them as well. >> Okay. So, let's let me ask a better question. How many prosecutors in your office um represent the state in felony matters? >> Well, all of them that I just described. I mean even the screeners. Yes, the screeners. Um my executive team they are assigned to special cases. Um usually my executive team for example aggravated murder cases, some homicide cases. So we they also are prosecuting and represent the state in trials. >> Can you explain what you mean by the executive team? The executive team would include uh obviously myself, my I have two chief deputies, uh one chief deputy, another chief uh deputies, general counsel, and then I have a um I have a division chief over major crimes and a division chief over general crimes. So, is it fair to say that there are at least two dozen prosecutors in your office who have substantial experience prosecuting um serious offenses? >> Two dozen? Um I don't know that I'd go as far as two dozen. Okay. >> Um certainly all my SPU attorneys have that experience. Um most of my violent felony attorneys have that experience too, but not all. >> Okay. And do you know how many attorneys in your office have actually >> I don't know the exact number, but I I maybe 15. Okay. But but I I guess I should clarify not all of them um have the experience in aggravated murder cases and that's why we specially assign those those attorneys. Understood. And how many do you believe have experience in aggravated homicide cases? >> Probably seven or eight. And are all seven or eight assigned to this case? >> No. Are the five other than you who are assigned to this case experienced an aggravated felony case? >> Four. Well, I've either three or four of the five. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about um a specific member of your office. Um and because the court may or may not ultimately order that that attorney's identity remain sealed, you know what I mean by the word sealed, right? >> Yes. >> Um I'm going to refer to that person as um prosecutor A. Okay. You with that? >> Sure. Okay. Um, so how long have you known prosecutor A? >> About three years. >> In your work um as a pallet council for the state, you had did you have any contact with prosecutor A? >> Um I may have I don't recall. Um, we generally send something out to when we get an appeal, we generally send um the AG's office, we send something out to the prosecutor, ask them to fill out anything that we should know. More often than not, they never send us anything. And because it's an appeal, I mean, we're bound by the record. So, there's not usually an occasion, but sometimes there is. But I couldn't say for sure that I've never tal I I certainly don't remember ever talking to him, though I could have. >> Okay. Is prosecutor A a member of your executive team? >> Yes. >> Okay. And did you select prosecutor A to be a member of your executive team? >> Yes. >> And that was at the beginning of your tenure. >> All right. We're going to step aside. We've got the county attorney on the stand answering questions. Let's bring in our guest. Criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Marie Pereira is with us. Marie, good to see you. Happy Friday. Uh let's talk about this issue that's going on inside the courtroom. We already had this big flare up over the decorum and the cameramen and what the defense does not want shown ever. But now we are back on track talking about the conflict of interest and that's why they have the county attorney on the stand because the allegation is that the county attorney's office, the prosecution's office should be disqualified from this case because one of the prosecutors has a child that was at the crime scene. fled when those shots were fired, was impacted, texted their parent. Uh, can you first break down for our viewers what a conflict of interest is when it comes to a prosecution's office? >> It is an interest that would make it impossible for the prosecutors to fail decisions against the defendant. that there may be such emotion in deciding whether or not to maybe call a witness. Devise a theory of prosecution that it it would hurt defenses rights to a fair trial because not only would they be claiming the defendant broke penal laws, but it would be something personal against him by the people who are prosecuting him. And it should never be personal to an extent where it might impede the justice that defendant is entitled to because until he's proven guilty, he's considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So you don't want people prosecuting him that come to the stage of prosecution with a with an axe to grind or hate in their hearts against him because my daughter was there. She was feet away from what you did. you've scarred her for life. You don't want anyone on the prosecutotorial team coming in with that kind of hate and animus against the defendant. A >> great explainer of that because we're hearing a lot of testimony, a lot of arguments, but I love how you broke it down. So, now let's talk what we actually are dealing with with this situation. No doubt everyone in that area was calling their child, especially the ones who attended