Document text
Court Proceeding — Charlie Kirk Murder Case: Death Penalty Still in Play, Prosecutor Held in Contempt
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=cebVdQBZVh0) — verbatim ASR, not a certified court transcript.
Court is now in session. Calling case 251403576, State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson. Counsel, please enter your appearances. >> Good morning, Your Honor. Uh Chad Grunander, Ryan McBride, Lauren Hunt, Chris Ballard, and Jeff Gray for the state. >> Good morning. >> [clears throat] >> Good morning, Your Honor. Kathy Nester, Richard Novak, Michael Burrard, and Stacy Visser for Mr. Robinson. And if we could please confirm that he could hear us. They're muted. Let's go ahead and unmute them. Mr. Robinson, are you with us? >> Yes, Your Honor. >> All right. Good morning, Mr. Robinson. All right. Uh counsel for the state, and good morning to defense as well. Uh counsel for the state, I I know it's only been a few days, but is there uh a brief status update regarding discovery? >> Uh yes, Judge. Since Monday, we have received one additional file from the SBI, which has been provided to the defense. So, we sit at approximately 100% um as far as what we've received, we have provided to the defense. Turning to defendant's motion for an order to show cause for contempt of court, and state's objection to defendant's request to remove the death penalty. The court will read the ruling, but omit reading the citations, which will be included in the written ruling, which will be uploaded to the docket later today. The court will begin This matter comes before the court on defendant Tyler James Robinson motion for order to show cause for contempt of court. Defendant asked this court to hold Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard in civil contempt for allegedly violating the court's pre-trial and trial publicity order originally entered on September 16th, 2025 and amended on December 15th, 2025. The court has thoroughly reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, declarations, and exhibits submitted by both parties, including defendant's motion, the declaration of counsel, the state's opposition, defendant's reply, the state's opposition to defendant's request to move the death penalty, and defendant's response thereto. Furthermore, the court has considered the testimony and evidence presented during the evidentiary show cause hearing held on June 12th, 2026, where Deputy County Attorney Ballard and Utah County Attorney Jeffrey S. Gray testified under oath. Drawing upon Utah statutory law, the Utah rules of professional conduct, constitutional authority, and persuasive precedent from other jurisdictions, the court issues this ruling and order. The court has independently determined the facts and applied the law to ascertain whether civil contempt has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. This case involves a high-profile capital prosecution of Tyler James Rawlinson, who was charged with the aggravated murder of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, which allegedly occurred at Utah Valley University. Because this case has garnered immense national and international media attention, this court recognized early in the proceedings that pre-trial publicity could severely compromise the defendant's right to due process in a fair and impartial jury trial. To protect the fundamental constitutional rights of both defendant and the state, this court sua sponte issued a protection order re pre-trial and trial publicity on September 16th, 2025. The order explicitly stated that lawyers who have participated, who are now participating, or who will yet participate in the investigation or litigation of this case in any way, shall abide strictly by rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. The order further incorporated rule 3.6A's prohibition against making an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or should reasonably know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. Following a motion by the state for clarification regarding the term witness, the court issued an amended order on December 15th, 2025 clarifying the scope of the attorneys' duties to instruct their respective teams. The present controversy emerged following a public filing by the defense on March 27th, 2026. Defendant filed a motion to vacate or continue the preliminary hearing. In that motion, defense counsel characterized a forensic summary report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF, by stating that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at the autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson. The actual ATF report concluded that the bullet jacket fragment could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from exhibit one rifle and that the results of the comp the comparison was in comp inconclusive. The defendant's framing of the ATF report in an unsealed public court filing prompted promptly generated substantial media coverage. On March 30th, 2026, the Daily Mail published an article with the headline "Bullet used to kill Charlie Kent did not match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims." Other news outlets and social media