Judge rules on defense's attempt to disqualify prosecutors in Charlie Kirk murder case

In the Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, Judge Tony Graf presided over yet another hearing in the grim aftermath of what can only be described as a political assassination. Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk, appeared remotely from his jail cell on September 16, 2025, a detail that underscores the gravity and the spectacle of the proceedings.

A Utah judge has now firmly rejected the defense's attempt to disqualify the prosecutors in the case against Tyler Robinson, the young man charged with the killing of Charlie Kirk.

On Tuesday, having considered the arguments aired at a hearing on February 3, Judge Tony Graf ruled decisively for the prosecution. He stated that the court was unpersuaded that a prosecutor’s relationship with his daughter, who had been present at the event, had improperly influenced the decision to pursue the death penalty against Robinson.

The defense had pressed their case with considerable vigor. They insisted that because Chad Grunander's daughter had attended the Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University, the very scene where Kirk was fatally shot, the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office ought to be removed from the prosecution. This familial connection, they maintained, created at least the appearance of impropriety, and that alone was sufficient to warrant disqualifying the whole office from the matter.

The county attorney’s office countered with clarity and restraint. Neither the office nor the deputy attorney in question labored under any conflict of interest, they argued, because AC (the adult child present at the college event) “did not see Charlie get shot” and “did not see anyone [in the crowd or elsewhere] with a gun.” Moreover, “nearly everything [AC] knows about the actual homicide is hearsay,” according to filings submitted by the office.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings, guys. Please consider subscribing, and if you would like to support my work, visit the sponsors on this page, or you can Buy Me A Coffee. 

Robinson’s preliminary hearing is now set to commence on May 18 and is anticipated to span three days. Only upon its conclusion will he face arraignment, and he has yet to enter a plea.One cannot help but observe the deeper irony here. In an age when political violence has become a grotesque currency, the attempt to recuse an entire prosecutorial office on grounds so tenuous speaks volumes about the lengths to which some will go to muddy the waters of justice. Yet the judge, in his measured ruling, has reminded us that the rule of law demands more than mere appearances or speculative bias; it requires actual evidence of impropriety. The prosecution may proceed, and the grim business of determining guilt in this assassination will continue unimpeded.

Tweet

Woman arrested for insulting the police on a hate crime charge

Panguitch, Utah -- An arrest in Utah on June 11th sparked national attention when a police officer made a routing traffic stop at a local gas station.

As he spoke to the motorist, the cop noticed a young woman holding a "back the blue" sign in the parking lot. She then threw the sign on the ground and stomped on it. Next, she picked it up, wadded it into a ball and threw it in the trash as she was "smirking in an intimidating fashion," at the officer.

The officer questioned the 19-year-old woman and arrested her, charging her with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, along with disorderly conduct.

 The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the officer’s account of the incident.

“Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest,” the affidavit says.

The affidavit also explains that the allegations are being treated as a “hate crime enhanced allegation” due to “the demeanor displayed by [the woman] in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a ‘Pro Law Enforcement’ sign.”

While I fully support the police and the Thin Blue Line, I also support the First Amendment and free speech and I don't like that this is being called a "hate crime." All crimes are in some respect, hate crimes, but freedom of expression isn't a crime.

The cop said that the woman was “evasive” about where she obtained the sign, but eventually told him that she simply found it laying on the ground. So it doesn't sound as if it's "destruction of property," if that claim is true.

Sure, there's no question that this young woman was despicable and rude, but that isn't a crime. The First Amendment wasn't designed for just allowing speech we like; it's for speech we don't like. The remedy for speech we don't like or that we disagree with, is more speech. 

If a cop or anyone else for that matter, can make a claim of hate speech because they don't like it, this severely impinges on our freedom of speech. And when it comes right down to it, hate crimes are really thought crimes and nobody has the right to tell you what to think.

So in the end, I believe the cop was wrong to arrest that woman, in spite of her rudeness. I may not agree with what she said, but I will defend to a severe head cold her right to say it.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Tweet