In the frantic minutes after the shots, an 18-year-old texted home, first that “SOMEONE GOT SHOT,” then, a little later, “CHARLIE GOT SHOT.” Those shifting words now sit at the center of a high-stakes legal fight over who is allowed to prosecute the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
At issue is whether those messages, and the teenager who sent them, create a conflict of interest serious enough to remove the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office from a death penalty case. Prosecutors say the texts prove the opposite, that the deputy prosecutor whose child attended the event has no special, firsthand insight and no disqualifying personal stake. Defense lawyers argue that in a community rocked by a public assassination, even a prosecutor’s indirect family connection can undermine confidence that decisions are driven by evidence alone.
The Alleged Assassin, The Venue And The Motion
According to a filing described by Fox News, Tyler Robinson is charged with aggravated murder in the September 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an outdoor Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Roughly 3,000 people were present when Kirk, a nationally known conservative commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, was shot while answering an audience question.[1]
Prosecutors have announced they will seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted, a decision they say was made quickly because of the strength of the evidence, Utah law and a desire to limit speculation in a case that attracted intense attention almost immediately.[1] Defense lawyers say that timing looks like bias and haste, not deliberation.
Robinson’s attorneys have asked a judge to disqualify a deputy prosecutor, and potentially the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office, because that prosecutor’s 18-year-old child was in the crowd when Kirk was shot. The court is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion in mid-January 2026. If the judge agrees with the defense, the state may need to appoint a special prosecutor, which could delay trial proceedings and the timeline on any death penalty phase.
What The Text Messages Actually Show
The conflict fight sharpened when prosecutors filed a 33-page response to the defense motion, initially under seal and later released in redacted form, according to Fox News. In that filing, they disclosed text messages between the deputy prosecutor and the teen in the minutes after the shooting. They say the messages demonstrate confusion, distance and secondhand information, not direct victimization or privileged knowledge.
Prosecutors characterize the student as one of “thousands of other witnesses,” and stress that the young person did not see the shooting or any weapon.[1] The texts, as quoted in the state’s filing, unfolded in stages:
- Initial message: “SOMEONE GOT SHOT.”
- Reassurance to family: “I’m okay, everyone is going inside.”
- Later update: “CHARLIE GOT SHOT.”
- Follow-up messages relaying what “people were saying” about where Kirk was hit and where the shooter might have been positioned.
For prosecutors, that sequence is crucial. They argue the teen’s understanding evolved only as rumors spread. In their view, the messages show a frightened student who heard what sounded like a loud “pop,” did not see a shooter or a gun and then repeated what others in the crowd were saying.
In a sworn affidavit summarized in the Fox report, the teenager said they were roughly 85 feet away from the shooting scene and that buildings blocked any line of sight. The teen described feeling scared that day but reported no lasting trauma, said they did not seek counseling and stated that they quickly returned to normal school and work routines.[1]
The state insists that those facts make the student indistinguishable, for conflict purposes, from many others in the crowd. In their filing, they argue the exchange reflects confusion and secondhand information, not emotional trauma or direct involvement that could sway a prosecutor’s judgment.
Defense Argument: Proximity And Perception Of Neutrality
Robinson’s defense team views the same circumstances very differently. They acknowledge what they describe as undeniable trauma for people who were present. In that context, they argue, the prosecution’s neutrality must be beyond question.
From the defense perspective, a prosecutor whose child was at the venue has a personal connection to the crime, whether or not that child saw the gunfire. The worry is not limited to the actual impact on decision-making. It also includes how the public and a capital jury might perceive the fairness of a prosecution directed by someone whose family was in harm’s way.
The defense motion, as described by Fox News, connects that concern to other choices the state has made, especially the decision to seek death on the same day charges were filed. Defense lawyers present that timing as evidence that emotion, community anger or political pressure might be at work.
Those claims are allegations, not findings by the court. So far, the defense arguments appear in briefing and have not been resolved at an evidentiary hearing.
How Conflict Of Interest Rules Apply
Courts treat conflicts of interest involving prosecutors differently than conflicts for defense lawyers, but the underlying concept is similar. The American Bar Association’s Model Rule 1.7 says a lawyer must not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest, including situations where the lawyer’s personal interests may materially limit their work for the client.[2]
Federal guidance for prosecutors follows the same general principle. The United States Department of Justice’s standards on professional responsibility instruct federal prosecutors to avoid cases where personal interests, including close family connections, could reasonably create an appearance of partiality.[3]
Utah prosecutors are also governed by state rules of professional conduct. Those rules, modeled in large part on the ABA standards, caution lawyers to guard against personal interests that could limit their independence or affect public confidence in the fairness of proceedings.[4]
In this case, prosecutors argue that the teen’s role as a distant bystander does not meet that threshold. They emphasize that the student did not have special access to evidence, did not suffer injury and did not require ongoing care or support that might weigh on the deputy prosecutor’s decisions. They also point to internal safeguards in the office and to the multiple layers of review typical in a capital prosecution.
Defense attorneys, by contrast, suggest that a bright line should apply in a case of this prominence and gravity. In their view, any prosecutor whose immediate family member was present at the scene of the crime should be removed, precisely to avoid disputes like the current one.
What The Judge Must Decide Next
Judges considering motions to disqualify prosecutors often balance several factors. Those can include the nature of the personal connection, how direct the family member’s experience was, whether the prosecutor has discretionary control over key decisions, and the practical costs of removing an entire office.
Here, the Utah court faces two intertwined questions.
- Whether the deputy prosecutor’s family tie, as documented through texts and affidavits, creates a real or apparent conflict of interest under professional rules.
- If so, whether that conflict can be managed through internal screening, or whether it requires disqualifying the whole Utah County Attorney’s Office.
Prosecutors say their redacted filing shows there is no personal conflict at all. Defense lawyers say the same material proves why the risk is unacceptable in a death penalty case that will be closely scrutinized across the country.
Until the judge rules, Robinson remains an accused person, not a convicted murderer. The state’s evidence has not been tested at trial, and the legal status of the prosecution team itself is unsettled. For families of Kirk, the accused and the thousands who were in that crowd, the next hearing will not provide final answers on guilt or punishment. It will instead decide who is allowed to keep asking those questions in court.