commentators rapid rapidly echoed this narrative characterizing the ATF report as exculpatory, a bombshell that exonerates Robinson, and evidence that the state's case possessed a fundamental problem. [clears throat] Faced with a rapidly expanding public narrative that falsely suggested that the ATF had affirmatively excluded the defendant's rifle as the murder weapon, Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard engaged in several communications with media outlets including TMZ, USA Today, PolitiFact, and Fox News between March 31st and April 2nd, 2026. In these communications, Mr. Ballard sought to correct the record regarding the definition of an inconclusive ballistics test. However, during these interviews, Mr. Ballard also provided statements regarding the overall strength of the state's evidence, asserting that the prosecution had ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder and that the state believed it would be able to overcome his presumption of innocence. On April 15th, 2026, the defendant filed the instant motion for an order to show cause for contempt of court, seeking to hold Utah County Attorney Jeffrey S. Gray and Deputy County Attorney Christopher Ballard in civil contempt. Defendant concurrently sought an order compelling discovery related to internal communications of the Utah County Attorney's Office, uh referred to as UCAO. The state filed this opposition on April 30th, 2026, arguing that Mr. Ballard's statements were protected under the safe harbor provision of URC UPRC 3.6C, which permits a lawyer to make statements necessary to mitigate substantial undue prejudice generated by recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer. The state argued that the defendant's misleading public filing necessitated the response. Defendant filed a reply on May 7th, 2026. On June 1st, 2026, this court issued a ruling and order granting the motion for an order to show cause, determining that the defendant had made a sufficient preliminary showing under Utah Code 78B -6-301 sub 5 to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The court concurrently denied the defendant's request to compel discovery of the UCAO's internal communications. The court held an evidentiary show cause hearing on June 12th, 2026. During the hearing, the court took testimony from Mr. Ballard and Mr. Gray, both who were subjected to direct and cross-examination. Following the hearing, the state filed an unsolicited objection to defendant's request to remove the death penalty as a sanction, to which the defendant filed a response on June 18th, 2026. Having considered the pleadings, the exhibits, and the sworn testimony presented at the June 12th, 2026 hearing, the court makes the following findings of fact by clear and convincing evidence. On September 16th, 2025, this court issued a valid, lawful protection order re pre-trial and trial publicity. The order explicitly required all participating lawyers to abide strictly by rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct and prohibited extrajudicial statements possessing a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudicated proceedings. The order was subsequently clarified on December 15th, 2025. Deputy County Attorney Christopher Ballard had actual notice of the publicity order. Mr. Ballard personally signed the state's November 6th, 2025 motion to amend or clarify the court's pre-trial and trial publicity order. During his testimony on June 12th, 2026, Mr. Ballard acknowledged his familiarity familiarity with the order and his ethical obligations under URPC 3.6. At all times relevant to this inquiry, Mr. Ballard possessed unhindered ability to comply with the publicity order. There were no physical or legal imp impediments that prevented him from adhering to the court's directives. On March 27th, 2026, defense counsel filed a motion to continue containing the assertion that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at the autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson. The actual ATF report concluded that bullet jacket fragment could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from the subject rifle, rendering the result inconclusive. Relying upon the defense's filing, media outlets generated highly sensationalized and factually inaccurate headlines. The Daily Mail declared the bullet did not match the rifle. Commentators described the ATF report as a bombshell that exonerated the defendant. Between March 31st and April 2nd, Mr. Ballard engaged in extrajudicial communications with multiple media entities. On March 31st, 2026, Mr. Ballard was quoted by TMZ stating, "Generally, when a bullet fragment analysis comes back as inconclusive, that means the fragment did not contain contain enough detail for the examiner to say one way or the other. There's just not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder, and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing, and we will present all that evidence at trial." Mr. Ballard further stated, "He is presumed innocent. The ultimate decision will be up to the jury. We believe we will will be able to overcome his presumption of innocence." On March 31st and April 2nd, 2026, Mr. Ballard provided statements to