Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Charlie Kirk's Accused Killer Wants to Give Prosecutors The Boot

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

Tyler Robinson, 22, faces aggravated murder and witness tampering charges in the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Now his defense team is asking Judge Graf to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office from prosecuting the case because of a possible conflict of interest. Robinson's attorneys say a high-ranking member of the prosecution team is related to a potential witness in the case who was at UVU the day of the murder. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy digs into the claims and witness statements from that day in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/CrimeFixHost:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Skye Lazaro https://www.instagram.com/skyebeth1/Producer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. We do need to deal with the disqualification motion just in case. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to set it before we have the disqualification hearing. The man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk once the prosecution team kicked off his case, Tyler Robinson's attorneys say the entire Utah County attorney, office has to go because of a conflict of interest as they reveal new details from witnesses who saw that horrific murder that day. I go through all of it and I look at whether there is

really a conflict or not. I'm Ann Janette Levy and this is crime fix. You know, there is a reason that Morgan and Morgan is America's largest personal injury law firm. and it's because the firm wins a lot. It has more than a thousand lawyers who've recovered $25 billion for more than 500,000 clients. In the last few months alone, a client in Florida received $12 million when the insurance company offered only $350,000. In Pennsylvania, another client was awarded $26 million that was 40 times the insurer's offer. Morgan and Morgan makes it really easy to fight for what you deserve. You can even start a claim from your phone. So if you are ever injured. You can start a claim at for the people.com slash crime fix, click the link below or scan

that QR code that you see right there on your screen. There could be a big, big problem with the prosecution team in Charlie Kirk's murder case, and it has to do with someone, apparently pretty high up on the food chain on the team. Important enough that this person was with the county attorney when evidence was being presented to the grand jury to indict Tyler Robinson. Robinson faces a laundry list of charges, including aggravated murder and the possibility of the death penalty if he's convicted in the murder of Charlie Kirk. Robinson is accused of taking a 30-0.6 rifle that his grandfather gave to him to the campus of Utah Valley University and climbing onto a roof and firing a single shot that hit Kirk in the neck as he was answering a question from

from a member of the audience during his Prove Me Wrong tour on September 10th. Kirk was killed instantly. The scene was horrific. A manhunt for the killer began in an instant. There were false alarms with news of an arrest being announced by the FBI director within hours, but then the man hunt was on again. Surveillance images of a young man in a black t-shirt were released along with video of a person running on a rooftop and jumping from it. More than 30, hours later, officials in Utah announced that 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was the shooter, his family reportedly recognizing him and convincing him that turning himself in was the right thing to do. Hence of a motive surfaced from county attorney Jeff Gray. Robinson's mother stated

that the following to police. On September 11, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson's mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. Robinson's mother called her son and asked him where he was. He said he was at home sick and that he had also been at home sick on September 10th. Robinson's mother expressed concern to her husband

that the suspect shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed. Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning genders.

This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father, who have very different political views. In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Now, the Internet has been full of theories

questioning whether Robinson was the only person involved or whether he was the shooter at all, some questioning those text messages that he sent to his transgender roommate that amount to a confession. Roommate, how long have you been planning this? Robinson, a bit over a week, I believe. I can get close to it, but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don't want to chance it. Robinson again, I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back Grandpa's rifle. I-D-E-K, if it's had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me.

I worry about Prince I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits, didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. How the F will I explain losing it to my old man? Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. Remember how he was engraving bullets? The FN messages are mostly a big meme. If I see Notice Bulge UWU on Fox News,

I might have a stroke all right. I'm going to have to leave it. That really FN sucks. Judging from today, I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine, IDK. I think that was a $2K-dollar scope. Wink, wink. Robinson, Robinson again, delete this exchange. Again, Robinson, my dad wants photos of the rifle.

He says Grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He's calling me, RN, not answering. Robinson, since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA. Robinson, I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. Again, you are all I worry about love. That came from Robinson.

Roommate. I'm much more worried about you. Robinson, don't talk to the media, please. Don't take any interviews or make any comments. If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. Earlier this month, we saw Tyler Robinson in a Utah County courtroom for the very first time, and his team mentioned that they saw issues with the prosecution team and would ask to have them removed. We do need to deal with the disqualification motion just in case. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to set it before we have the disqualification hearing. We were only talking about a month from now. I think that should probably be resolved before we set any dates. But I am concerned about setting a date when we still don't have all the discovery material. So what's the issue here?