that school or maybe any school in the area when that news broke. I'm sure it gripped everyone because the shooter was on the loose for a number of hours. Do you think this rises to the level of someone being disqualified from this case? And does it need to be the entire office or can you just disqualify that attorney if they are not the lead attorney? I have to say when I first heard about this case, I was listening to it as I was getting ready and I kept hearing about conflict from the defense like irreparable harm, that type of thing. So when he said really what the conflict was, it was like boom. That's it. All of this bruhaha because one of the prosecuting attorney's kids were on site. I don't think it's enough of a nexus to say that it's impossible for the prosecutor's office to give him a fair trial with justice because of that. I think he needs to go get out of here, go sit down, even though he did, you know, he has to fight for his client. This is a death penalty case, right? So he's vehemently, meticulously, and zealously crossing every tea and dotting every eye because that's his job to to say things like, "We don't want the press in there. They're lipreading and violating attorney client privilege." So he's throwing it all up to cause delays and to really protect his client's rights. But I didn't think it was a good reason to answer your question. No, it's not enough. Maria, I like how you went from your former prosecutor hat to then your defense attorney hat where you said he's got to do what he's got to do. Let's get to our break and when we come back, the Utah County attorney continues testimony in this evidentiary hearing [music] addressing whether this office should be disqualified from prosecuting in the trial for the Charlie Kirk assassination. [music] Credit Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Julia Jana. We are continuing to follow this motions hearing happening in Utah in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. The attorneys for the accused killer, Tyler Robinson, they want the judge to disqualify the prosecutors in this case. The Utah County Attorney's Office, they say there's a conflict of interest that the head of that office, Jeffrey Gray, is still on the stand talking about and reacting to some of these allegations. Let's head back to court. >> All right. And um so you had close working contact with prosecutor A, who's a member of your executive team for the past three years. Yes. And that um unless you're out of the office traveling or on vacation, that's basically every work day of the month. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. And um have you met members of prosecutor A's family? >> Um let's just start with ever. What's that? >> Ever? Have you ever met members of prosecutor A's family? >> Um, I have met his wife. >> Okay. >> Um, I don't know if I've met his kids. Um, I may have in passing, but I don't really if I did it was like at a function they say this is my family and introduce me. But I I don't remember. Have you socialized with prosecutor A and his wife? >> Um, I think we I just I think we went out to dinner um once after a conference in St. George with with some other prosecutors and their wives. >> Okay. Um, have you ever been to prosecutor A's home? >> No. Has prosecutor A ever been to your home? Um, do you engage in recreational activities in any way with prosecutor A? >> No. >> Whatever you do, running, pickle ball. >> No, I I I need to do more running, but I unfortunately I don't. >> All right, understood. Um, okay. Now, um, prosecutor A has an adult child who was at the September 10th rally at Utah Valley University. Correct. That is what I I I mean, I don't have personal knowledge of that other than what they have told me. So, like I never saw that adult child, but I'm assuming yes, that's true. >> Okay. But on September 10th, um, 2025, at the moment that, um, Mr. Kirk was shot and ultimately died from that shooting at Utah Valley University. You were in Davis County, right? >> Yes. I I indicated in the motion that it was Ogden, but it was actually Leighton. So, it was Leighton. >> Leighton. >> Yes. >> Okay. And I I think that's Davis County. >> All right. That's what I thought. And prosecutor A was with you? >> Yes. >> Okay. And isn't it true that while you and prosecutor A were in Davis County, you learned from prosecutor A that one of his adult children was at the rally and was texting him about their experience. >> Yes. I mean, we had just broken for lunch and he showed me the text. Charlie Charlie Kirk got shot. >> And that was a text that he showed you was from one of his children, right? >> Yes. >> And you knew at the time that it was a text from one of his children, right? >> Yes. >> What did he say to you? So, I'm talking about prosecutor A. >> He said, "Look at my do look at what my child just uh showed me." And that that's about it. And then he said, you know, I should be getting down to UVU. >> Okay. And then he left. >> Yes. >> And he, as far as you understand, he drove down to UVU. >> Well, he drove towards UVU. Yeah. He drove in the area. >> Ultimately, I met him and then we drove together to UVU. >> Okay. So, you um according to the um pleading that you and you authored the pleading that was filed. >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. So that for the course benefit that's the um state's opposition to the motion to disqualify. You authored that correct? Yes. >> All right. And um in it you said that 10 to 15 minutes after prosecutor A left the event that you were at in Davis County, you left. >> Yes. I >> did you also head in the direction of UVU? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then you and prosecutor A met up somewhere. >> Yes. and then traveled to UVU together in your vehicle or in prosecutor a >> um >> I guess there's a third alternative which is you met somebody else and traveled >> No. Um I don't remember which whose vehicle it was. >> All right. Did you talk to prosecutor A? >> It was it was my vehicle. I'm pretty sure I >> And was that just about logistical convenience like let's just go in one car or was that some specific reason? >> Yes. No, that that was no other reason. >> Okay. And on your way to that what I'll call the meeting point, >> did you have any conversations by >> Well, yeah, because we needed to meet. Um, he left. Um, I thought I would get some lunch first before I went to the command post. I got about halfway through that and said my mind was not on it. I needed to go to there. And so then we we called I believe I called him or he called I'm not sure who called who but uh then we met. We we hadn't we hadn't arranged that um when he left. Understood. Um but did he convey to you any more information about his child's experience in those conversations? >> No. >> Okay. And did you inquire like how's your kid or anything like that? so you met up and then you went to the command post which was established near the university. Correct. >> It was at the university. >> Okay. Was it inside one of the buildings? >> What's that? >> It was inside one of the um academic buildings. >> Yes. >> All right. And was did you see prosecutor A's um child there when you were there? >> No. >> Were you introduced to that person? >> No. >> Okay. Did you have any conversations with prosecutor A about whether um they should um stick around and wait? >> No. >> Okay. Um >> a lot of interesting details coming out. You have Jeffrey Gray who is the head of this prosecution team, but prosecutor A who they're protecting the name of someone who was actually with him when they started receiving messages from their child. Will the judge make a decision on disqualification based on that information? We have more ahead in [music] the Charlie Kirk assassination case. >> Tonight on Closing Arguments, defense attorneys fight to get the prosecutors removed from the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We're live with takeaways from today's big hearing. >> Closing arguments [music] tonight at 8:7 central only on Court TV. >> Did an affair with the family's Opair lead to double murder? >> I'm going to cure her. I'm going to kill her. It's a case of sex, lies, and deadly deception. >> The Alira Affair murder trial continues Welcome back. We are continuing to follow things out in Utah. The defense team for a man who's accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk wants the prosecution's team removed from the case. They say there's a conflict of interest because one of the prosecutor's children was on the scene where this shooting happened. And the head of the Utah County Attorney's Office is still on the stand testifying about being with quote >> Well, my understanding was that everybody had left. We were told that most of the students had left. They they okay. So, as far as you know, um prosecutor A's um adult child had left the university before you. far as far as I know I I my understanding was that you know most of the students had fled that first they they went into buildings or whatever and then they made their way out. Um you are aware I'm sorry that's not a question. Give me Okay. So, did you spend time with prosecutor A at the command post on September 10th at UVU? >> I mean, yes. I mean, we were going different places, but there would be times that we would meet up. Um but off and on is all I can say. >> Okay. Um and did there come a time either on the 10th or shortly thereafter where he provide you with some information about how his adult child was doing having been at the >> you know I don't remember him ever saying anything about that and I never asked. I probably should have um but uh I don't I don't remember any Was there anybody else at the rally who you are friends with or is a relative of yours or a close coworker that you're aware of? Um, I know that there were some people in my LDS ward whose children were there. >> Okay. And when you say some people, could you be a little more specific? Like how many different families? >> Two members of the ward. >> Sure. But do you know how many different families that would be? >> Um, I think I was told about two. >> Okay. And who told you that? >> Um, one of the one of the families. >> Okay. So, one of the families in your ward informed you that one of their own children had been there and