USA Today and Politifact strictly limiting his commentary to the mechanical and forensic definition of an inconclusive ballistics test, noting that ethical rules prohibit him from speaking publicly about forensic testing and the test results, but clarifying that inconclusive means only that the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to determine whether the characteristics on the fragment were consistent with having been fired by a particular firearm. Having observed the demeanor and testimony of Mr. Ballard during the evidentiary hearing, the court finds that Mr. Ballard testified credibly regarding his subjective intent. The court finds that Mr. Ballard did not engage with the media out of a malicious desire to flout this court's authority or to intentionally taint the jury pool. Mr. Ballard testified that he believed his statements were necessary to respond to public reporting concerning the ATF report. In Utah, contempt proceedings are governed by governed simultaneously by common law principles and the statutory framework outlined in Utah Code 78B-6-301. Section 78B-6-301 sub 5 expressly dictates that disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court constitutes a contempt of the authority of the court. To hold a party in civil contempt for violating a court order, the moving party must prove three common law elements by clear and convincing evidence. One, the person cited for contempt knew what was required by the order. Two, the person had the ability to comply with the order. And three, the person lay in intentionally failed or refused to do so. Utah law requires proof by clear and contemnor knew of the order, possessed the ability to comply, and intentionally committed the acts constituting the violation. Von Haacke remains controlling Utah precedent because the court concludes those elements are satisfied under existing Utah law. It is unnecessary to determine whether the objective good faith standard discussed in Taggart V. Lorenzen would independently alter Utah's civil contempt jurisprudence. Even assuming Taggart provides persuasive guidance, the result would be the same because the challenged statements exceeded the objective limitations contained in rule 3.6C. Contempt is categorized as either direct or indirect based on where the conduct occurred. Direct contempt occurs in the immediate presence of the court and may be punished summarily. Utah Code Indirect or constructive contempt occurs outside the presence of the court and triggers robust due process protections. Because Mr. Ballard's extrajudicial statements occurred outside the immediate view and the presence of the court, this constitutes an allegation of indirect contempt. Due process for indirect civil contempt requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and presentation of the charges via an affidavit or sworn statement detailing the facts constituted constituting the contempt. The court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing where the accused may present an answer Here the court finds that all procedural due process requirements have been satisfied. Defendant submitted an affidavit of counsel. The court issued an order to show cause. And the court convened a full evidentiary hearing on June 12th, 2026, at which the accused testified and presented argument. >> [snorts] >> A critical distinction must be drawn between civil and criminal contempt as the classification dictates the available sanctions. As the Utah Supreme Court articulated in Von Hake, the distinguishing factor is whether the sanction is conditional or fake fixed. A contempt order is criminal if the punishment is fixed, unconditional, and purely punitive, designed to vindicate the authority of the court. Conversely, a contempt order is civil if the sanction is remedial, designed to either compensate the aggrieved party for injuries resulting from the non-compliance or to coerce further compliance through a conditional penalty. Because the defendant brought this motion seeking remedial sanctions to cure alleged prejudice to his fair trial rights, the court evaluate evaluates this strictly as a civil contempt proceeding. This court's publicity order expressly incorporated rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 3.6 reflects the constitutional accommodations I reconcile, sorry, recognize in Gentile versus State Bar of Nevada, under which an attorney participating in pending litigation may be subject to narrowly tailored speech restrictions when necessary to protect the integrity of adjudicated of an adjudicated proceeding. This rule therefore protects both the attorney's First Amendment Amendment interests and the criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial before an impartial jury. Neither constitutional interest is absolute. Each must be reconciled through a careful application of the rule's objective standards. Rule 3.6A sets forth a general prohibition. