Jeff Gray testifies as judge considers disqualification motion in Robinson case

PROVO — Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray was the first witness on Friday in a hearing addressing motions claiming his office has a conflict of interest and should be disqualified from prosecuting Tyler Robinson's capital murder case.

Gray said he was with one of the attorneys in his office in Layton when that attorney got a text message from their child, a UVU student, saying "Charlie Kirk got shot."

He said the attorney showed him the text. Shortly after, he met the attorney to drive with him to the UVU campus, which he said was based on logistics. Gray said he doesn't remember other conversations about the student or how the attorney was doing because of his child's experience.

Gray said he knows a few other people in his Latter-day Saint congregation who had children there when Kirk was shot but that he has avoided talking about it with them. He said he just knows that one of them is doing fine, while the other was shaken up by the experience.

Gray said he did not consult with others except those on his team about whether that attorney or the office had a conflict and should not prosecute the case.

Gray's testimony will continue on Feb. 3 after Friday's hearing faced multiple delays, leading it to stretch until after 5 p.m., when attorneys estimated questions for the county attorney could last almost two more hours.

Robinson, 22, is charged with shooting and killing Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, during an outdoor event at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. The high-interest case has prompted additional courthouse security with SWAT officers joining Utah County sheriff's deputies at the hearing.

Robinson and his attorneys asked for the disqualification in a December motion, claiming the office has an emotional bias because the adult child of one of its prosecutors witnessed Kirk's shooting. The motion says the family member — an 18-year-old Utah Valley University student — immediately sent texts to their father when it happened.

At the start of Friday's hearing, defense attorney Richard Novak claimed the county attorney's office should not be representing itself in responding to the claim that it has a conflict of interest. He said the defense was prepared for the hearing but said it was "improvident" and wanted the judge to ask the Utah Attorney General's Office to step in concerning the defense's motion.

Fourth District Judge Tony Graf ruled that the Utah County Attorney's Office could continue litigating the issue, and the hearing would move forward on Friday as planned. He found there was not at this point enough evidence to show there is a conflict of interest, but he said Friday's hearing could provide additional evidence on the issue.

The defense argues in the motion the state could be making decisions — including the decision to seek the death penalty announced the same day the charges were filed — based on emotions due to the trauma the prosecutor's adult child incurred that day.

Graf also denied a request from the Utah County Attorney's Office to close testimony from witnesses on the issue from the public, saying he would consider closing it on a witness-by-witness basis. He said he will need to make findings with the facts, and that the name of the prosecutor is a relevant fact. Both the prosecution and defense have made efforts to prevent the disclosure of the prosecutor's identity, as well as his adult child — referring to them as "prosecutor A" and "child A."

The judge said closing the whole hearing "is a very broad approach to a narrow issue."

Deputy Utah County attorney Ryan McBride contested the ruling to keep the hearing open, saying death threats have been made against the prosecutor's office and witnesses in the case. He expressed concerns about doxing and online harassment.

"This case has polarized the nation in many ways," he said.

McBride said he is "extremely concerned" that someone could be subject to harassment just because their father is a prosecutor.

Novak said he was surprised to see that the Utah County Attorney's Office had responded to the motion to disqualify it from prosecuting the case and had expected a response from the Utah Attorney General's Office. He said now the Utah County Attorney's Office is attempting to represent Utah's interests as well as its own.

Gray responded to Novak's argument Friday before his testimony, calling it an "ambush" and "another stalling tactic to delay these proceedings." He said he is an elected official and represents the state.

"I'm not sure why this is coming before us today. If it was such a surprise to them more than a week ago, I don't know why they wouldn't at least notify the court," he said.

McBride said that the county prosecutors should have jurisdiction until a conflict of interest has been established — which hasn't happened. He said the request to refer the dispute to another office assumes that there is a conflict. He said a delay in the hearing adds anxiety for the people who have been subpoenaed as witnesses, including multiple prosecutors and the family member who was there.

"We don't need to delay this proceeding any further," he said.

In response to questions about why he did not bring the issue up sooner, Novak said the defense only recently learned the Utah Attorney General's Office was not consulted.

The UVU student who was present at the shooting described scanning the crowd and not watching Kirk when the shot was fired. The student has not had lasting trauma from the event, needed counseling or missed classes or work since the shooting.

"The only time I have seen the actual shooting of Charlie Kirk was when I saw a post on social media that recorded it," the student's affidavit states.

The Utah County Attorney's Office also said in its reply that Gray's decision to seek the death penalty had nothing to do with that family member's presence at the event.

Novak said he also intends to call an investigator with the county attorney's office, the prosecutor accused of having a conflict of interest and then the UVU student at the hearing.

In addition to capital murder, Robinson is charged with felony discharge of a firearm causing serious injury, a first-degree felony; two counts of obstructing justice, a second-degree felony; two counts of tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony; and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, a class A misdemeanor.

Related topics