then another one had been there >> and that somebody else from from the ward had been there. >> I see. Um, and do you know do you know who those people are by name? >> Um, >> I'm not asking you their names. I just want to know if you if you came to learn who they are. >> Yeah, I came to learn who they are. Yeah. >> Okay. And are you close with those people? Um, I mean, we're casual friends with one of them, but I don't think I learned that until well after we filed the information. >> Understood. When did you learn that? >> Sometime after. I don't know. >> Um, so the information was filed in obviously in midepptember. >> Just in 6 days. So, >> right. Okay. And do you know like if you saw these the the children of the families in your ward who you understood whether if you saw them on the street would you recognize them? >> Um I would recognize at least one of them. >> Did you ever have any conversations with them or their parents about their experience? >> I tried to stay away from that other than they told me that the one was doing just fine and the other one was shook up. Okay. And um the other one was shook up. Is that was that is that the term used or is that just your way to summarize? >> That's my way of summarizing it. What did they tell you? >> Having a hard time with it or something of that nature? >> I'm sorry I interrupted you. So somebody told you somebody who you know from your ward told you that their their child is is their child a student at UVU? >> Um probably. I mean, they're young adults, so I'm assuming that I I really don't know for sure. >> Yeah. >> And I think what you said is that they told you that their um child was was having a hard time with it. >> What? That not their child, but the other family's other child. Okay. So, it was like a second thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And um do you know if either of those young people who were at the rally Well, I'll put it this way. Do you know where they were? Uh, in terms of in what I'm going to refer to as the amphitheater area, >> I have no clue. >> Okay. >> The one who was having a hard time with it. >> Did you share that information with um the prosecution team? >> I may have. I I don't remember. I may have in passing. Um, did you ever suggest to any of the law enforcement officers that that person be interviewed because they were impacted by the by what they experienced? >> No, we we don't interfere. >> All right, we're going to pause it right there. You can continue watching more of this hearing. It is streaming right now on courttv.com and on our YouTube channel. Let's bring back in criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Marie Pereira. Get her reaction on where we are now. Has anything changed for you hearing that the head prosecutor was with prosecutor A when he was getting these texts from his child? >> And we know the child is a daughter because that slipped out during uh the testimony. So it's not biological child only. We know it's a girl. So that part um I haven't heard anything yet that would make me think that based on the fact that one of the prosecutor's child was present close to the victim when the defendant allegedly shot him would make it impossible for the whole prosecutor's office to give him a fair trial without any animous hate and ill will that drives the prosecution. I haven't heard it yet, but there could be more testimony coming out of there that could show that you know what, it's impossible because there's so much damage caused by the presence of this child that it's impossible for the entire department to give ch um Tyler Robinson a fair trial. I don't think we're going to hear it, but let's see what happens. So, you're not seeing it yet, but what if this was a police officer investigating this? Do you think they would get taken off the investigation? >> Perhaps, but then that's why this inquest is important in the absence of the jurors because you don't want anything popping out when trial is going on. So, I think the judge is right to allow them to conduct this background pre-trial hearing to see what are we looking at here. here. Is it something that it could be an error? Uh something that would be appealed. Why not be just very careful? Because again, this is a capital case. It's a death penalty case and you don't want any mess ups and you don't want the defendant not getting 100% fair treatment by everybody. So, you don't want any haters coming in with not justice in mind, but getting him for traumatizing somebody's child. And real quick before we have to go to break, Marie, who would take over if this prosecution's office is disqualified? >> An independent prosecutor or the office of the attorney general? But they alluded that that would be so expensive. It would cost thousands of dollars to bring someone in. Money is not the issue. Justice is the issue. So if they find that this prosecutor's office is not equipped because of this conflict to prosecute him properly under justice, then they need to do what they have to do. put that money out there if the judge says the conflict is too bad to resolve. >> We will see what happens out there in Utah. >> [music]