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that they know or reasonably should know will be disseminated publicly and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Comment to rule 3.6 explicitly enumerates subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect, particularly in a criminal proceeding. These prohibited subjects include the performance or results of any examination or test or the nature of physical evidence, any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant, the fact that the defendant has been charged unless accompanied by a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent. However, the rule contains critical exceptions. Rule 3.6b permits the lawyer to state information contained in a public record without elaboration. Furthermore, rule 3.6c provides a safe harbor or right of a reply. A lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. Crucially, any response under 3.6c shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. The Utah Supreme Court recently addressed the ethical boundaries of prosecutorial speech in a capital case in the matter of the discipline of David O. Leavitt. In Leavitt, a county attorney held a press conference announcing his decision to seek the death penalty and stated that the state's key witness was credible based on a lot of evidence that the jury will never hear and that he possessed evidence strengthening his belief that the defendant committed the murders. The Utah Supreme Court held that a prosecutor's opinion of guilt is particularly likely to create prejudice given that his or her words carry the authority of the government and are especially persuasive in the public's eye. The court disciplined the prosecutor recognizing while transparency is a legitimate objective prosecutors possess a heightened ethical duty to ensure that justice is done which includes respecting the constitutional rights of the accused like the presumption of innocence. Civil contempt is an extraordinary remedy because contempt implicates both judicial authority and competing constitutional interests the court defines its decision to narrow conduct presented by the by this record. This court possesses the inherent authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys appearing before it and the statutory authority to punish disobedience of its lawful order under Utah code 78 B-6-301. As noted by the Utah Supreme Court courts must maintain and protect the integrity and dignity of the profession. A judge presiding over a high profile capital case bears an affirmative constitutional duty under the 6th and 14th amendments to take preventative measures against prejudicial pre-trial publicity that could taint the jury pool. The enforcement of the September 16th, 2025 publicity order is squarely within this court's jurisdiction and within the court's inherent and statutory authority. To hold a party in contempt the order violated must be clear and unambiguous. The court finds that the publicity order was exceptionally clear. It did not rely on vague prohibitions instead it explicitly incorporated the exact text and framework of rule 3.6 of the Utah rules of professional conduct. It directed the attorneys to abide strictly by its parameters. The incorporation of standard universally understood rules of professional ethics renders this order unambiguous. The court finds that Deputy County Attorney Ballard had actual notice and knowledge of the order. The record reflects that Mr. Ballard signed a motion seeking to clarify the order in November 2025. He never contested his awareness of the order or his obligations under rule 3.6 during the evidentiary hearing. The first element of civil contempt, knowledge of the order, is established beyond doubt. The defendant alleged Mr. Ballard's statements to the press between March 31st and April 2nd constitute multiple distinct violations of the publicity order. The court analyzes these statements by categorizing them in two distinct thematic areas. First, statements clarifying the ATF ballistics report. And second, statements regarding the overall strength of the state's case and presumption of innocence. Allegation one, statements clarifying the ATF ballistics report. The conduct. Mr. Ballard sent written emails to Politico Fact and gave statements to USA Today and TMZ explaining the meaning of an inconclusive ballistics test. Specifically, he stated when the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as inconclusive, that does not mean that the rifle did not fire the bullet. There just aren't enough marks on the fragment to make a conclusive conclusion one way or the other. Supporting evidence. Quotes published in USA Today, Politico Fact and TMZ. Contrary evidence and defenses. The state argues these statements were expressly permitted by rule 3.6C as necessary to protect the state from substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity that the prosecution did not initiate. The defense initiated the media frenzy by stating in a public filing that the ATF was unable to identify the bullet to the rifle. The media twisted this phrase to mean the bullet did not match. Factual incredibility findings. The court finds that the defense's characterization in its March 27th motion to continue was technically accurate but highly prone to misinterpret misinterpretation. By framing the results as unable to identify, the defense neglected to include the ATF's current finding that the bullet also could not be excluded. The media seized on this omission, generating headlines