Posted on 06/13/2026 7:27:13 AM PDT by DFG
The Utah court overseeing the Tyler Robinson case held an evidentiary hearing on Friday regarding the defense’s claims that state prosecutors should be held in contempt over comments the Utah County Attorney’s Office has given to the press over an ATF ballistics report cited in a defense motion. In closing arguments, the defense said that the judge should block the state from seeking the death penalty in the case.
Defense attorney Richard Novak said during his closing that "I think that the number one remedy in this case, your honor, is for this court to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty against Mr. Robinson."
"The court said at an earlier time that if the court found there were violations of its order, that it could order somebody to do continuing education, it could impose fines; it could do all kinds of things under the civil remedies," he said. Novak added, "What we are talking about is the state, without any guidance from this court, going out and trying to influence the public perception of this case, so that when people come into this courtroom and they may be jurors in this case, they have been exposed to the state’s extrajudicial statements about what the evidence will or will not show before the first witness is ever sworn to testify in the trial, before any exhibits are ever received into evidence, and as Mr. Ballard said, the media spin will never change."
Under cross-examination, attorney Ryan McBride with the Utah County Attorney’s Office asked fellow Utah County attorney Chris Ballard, who had been called to the stand by the defense for his comments to the press, about a story published by the Daily Mail on March 30 titled "Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle allegedly used by the suspect Tyler Robinson."
McBride asked, "Was this the first story that reported, that generated all the media that has brought us about, or brought us to this stage in this case?"
Ballard said that was his understanding, and when asked, said he was aware of other outlets publishing similar stories in the wake of the Daily Mail piece.
McBride noted similar pieces in USA Today, People, CBS News, and asked, "Were these reports that we’ve gone over in the last couple of minutes, these news stories, were they accurately reporting what the evidence was in this case?" Ballard said they were not, and agreed that the reports caused concerns "about whether it would affect your client’s right to a fair trial."
He agreed when asked that a "no comment" response to requests for comment from news outlets would not cure the prejudicial effect of the media stories" on the prosecution’s case. He was asked if he believes such a response "would actually potentially increase the prejudicial effect of these stories," replying, "Yes, especially given the kinds of stories that were circulating there, like that our case has a fundamental problem, that this is a bombshell, and for us to say 'no comment' or to not give a response would feed the—my concern was that that would feed this idea that the state really does not have sufficient evidence to proceed."
Ballard testified that he did not believe he was prohibited from making public statements under the court’s pretrial publicity order or the Utah Rule of Professional Conduct, and that "my understanding of the language of the rule is that if there is something that’s contained in a public court filing that I can comment on that extra-judicially.” The ATF report, Ballard noted, had been attached in the defense’s motion that was made public.
He noted that in one of the reports, it stated that "ethical rules prohibit [Ballard] from speaking publicly about testing and results," and went on to include his comments, "But I can say generally that when you have an inconclusive result, these are the types of circumstances that might produce an inconclusive result."
Novak attempted to argue that Ballard had been making comments specifically about the ATF report. After playing his statements to Fox & Friends, Novak asked, "Aren’t you talking in that statement about the bullet fragment at issue in this case?"
Ballard replied, "I prefaced that statement with the preface that I put on my other statements was that I’m not going to talk specifically about specific test results, but generally, when there is an inconclusive result, these are the circumstances that could produce an inconclusive result."
Novak questioned whether "the goal of these interviews was to influence the reporting or was it to change the public—what you were concerned was the public perception of the case."
Ballard replied, “The goal of these interviews was to respond to the specific media inquiries that were being generated by the misinformation that was circulating about the bullet testing."
Also called to testify was Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray. Under cross-examination, McBride noted how Kathy Nester, a defense attorney for Robinson, made statements in the Kouri Richins case, for which she was also the lead counsel in that case.
Gray said of the Richins case that he was "aware of their interview that they conducted before trial to correct what they perceived as misinformation." He recalled Nester saying that "she hoped that the prosecutor would come forward to correct that misinformation, but because they didn’t, they came forward."
These shyster lawyers are doing whatever it takes to keep their little furbaby buddy that murders Americans from being executed. Time to cowboy up America. Fags like these bozos have got to go. Put them on a plane and send them to Europe.
Kill the POS. He murdered a great man. No sympathy.
Hopefully, the judge won’t buy it.
The punishment Tyler Robinson deserves is the same thing he doled out to Charie Kirk, execution by gunfire - which is legal in Utah:
“Utah currently allows the use of the firing squad as a legal method of execution.”
Not get on with it.
Sorry, time to go biblical, an Eye for an Eye!
He should already be dead.
“He should already be dead.”
The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of a speedy trial. Unfortunately the legal system no longer follows the Constitution due to the domination of the legal profession by lawyers and judges educated in far left schools where every word of the Constitution is open to interpretation by judiciary cartel.
Nobody does the actual time anymore for the crimes they committed because of plea deals. It's the lazy way out, rewarding the criminal up front.
He would have already been in trial if he hadn’t waived his speed trial rights= no due process violation. Rarely invoked, but the state also has speedy trial rights and this delay wouldn’t have happened if the statement also consented
Wouldn’t it just be a shame if someone popped the little bitch on his way to/from court?
That’s what lawyers are paid to do. It doesn’t mean they win the argument.
DEMANDS????
All you listed and, providing for a fully & handsomely compensated legal industrial complex.
I don’t really see an upside on prosecutors on a case talking to the press. The DA or the AG or someone like that, okay. But they lawyer in court? Why? He says he believes there are things he is allowed to comment on, maybe so but why?
“They” meaning Robinson or meaning the lawyers.
I don’t care if the furry fart lives or dies. I just want a conviction and a punishment to put this guy away for the rest of his natural life.
If the prosecution team is arguing to the court, they can and should say whatever is appropriate for the argument, even if the defense doesn’t like it.
To the court, yes. To the press?
GOOD. I hope they succeed since this fool didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. He may be an accessory, but he didn’t shoot Charlie.
We don’t know what device killed Charlie, it sure wasn’t the 30-06.
Robinson = Oswald.
Even Reiner's meathead's son can't afford his lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.