Well, Tyler Robinson's attorneys claim that a member of the prosecution team has a personal connection to a direct witness to the crime, so they want the entire prosecution team disqualified from handling the case. Robinson's attorneys wrote, Mr. Robinson seeks an order of this court finding that a person whose name is redacted, representing the state of Utah for the Utah County Attorney's Office, or U.C.A.O, in this capital prosecution, has a concurrent conflict of interest based upon personal connections to a direct witness slash victim to the events at issue in this case. Further, Mr. Robinson seeks findings from this court that won upon learning of the conflict. The UCAO did not employ any screening protocol and number two, information pertaining to the personal

involvement of the man whose name is redacted, was shared amongst the assigned prosecutorial team, including the county attorney. Based upon these findings and in the interest of protecting Mr. Robinson's federal and state rights to due process, Mr. Robinson requests that this court order that the UCAO is disqualified from representing the state in this matter. Now, it's been noted previously, even by the judge in this case, that 3,000 people witnessed Charlie Kirk's murder on the UVU campus, but according to Robinson's attorneys, only one has a relationship with a member of the prosecution team. Robinson's lawyers wrote, in this case, the personal relationship between the prosecution team member's name who is redacted and the other

person's name, who is redacted, as a potential witness, and the victim raises serious concerns about past and future prosecutorial decision-making in this case. The prosecution team member cannot serve two masters and should not be permitted to do so. The prosecution team member's integrity is not the question, and his opinion that there is no conflict is not dispositive. Rather, the person he has a relationship with experience raises an objective question as, to whether or not the circumstance presents a significant risk that the prosecution team member's personal family interests may materially limit his ability to represent the state of Utah in these proceedings in the manner that is ethically required. And apparently, this person on the

prosecution team received a text message about the shooting that day from a family member. The prosecution team member has described the text message exchange as follows. Charlie Kirk, shot at 12.23 p.m. and at 1225 p.m. texted my family group text group. Someone got shot and almost immediately afterward texted the same group. I'm okay. Everyone is going inside. At 1226 p.m. texted the same group. Charlie got shot. At 1230 p.m., this person texted the same group. People say he was shot in the neck and his head like tilted or something. At 1233 p.m., the prosecution team member texted his family member, did you hear a gunshot or what sounded like a gunshot? And the person responded to me at 1238 p.m. I for sure heard it. Everyone started screaming and running. A few people

said they saw the shot hit his neck. Not sure. The prosecution team member believes that he discussed his family member's presence at the event with others in the office at the time. He also discussed the exchange and the potential conflict issue with the entire prosecution team prior to disclosure to the defense. Now, the defense believes this is a huge issue. Robinson's attorneys write, expecting the prosecution team member to separate his role as a title redacted with the wholly natural instinct to protect and shield his family member from past and future harm from his role in the prosecution of the individual alleged to have caused harm to many, including his family member, is not practical and defies common human experience.

As described by witnesses on campus at the time of the shooting, the event and the aftermath were harrowing, even for those that did not see the shooting as it happened. The prosecution team member and his family member are not immune to this trauma. There must have been fear, anxiety, anger, and a host of other emotions as the events unfolded that day and throughout the investigation culminating in the arrest of Mr. Robinson. Now, this motion to disqualify the entire Utah County Attorney's Office from the case includes accounts from witnesses that are absolutely terrifying. One witness wrote, We were in shock, in the crowd, because there was so much blood. I was pulled to the ground and

started praying. I thought I was about to die. I was on the ground wondering when the bullet was going to hit my back. I was so terrified. that they wouldn't find the shooter, and he'd start aiming at us. Another witness stated, right away everyone was on the ground trying to protect themselves from the possibility of more shots. I remember thinking I could not get low enough, and I was instantly scared. I struggled to text my mom that I was safe with shaking hands. Now, in this motion, Tyler Robinson's attorneys described those people on campus that didn't

see the shooting as being traumatized. They were people who were locked down in classrooms, and some actually is. experienced panic attacks because of this. They end the motion by saying, based upon the foregoing, this court should find that the prosecution team member's name, who is redacted, has a conflict of interest and must be disqualified. The disqualification should extend to the Utah County Attorney's Office because no effort has been made to shield their prosecution of this case from his conflict. So to discuss this potential conflict of interest that could temporarily derail this prosecution, I want to bring in Sky Lazaro. She is a criminal defense attorney in Utah,

in the Salt Lake City area. And so she has been following this case very closely from the very beginning. So Sky, you know, they're saying basically, we've got a high-ranking member of this prosecution team who has a personal relationship with a potential witness slash victim in this case, somebody who was present on the campus that day. And maybe this person should, be on the team and really it's infected the whole prosecution team. What do you make of that argument? That's right. I think this was a good argument for the defense team to make. I think this is one that has to be made. They were given information that someone in a supervisory role had a familiar member who was at the shooting and was texting them in real time. And really what they're saying