that materially overstated the foren- forensic conclusions, stating the bullet did not match the rifle. The court finds Mr. Ballard testified credibly that he viewed this media narrative as highly prejudicial to the state. Legal analysis. Rule 3.6c permits a lawyer to make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer. A false media narrative asserting that the murder weapon has been definitively forensically excluded constitutes substantial undue prejudice to the prosecution. Mr. Ballard's statements explaining the forensic mechanical definition of an inconclusive test were narrowly tailored to mitigate the specific prejudice. While comment five generally prohibits discussing the results of the test, the safe harbor of rule 3.6c authorizes otherwise restricted responsive statements only to the extent reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent prejudicial publicity. Conclusions on allegation one. The court finds Mr. Ballard's statements clarifying the ATF's inconclusive findings were protected by the [clears throat] safe harbor provision of UPRPC 3.6 C. These statements do not constitution constitute a violation of the publicity order. Contempt is not proven regarding these specific statements. Allegation two, the statements opining on the strength of the evidence and guilt. The conduct Beyond merely correcting the ballistics record, Mr. Ballard provided the following statement to TMZ. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder, and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing. And then we will present all of that evidence at the trial. He further stated, he is presumed innocent. The ultimate decision will be up to the jury. We believe we will be able to overcome his presumption of innocence. Supporting evidence, the published TMZ article dated March 31st, 2026. This this the state does not deny these statements were made. Contrary evidence and defenses, the state relies on state v. Wright, a Kansas case, arguing that a prosecutor's general statement that his job is to bring cases he believes he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt does not ex- express an improper opinion on guilt. The state argues that merely expressing confidence that has that it has enough evidence to carry its burden tells the public nothing more than what the existence of the prosecution already proclaims. Factual incredibility findings, the court finds that Mr. Ballard subjectively believed he was operating within the bounds of rule 3.6. However, the court finds that his subjective belief regarding these statements was objectively unreasonable. Legal analysis, rule 3.6 C strictly dictates that any responsive statement shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. The adverse publicity here concerned one specific piece of physical evidence, a bullet fragment. The court does not conclude that Rule 3.6C prohibited all public response. To the contrary, Rule 3.6C expressly recognizes that in limited circumstances, counsel may respond to recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or lawyer's client. The question is not, therefore, whether Mr. Ballard could respond, but whether a reasonable lawyer would have believed additional statements concerning concerning the overall strength of the prosecution's evidence were necessary to mitigate the specific prejudice created by the inaccurate reporting concerning the ATF examination. The court applies an objective standard. The subjective good faith of counsel is relevant to credibility, but does not determine whether Rule 3.6C's limitation was satisfied. The state's reliance on State v. Wright is misplaced. Wright is distinguishable because it addressed statements made during voir dire, rather than extrajudicial statements governed by Rule 3.6. As the Utah Supreme Court recently reiterated in Levitt, when an elected prosecutor or their deputy makes public declarations regarding the strength of evidence or their belief in ultimate outcome of the trial, those words carry particular weight and authority of the government. Stating that the prosecution has ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder reasonably communicated to the public the prosecutor's assessment of the defendant's guilt that the defendant was guilty. This directly violates comment five Roman numeral four of rule 3.6 with which prohibits expressing any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. While Mr. Ballard offered a cursory nod to the presumption of innocence, he immediately undercut it by publicly broadcasting his belief that the state will overcome his presumption of innocence. These statements were not reasonably necessary under rule 3.6c to mitigate the confusion surrounding the ATF report. Rather, those additional public statements possessed a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings by communicating the prosecutor's assessment of the defendant's guilt. Conclusion on allegation two. The court finds that the statements to TMZ regarding ample evidence in overcoming the presumption of innocence violated rule 3.6a and were not protected by rule 3. 