Defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson are seeking to disqualify the entire Utah County Prosecutor’s Office from handling the murder case of Charlie Kirk, arguing that a conflict of interest exists because one prosecutor’s daughter was present at Utah Valley University on the day of the killing.
Speaking on Human Events Daily, host Libby Emmons explained that the defense motion targets a prosecutor who specializes in homicide cases. “Their reasoning is that one of the prosecutors, who’s an expert in homicide, has a daughter who was at Utah Valley University on September 10th when Charlie Kirk was killed,” Emmons said. “And that’s their entire contention.”
Human Events Daily host Jack Posobiec questioned whether the argument rises to the level of a legitimate conflict of interest. “So the daughter was there. She’s 18. That came out in some of the reporting, which is obviously horrifying,” Posobiec said. “But at the same time, is it really a conflict of interest if someone was just nearby where a crime took place and that person is not a material witness?”
“Because it seems like her presence was incidental to the actual crime that took place,” Posobiec added.
Emmons said prosecutors addressed the issue directly in court by calling a state investigator to testify. “Yes, that’s exactly right, and that’s what the prosecutors were pointing out,” she said. “They brought in an agent from the Utah State Bureau of Investigations to testify in court yesterday. That was Dave Hall.”
Hall testified that investigators from both the Utah State Bureau of Investigations and the FBI asked anyone who had been on the UVU campus that day to come forward. “The daughter was not one of the people who came forward,” Emmons said.
Hall also reviewed video footage taken by the prosecutor’s daughter. Emmons said Hall testified that the footage did not differ from what investigators had already received. “He said that it was very similar to footage taken by countless others who had come forward and shared video,” she said. “There was nothing particularly unique in anything that she saw.”
Emmons said Hall testified that even if the daughter was present, she does not have anything to offer beyond what other bystanders already provided. “She’s not even believed to be one of the witnesses in the case once it eventually goes to trial,” Emmons said.
Hall further testified that none of the footage collected from people who were in the crowd that day was able to identify the shooter.
Speaking on Human Events Daily, host Libby Emmons explained that the defense motion targets a prosecutor who specializes in homicide cases. “Their reasoning is that one of the prosecutors, who’s an expert in homicide, has a daughter who was at Utah Valley University on September 10th when Charlie Kirk was killed,” Emmons said. “And that’s their entire contention.”
Human Events Daily host Jack Posobiec questioned whether the argument rises to the level of a legitimate conflict of interest. “So the daughter was there. She’s 18. That came out in some of the reporting, which is obviously horrifying,” Posobiec said. “But at the same time, is it really a conflict of interest if someone was just nearby where a crime took place and that person is not a material witness?”
“Because it seems like her presence was incidental to the actual crime that took place,” Posobiec added.
Emmons said prosecutors addressed the issue directly in court by calling a state investigator to testify. “Yes, that’s exactly right, and that’s what the prosecutors were pointing out,” she said. “They brought in an agent from the Utah State Bureau of Investigations to testify in court yesterday. That was Dave Hall.”
Hall testified that investigators from both the Utah State Bureau of Investigations and the FBI asked anyone who had been on the UVU campus that day to come forward. “The daughter was not one of the people who came forward,” Emmons said.
Hall also reviewed video footage taken by the prosecutor’s daughter. Emmons said Hall testified that the footage did not differ from what investigators had already received. “He said that it was very similar to footage taken by countless others who had come forward and shared video,” she said. “There was nothing particularly unique in anything that she saw.”
Emmons said Hall testified that even if the daughter was present, she does not have anything to offer beyond what other bystanders already provided. “She’s not even believed to be one of the witnesses in the case once it eventually goes to trial,” Emmons said.
Hall further testified that none of the footage collected from people who were in the crowd that day was able to identify the shooter.