is, look, we're not attacking this person's integrity. What we're saying is we need to maintain the impropriety in this and essentially guarantee that Mr. Robinson gets a fair trial. And because this person may have strong feelings, I think they use the term that he can't serve or they can't serve two masters. And so the concern is, is, you know, their personal feelings, whether or not this familiar member is going to be a witness for the prosecution or not, you know, how does that affect their ability to serve as a prosecutor whose client is the state of Utah in this case. They're basically arguing that, you know, this person's personal relationship has infected the whole

prosecution. So let's just say, let's say Judge Graff reads this and he's like, yikes, you know, I don't like the way this looks. And from what we've seen of Judge Graff so far, which is very limited, but he seems like a reasonable judge. He seems like a judge that wants to give Tyler Robinson a fair trial. And he's just like, you know, I don't, I don't like the way this looks. Let's say they win this motion. What does disqualifying the county attorney's office actually do for Tyler Robinson? It's not like the charges are going to be dropped. I mean, what would happen? That's right. So I think Judge Graff, I think you're right about him. He's really going to look at this and say, how does this?

what's the perception of this to the public? You know, we want, this is a high profile case. It's going to get a lot of attention. We want this to look like and actually be, you know, in conformity with his constitutional rights to have a fair trial. And if it just looks a little weird, sometimes that's enough. I've gotten judges disqualified in cases just by saying, look, there's a relationship there. I'm not saying that the judge did anything wrong or there was bias, but that alone really undermines the public perception of giving people a fair trial. And because they would go so far to say it should disqualify the entire county attorney's office, in certain circumstances, one member's conflict does not necessarily bar the prosecution by

the entire office. So they say, look, it went one more step because then he took this information, went to the county attorney's office, everybody there, this is a relatively small community. Yes, Salt Lake is big and Provo is a city, but these people know each other and they know their families, you know, and he's taking this information back and had conversations with them. If the judge were to grant this motion, it would just get transferred to another county attorney's office. So it would go a county over. It'd go to Salt Lake or it'd go to Wasatch or, somebody else would come in and take over the prosecution of this. Or the alternative is they could bring in a special appointed prosecution team to do this instead. You know, if another

agency said, hey, look, we can't take this on. It's too big. We don't have the manpower. They could appoint a special prosecution team only to do the prosecution of this case. But you're right, the charges aren't going anywhere. You know, the defense team is just making the argument that, you know, we understand that they're going to prosecute him, but it needs to be done by people who don't have any sort of strong feelings about this on a personal level. You know, and there's a line in here, you know, that there, and this is a quote from case law, of course, you know, a prosecutor is not disinterested if he has or is under the influence of others who have an axe to grind against the defendant. And they're, and they're making

the argument that this person could, this high-ranking member of the prosecution team. And in my reading of this with all the blacked out redactions is that this is likely, you know, a main figure in the prosecution team who's potentially, it's a group family text. So possibly a son or a daughter was on campus that day. This is how I'm reading it through the redactions and is texting the group chat, getting all of this information about the shooting. And so whether you're a prosecutor who goes to work every day and puts on your prosecution, you know, your prosecutor hat and does your job, you're still maybe in the back of your mind, even if you can compartmentalize, you're like, you know, this case just really makes me angry because my kid was on campus that day or my nephew or niece, which I doubt

that's what it was. But that's what the argument they're making is that that's going to always kind of be there in the background. And that's going to kind of be something instead of like objectively looking at the evidence in the case that's going to be there. And that's already been discussed among the whole prosecution team and that office. I mean, if you think about it, prosecutors are human beings, the same as all of us. You know, so if you take all the legal arguments out of it and just think of it on a human level, you know, how would we feel or anyone else feel if their son or daughter or a close family member is texting them, you know, there's a shooting, you know, I'm afraid I'm going to die.

You know, I think those are, those evoke very strong emotions in people, especially when, you know, when you're talking about a child or a young adult, you know, and really your role as a parent is to protect them the best you can. I think those are really hard things to set aside. And like I said, you know, nobody's saying that this prosecutor, you know, doesn't believe that he or she can do their job and disassociate from it. But if you think about it, you know, I think that's right. I think in the back of your mind, can you be objective when you look at the evidence in this case,

if it's good or if it's bad or what's exculpatory or is this really a death penalty case? Do we really want to pursue this? And you have someone, this isn't just a line prosecutor, this is someone who is high ranking on the team and a supervisor in the office. And I think that creates a really tough position for anybody to be in, to be able to compartmentalize that and really do your job. You know, what happens if evidence comes out and they say, hey, look, this isn't an aggravated murder case or this isn't a murder case at all, or we got the wrong guy, or whatever it is, you know, are they going to be able to look at that as objectively as they would have,

if they didn't have this other emotion, you know, that relates to a family member. And this is a 48-page document. You know, there are exhibits that accompany it. And so we've been going through it. And they included these handwritten statements from witnesses. And these are vivid. And I think they included these to show the judge. Like, judge, look at what we're dealing with here.