6c safe harbor. Because Mr. Ballard knew of the order, possessed the ability to comply, and intentionally made the volitional statements in question, the elements of civil contempt are proven by clear and convincing evidence. The state and the UCAO possesses vital First Amendment interests in communicating with their constituents and defending the integrity of their investigation against false media narratives. Rule 3.6c accommodated that right by allowing Mr. Ballard to correct the interac- inaccurate ballistics narrative. However, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial places a constitutional ceiling on prosecutorial speech. As the United States court held in Gentile, a lawyer's right to free speech is circumscribed because lawyer statements are likely to be received as especially authoritative. In capital cases where life is at stake, the court concludes that defendant's Sixth Amendment interests predominate is predominant under these facts. The court's ruling is not based on disagreement with the prosecutor's viewpoint, nor on the mere fact that the challenged statements were made publicly. Rather, the court enforces a pre-existing publicity order that incorporated Rule 3.6 applied equally to all participating counsel and governed attorney conduct in a pending capital prosecution. The contempt finding rests on the conclusion that the identified statements exceeded the objective limits of Rule 3.6c, not on the content of the state's position or the court's assessment of the merits of the prosecution. The The remedial measures ordered are directed to preserving jury impartiality and future compliance with the court's order. Thus, the application of civil contempt sanctions here do not does not offend the First Amendment. For the reasons stated above, the court independently determines that the movement has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard is in civil contempt of the September 16th, 2025 and December 15th, 2025 publicity orders. The court emphasizes this ruling does not address the merits of the criminal charges, the credibility of anticipated witnesses, or the ultimate guilt or innocence of defendant. Its sole purpose is enforcement of a narrowly tailored publicity order governing attorney conduct. A reasonable attorney invoking Rule 3.6c may respond only to the specific prejudice requiring requiring correction. The prejudice identified here concerned the public misunderstanding of the ATF's inconclusive forensic finding. Once that misunderstanding had been fully addressed, further commentary concerning the overall strength of the prosecution's evidence did not materially assist in correcting specific misinfor- misinfor- mis- impressions. Rather, those additional statements induced a separate subject, the prosecutor's assessment of the ultimate merits, which rule 3.6 independently regulates. Conclusions of law. First, the pretrial and trial publicity order entered on September 16th, 2025 and amended on December 15th, 2025 was a valid, clear, and unambiguous lawful order of this court. Two, Deputy County Attorney Christopher Ballard had actual notice of the order, knowledge of its contents, and the unhindered ability to comply with with its directives. Three, although rule 3.6c permitted limited responsive statements exam- explaining the ATF report, Mr. Ballard's additional statements concerning the strength of the state's evidence and anticipated ability to overcome the presumption of innocence exceeded the scope of that expec- exception and violated the court's publicity order. Four, Mr. Ballard intentionally and volitionally made these extrajudicial statements, fulfilling the required elements of civil contempt pursuant to sub five and Von Haacke v. Thomas. Order and sanction. Having found Mr. Ballard in civil contempt, the court turns to the imposition of sanctions. The defendant argues that the appropriate sanction to remedy the remedy this prejudice is to strike the state's notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The court declines to adopt this requested remedy. As the state correctly argues in its objection, striking a capital enhancement or reducing the charge is not a remedial civil sanction. It is a fixed, absolute, and purely punitive sanction. Such an act would cross the the threshold into criminal contempt sanctions and would also risk an improper judicial intrusion into the executive branch's prosecutorial discretion. Civil contempt sanctions must be remedial, tailored to cure the prejudice caused by the violation, or designed to coerce future compliance. The court finds that striking the death penalty is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and legally unavailable in this civil contempt framework. Before imposing sanctions, the court considered whether a mere finding of violations without remedial measures would adequately adequately protect the integrity of future proceedings. The court concludes it would not. At the same time, the court rejects punitive sanctions that would intrude upon prosecutorial charging authority or or materially alter the underlying criminal proceedings. The selected remedy addresses only the potential effects of the publicity on jury selection and future compliance with the court's order. Accordingly, the court concludes that relief ordered constitutes the least intrusive means