Prosecutors in His Case Have Spent More Time on Trial than Tyler Robinson

The man who (allegedly) assassinated Charlie Kirk 9 months ago has yet to enter a plea in the case, much less been asked to testify. But today the lead prosecutor in his case was called to the stand to testify about whether or not he violated a gag order against speaking to the media.

The top prosecutor in the case against Tyler Robinson was called to the witness stand at Friday’s hearing to testify as the defense attempts to show his office improperly spoke about the case outside of the courtroom.

This all goes back to a ballistics report that the defense effectively leaked to the media. That report was then the basis of a bunch of misleading news articles saying the ATF had failed to connect the bullet used to kill Kirk to the gun owned by Tyler Robinson. As I described at the time, that was misleading to the point of being a lie.

“It’s not uncommon for a round that went through a human body, especially if it traveled through tissue, to say conclusively that it’s tied to a specific firearm, because by nature the projectile is supposed to transfer all of its kinetic energy, and it often disintegrates into fragments and whatnot,” said Bernard Zapor, a former ATF special agent in charge and faculty associate at Arizona State University. “The fact that it went through several bone structures, there was going to be very little left.”

As a result, it would be unfair to conclude that the bullet hadn’t been fired out of the rifle police recovered nearby, experts told Fox News Digital.

“Unable to identify is not the same as ruled out,” said retired FBI supervisor agent Jason Pack. “That’s a finding of inconclusiveness, not exoneration.”

All the usual suspects ran with this lie, i.e. anyone riding Candace Owens conspiracy theory coattails plus quite a few supposedly reputable news outlets such as the Daily Mail which ran the story under the headline, ” Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims.”

As a result, the prosecution answered questions which came in from new outlets and pointed out pretty much what the expert quoted above said. An inconclusive result is not the same as ruling out a match. But the defense claimed that prosecutors were violating the gag order, which brings us to the hearing today where prosecutors are literally taking the stand to defend themselves.

Gray has denied claims that prosecutors violated court rules or a gag order when they spoke about a viral report based on a defense filing that suggested the ATF had ruled out a connection between the suspected murder weapon and the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk.

His office has countered that there was nothing improper about attempts to “set the record straight.”

An appendix to an ATF ballistics report explained that an “inconclusive” finding regarding a fragmented bullet meant that the examiner believed “there is an insufficient quality and/or quantity of individual characteristics to identify or exclude.”

The defense highlighted that the bullet could not be matched but left out that it could not be excluded by the examiner, leading to widespread coverage that prosecutors say amplified the misleading statement.

Defense attorney Richard Novak later accused Gray’s team of a “cover-up” regarding the motivation behind the out of court statements.

The prosecutors have argued that rebutting false claims when asked by the media did not violate the gag order.

Utah County general counsel and public information officer Christopher Ballard rebuked a line of inquiry from Tyler Robinson’s defense team about his conversations with a reporter from TMZ, claiming that Utah County was not responsible for generating “potentially prejudicial media stories,” against his client.

When cross-examined by Robinson defense attorney Richard Novak on his conversation discussing bullet fragments with TMZ, Ballard testified that a court rule prohibiting the state from making extrajudicial statements about the case did not apply to county employees while they were refuting prejudicial media stories not generated by the county.

“Under the court’s order which specifically references subsection C of the rule… this was potentially prejudicial media stories that we did not generate and that the rule allowed us to be able to respond to those…

“The reporter then asked me ‘well do you still have a case?’ And focused specifically… on the additional media reports out there that the supposed inability to match the bullet to the gun meant that there was a bombshell finding for our case and that it completely undermined the foundation of our case,” Ballard testified.

This whole thing smells like a setup by the defense. The original claim about the bullet appeared in one of their motions, specifically designed to garner media attention favorable to the defense. It did that and now they are using the comments rebutting those misleading claims to try to get their client off death row.

Tyler Robinson’s defense is asking the judge to preclude the possible death penalty over the prosecution’s media interviews regarding the ballistics testing results, accusing the state of “trying to influence the public perception of this case.”

The defense has been pushing for “sanctions” against the prosecution. During the hearing Friday, after questioning Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray and his office’s general counsel, Christopher Ballard, defense attorney Richard Novak argued that removing the potential for capital punishment would be an appropriate measure.

“It’s in the interest of justice,” Novak said, arguing the proposal was “proportionate” based on the alleged misconduct of the prosecution.

Needless to say, this is not in the interest of justice. One would hope the judge could see what is happening here but after 9 months of delay tactics and stalling by the defense, I’m starting to lose faith.

Remember, we’ve already had an effort by the defense team to have the entire prosecution team tossed off the case on the grounds that one of the prosecutor’s daughters was present at UVU during the shooting. She did not see it happen and is not a witness in the case but the court wasted weeks on this nonsense claim.

Then the defense said it needed six more months to work through all of the evidence against their client. Then they said they needed cameras kept out of the courtroom during a preliminary hearing on evidence and also during the trial itself. The defense keeps making these outrageous demands and the court keeps spending weeks entertaining them.

The only good news is that, so far, the defense has lost all of these efforts. Cameras will be in the courtroom during the trial and the preliminary evidence hearing next month. The prosecution team was not forced to recuse itself. We can only hope this latest effort to have prosecutors held in contempt will also fail. 

Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.

Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.