Despite the defense’s claims that the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office should recuse itself from the investigation into the stabbing of Charlie Kirk by Tyler Robinson, a judge ruled on February 24th that the presence of the prosecutor’s child at the scene of the crime would not have a “substantial impact” on the prosecutor’s actions. Therefore, the prosecutor’s office will continue to pursue the death penalty charges against Robinson.
Robinson’s defense attorney, Richard Novak, had requested that all personnel from the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office recuse themselves from the case because the chief prosecutor’s child was present at the scene of Kirk’s stabbing, which could influence the office’s decision in this case. However, the Utah state judge’s ruling on February 24th was that the child’s presence would not have a “substantial impact” on the prosecutor’s actions.
In response to the recusal request from Robinson’s defense attorney, the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office organized two hearings on January 16th and February 3rd.
According to a press release posted on the official website of the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office, the hearing on January 16th was to address the defense’s motion to disqualify the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office from handling the case involving Kirk’s stabbing. The press release stated that to protect the privacy of the prosecutor’s relatives involved in the motion, parts of the hearing would not be open to the public. On February 3rd, the evidence hearing on the disqualification motion continued.
Deputy prosecutor Chad Grunander testified during the hearing that his child had attended the “Turning Point USA” event where Kirk was shot last year. The prosecuting side stated that the 18-year-old student attended Utah Valley University, the venue of the event, but did not witness Kirk’s stabbing or see any potential suspects in the crowd.
Grunander mentioned that he had informed several colleagues about his child’s presence at the scene in the hours and days following the shooting. Nevertheless, Utah County Prosecutor Jeffrey Gray still assigned Grunander as one of the prosecutors responsible for prosecuting Robinson.
Gray told the court that he believed the child’s presence was “completely irrelevant to the case decision-making process,” including the decision to seek the death penalty against Robinson.
Gray testified that the Utah County Prosecutor’s Office disclosed the potential conflict of interest to Robinson’s defense on October 20, 2025 (approximately a month after Kirk’s murder), which involved Grunander’s son being present at the scene.
However, Robinson’s lawyer, Novak, contended that Gray had handled the issue inappropriately. He argued that Grunander should have been isolated from the case and the defense should have been immediately informed of the potential conflict.
Novak further stated that he requested the entire prosecutor’s office to recuse itself, not just removing Grunander or a few prosecutors. He emphasized that the key issue in the case was not whether the child’s presence at the scene constituted a conflict of interest but rather how the office dealt with the matter.
Judge Tony Graf of the Utah state court concurred with Gray’s viewpoint in the ruling on February 24th. Graf stated, “The court does not believe that Grunander’s relationship with his child will create prejudice in this case.”
Robinson has yet to enter a plea to the multiple charges he faces, including aggravated murder, felony firearm use, obstruction of justice and witness interference, as well as several enhancements against the victims, including one involving violence committed in front of children.
Robinson’s formal arraignment will take place after the preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing is scheduled to start on May 18th and is expected to last for three days.