reasonably necessary to remedy the identified prejudice. However, the violation requires a mean meaningful remedy to compensate the aggrieved party and protect the integrity of the impending trial. The court draws guidance from the remedies deployed by the district court in Lovett to cure jury pool taint. Therefore, it is hereby ordered defendant's motion for an order to show cause for contempt of court is granted in so much I'm sorry in so far as the court finds Deputy County Attorney Christopher Ballard in civil contempt. Enlargement of jury veneer to directly remedy the potential taint introduced into the Utah County jury pool by Mr. Ballard's statements regarding the strength of the evidence, the court will consider expanded voir dire proceedings or procedures, additional jury questionnaires, expanded jury summons or other remedial measures as necessary after consulted after consultation with the parties. Attorney's fees because this civil contempt proceeding was necessitated by Mr. Ballard's violation, the court shall compensate the defendant for the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the filing, drafting, and litigating of the motion for order show cause and the evidentiary hearing. Defense counsel's ordered to submit a detailed affidavit of costs and fees within 14 days of the order of this court. The state shall have 7 days thereafter to file any objections to the reasonableness of the requested fees. Future compliance, the court reaffirms the existing publicity order. Any future violation may result in additional contempt proceedings and sanctions authorized by the law. Courts depend upon public confidence that criminal prosecutions will be decided upon evidence presented in open court rather than public advocacy outside of it. This order should not be understood as discouraging legitimate public communication authorized by rule 3.6. Rather, it reflects the court's obligation to enforce a previously entered order equally against all counsel and to preserve the fairness of the proceedings for both the defendants and the state. And this concludes the ruling of the court. Again, this will be uploaded to Counsel, let's move on. Uh turning to defendants oppositions to EMC order for the The court will issue a written ruling by midweek next week. The court recognizes that both parties are actively preparing for the preliminary hearing scheduled to begin on July 6th. Given the time and attention required for that preparation, the court does not believe an oral ruling on the motion is necessary. The written ruling will be uploaded to the docket and parties will receive notice once the court has issued its decision. Turning to the upcoming preliminary hearing, the court is mindful of the safety and well-being of all parties, counsel, witnesses, court staff, and members of the public who may be present. The court is also mindful of the duty to protect and uphold the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk. To serve those important interests, the court reminds all persons who will be in attendance that portable electronic devices will not be permitted in the courtroom or on the fourth floor. Portable electronic devices include any device that can record or transmit data, images, or sounds, or access the internet, including a pager, laptop, notebook, personal computer, handheld PC, PDA, audio or video recorder, wireless device, cellular telephone, electronic glasses, or an electronic calendar. This prohibition does not apply to legal counsel and support staff for the defense or the state in this matter or the equipment permitted under any controlling electronic media coverage order. In addition, every person who will be in attendance will be afforded the dignity and respect due to them and pursuant to the September 24th, 2025 standing decorum order, all spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly. Spectators shall not engage in any distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil, or threatening behavior of any kind. Spectators shall not make any audible comments of any kind, shall not shake or nod their heads, and shall not otherwise make any gestures during the hearing. Spectators shall not wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person related to this case or the status of this case as a capital offense. Members of the media and public will be permitted in the courtroom subject to available seating. A limited number of seats will be reserved for each group and will be made available on a first-come, first-served basis. The court respectfully asks all persons seeking admission to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful manner while court staff and security personnel carry out their responsibilities, including security screening and the assignment of wristbands for entry into the hearing. Counsel, does either party require the >> Yes, Judge. Um, Mr. Gruender for the state. Um, a question. Um, I know this order does not apply to legal counsel for the state or the defense or our staff that are there assisting us, but would the court permit counsel for the victim's representative to keep his phone on his person. >> To the defense, any input? >> We have no objection to that, Your Honor. >> All