we're dealing with people 3,000 witnesses you've even said it yourself in court who witnessed something horrific and so you know this one witness I'm going to read just a little bit from

the statement to law enforcement and they talk about hearing a gunshot it definitely sounded like it came from up high and not ground level after my eyes flicked into that direction not even a second later I looked back at Charlie and that's

when I saw the blood coming out, like a fountain coming out of his neck. I saw him slump back in his chair and his head bobbed down to what would have been his right. That was the last look at Charlie I got as the crowd all collectively dropped to the ground. I mean, that's like really vivid. So do they include all of this to show the judge like this? We have like hundreds of these. Like look at how traumatized these witnesses were. And you've got my client here who has all of these rights.

So this is this is what we're contending with. And these people who were there, I mean, even people who weren't there, you know, are experiencing trauma from this event. But the people who were there, there were some other witness statements that describe, you know, being way to be shot in the back because they were fearful that this was going to be a mass shooting like we've seen in other situations. You know, these people not only watch someone die, they were terrified that they were also going to die. And that's not something I don't think anybody just gets over.

I think that's something that, you know, that's going to evoke a lot of trauma for a long time. And I think the reason they included that is not to just, you know, show the context of it, but to say, look, whether or not this person's family member is going to be a witness is not the deciding factor here. Because this person is going to go home if it's a son or daughter or even a close family member. member and have to relive and go through all the trauma, you know, with this person. And so it's not just, you know, a question of whether or not they're going to testify and whether or not that creates any sort of conflict, you know, what they're putting before the court is this is going to be potentially an everyday thing in this person's life when

they go home from the office for the foreseeable future. And there's no, way, really, you know, that it's fair to even ask someone to be able to compartmentalize that and still do the job that you're supposed to do as a prosecutor and not take that into consideration. I think that's almost impossible for an individual. The prosecution is going to respond to this and more than likely we're going to say, look, there were 3,000 people there. We just closed this. You know, we're professionals, et cetera. this is what I'm thinking they're going to say. What do you anticipate in their response?

I would expect that. You know, when they disclosed it, I'm sure that there was conversations where the defense team said, look, I think you need to recuse this person or the office or find a way to wall it off. And the response then from the filing appears to have been, look, they're not a witness. We don't think it's a conflict. We're fine. So I expect that to be the response.

And like I said, the defense isn't saying that, you know, this attacking this person's integrity as a lawyer or the fact that they don't believe that they're professional. I think giving them the entire benefit of the doubt that this is a very experienced prosecutor. They're very good at their job. They're very professional at their job. It still comes back down to, one, public perception about fair trials.

This is a trial if, you know, Mr. Robinson is convicted and sentenced to death. We're going to see this appeals on this case for a very long time. And I would think the judge is going to really take into consideration what is the perception of this? You know, is that something we're going to have to do this twice because of something like this? And I think public perception, you know, there's a lot of law review articles out there about we want the public to be comfortable that you can get a fair trial. Like we want people to believe that and they should believe that. It's a constitutional right in the United States.

And so when you have a situation like this where even just public perception can be damaged by something like this, I think we really have to take that into consideration, especially in a case like this that's going to be scrutinized over and over and over again. and you don't want that to be the problem at the end. Well, I'll be interested to see, too, if the death penalty, you know, this is an aggravated murder case where they're seeking the death penalty. And the defense has already mentioned, Sky, that they're waiting for the evidence. You know, what is the aggravating evidence here aside from, you know, they're saying other people

were in danger, you know, by him shooting into a crowd, allegedly, Tyler Robinson. So it sounds like that's going to be a big battle here, too, is what are the actual aggravating factors that fit under the law? I would expect that as well. I mean, you know, that everybody came out and called for the death penalty really, really early in this case, far earlier than they needed to. You know, they can wait until after a preliminary hearing to actually file an intent to seek the death penalty, where they've been able to put out the evidence, to satisfy those aggravating factor factors in order to establish a death penalty case. We're not even to that point.

And Utah's statute gives very clear guidance on what constitutes aggravating factors when the prosecution can seek a death penalty in this case. And so, you know, it'll be interesting to see if there's anything more. Really what I see from what they've put out is the only thing is what you mentioned that he shot into a crowd. Did that really endanger other individuals? And did he have an intent even, you know, or could another of individual been harmed? Because really that's what they have to show is not just that the deceased person was the target, but that there was something else.

Had he shot one or two others or a security guard been hurt in the mix of it or something along those lines, I think then you probably get there. But I expect that the defense is going to fight this pretty vehemently. We will see what happens. Sky Lozaro. Thank you so much. Thank you. And Tyler Robinson will be back in court in January.

And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.