right, Mr. Grunander, um based off no objection and finding it it is in the interest uh of where it is permissible, I will grant grant that request and I appreciate that clarification. And then I have one other item that goes outside of this this particular order, Judge, if you're ready to hear it. >> Yes. >> Um there may be some sensitive information that is presented uh during the preliminary hearing. Um and the state would like to uh be able to alert the court before that happens to allow for um members of the victim's family uh to exit the courtroom prior to it being uh presented in the court. Uh we anticipate turning the monitors away from the gallery, but there will be some audio that could be sensitive nonetheless. Um so we would like to inform the court that we would like to alert Your Honor uh before that happens to allow for them to exit the courtroom. And then once that is presented, allow for them to return to the courtroom. That would be the state's request. >> Thank you, Mr. Grunander. Uh to defense, >> I doesn't seem like a response is necessary from us, Your Honor. We think that's up to the court how the court wants to handle that. >> Thank you. Pursuant to Article 1 Section 28 of the Utah Constitution and subsequent Utah law, uh victims are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, and I find that this request falls squarely within that, and I will grant that request. Counsel, it just uh as soon as you can, as soon as it is upcoming, uh uh feel free to alert the court and the court will take a brief recess to allow um victim representatives and uh to to make that decision. If they wish to leave the courtroom, they may do so. And then after that evidence has been presented, uh they will be allowed be allowed to return. So, we'll take a recess after that sensitive material as you've defined is presented and just if you could alert the court so a brief recess could be taken to allow them to come in to ensure that they are able to be fully present for as much as a preliminary hearing that they choose to participate in. >> Okay. Thank you, Judge. All right. Turning to defense, do you require the benefit of the record or wish to bring up any additional items? >> Uh you're under Michael Burt for Mr. Robinson. >> All right, Mr. Burt. >> Judge, you at the last hearing I indicated to the court that we would be seeking a ruling from the court prior to the hearing concerning some uh expert witnesses that the defense had subpoenaed from out of state. And after discussions with the state, it appears that the state uh has no objection to the presentation of those witnesses. We have paired down the number of witnesses that will be called and uh currently there will just be three witnesses who will be called, three expert witnesses. The other witnesses we will be handling uh by way of a stipulation. >> Thank you, Mr. Burt. To the state, any input? >> That is accurate, Judge. We are working uh with defense counsel with respect to some stipulations. Um we have decided not to object to the presentation of these defense experts. With that said, during in hearing there may be objections that are raised. If answers addressed will go out goes outside the scope of the preliminary hearing or borders on a 702 hearing. So, we want to preserve those objections. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Grenander. Uh Ms. Nester, anything further? Uh or Mr. Burt, and again, I appreciate all parties bringing these issues up now just to remove any misunderstandings. >> Nothing further for me, Your Honor. >> Um the defense has nothing else, Your Honor. Thank you. >> All right. Uh lastly, the court wishes to inform the parties that as it relates to exhibits being presented in regards to whether it's published or not in open court or if copies of the exhibits are given to the to the public or news media, I will take that uh issue by issue basis. So, per exhibit, all parties will be entitled to object, not object, stipulate, uh so we have a clear record, and the court doesn't make a blanket ruling as each individual exhibit is its own exhibit, and the court wants to apply the appropriate analysis to each exhibit presented in court. As the court does not know and cannot anticipate what exhibits will be presented even though there has been indication uh what will be presented, uh it doesn't become relevant until it's actually moved into evidence. And so, that's why the court is not issuing a blanket ruling, wants to see uh where it's coming in, all the factors that that govern whether an exhibit should or should not be admitted, and should or should not be published to the court, to the parties, or to the public. And so, I just wanted to give that clarification because perhaps in the back of your mind you were wondering. All right, counsel. I I I also wish to remind you the purpose of the preliminary hearing and the standard and and I offer that simply as a reminder as you're presenting your evidence that is a standard that the court is holding to. And and just wanted to provide that for guidance to all parties. Unless there's anything else, we will reconvene on July 6th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. for the preliminary hearing in this matter. Court is adjourned.