BREAKING: Tyler Robinson attorneys claim Utah County prosecutors are in Contempt of Court over alleged violation of Pre-Trial Publicity Order

Robinson's defense has strenuously objected to the presence of cameras in the courtroom and were able to obtain a ruling from Graf stating that Robinson could appear in civilian clothes and that he was not to be photographed or filmed while in shackles, which he is required to wear in court. Their reasoning is that they believe this could be prejudicial to prospective jurors.

The defense team has also repeatedly stopped hearings to ask the judge to reposition the cameras to train them away from their client. Previous incidents showing Robinson on camera have caught him smiling with his lawyers and in one instance, lip readers were contracted in an attempt to determine what attorney and client had said to one another.

The Thursday motion relates to public statements made by the prosecutor's office in the wake of the defense team’s motion to delay Robinson’s May preliminary hearing, which was filed in March. "Just days later, the Utah County Attorney’s Office, under the leadership of Mr. Gray but using Mr. Ballard as its oracle, deliberately made statements to numerous media entities, both in writing and through interviews, which clearly violate the Pre-Trial Publicity Order, as well as Rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct."

The pretrial publicity order states that lawyers "who have participated, who are now participating, or who will yet participate in the investigation or litigation of this case in any way" must "strictly comply" with the provisions of Rule 3.6, which prohibits layers from making "an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicate proceeding in the matter."

They cited comments Attorney Christopher Ballard gave to multiple outlets about an ATF bullet fragment analysis report discussed in the motion to delay, which had come back as inconclusive, including TMZ, Fox News, USA Today, and Politifact.

Ballard had told TMZ, in part, "Generally when a bullet fragment analysis comes back as inconclusive, that means the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to say one way or the other. There’s just not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing – and then we will present all of that evidence at the trial."

TMZ stated further, however, that "Ballard added, 'He is presumed innocent. The ultimate decision will be up to the jury—we believe we will be able to overcome his presumption of innocence." The defense further cites USA Today's reporting on the same comments, noting that USA Today did not choose to include Ballard's comment on the presumption of innocence. Other outlets also reported on the same or similar comments.

The defense said, "It is clear that the UCAO is making public statements about the forensic testing conducted in the case. It is also beyond dispute that the UCAO is offering its opinion as to Mr. Robinson’s guilt. Declaring that the State has 'ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder’ is the functional equivalent of stating that Mr. Robinson is 'guilty.'"

The defense is seeking for the court to "promptly compel the Utah County Attorney’s Office to comply with Mr. Robinson’s discovery request" as to their communication with media outlets. The filing requested copies of all written statements given by the office to media entities regarding the case between March 26 and the date it was filed, a list of all contacts the office had with media entities between those dates, and other documents regarding the office’s potential communications with the press.

"Once the scale of the contemptuous conduct is more fully understood, the propriety of alternative sanctions and remedies will be better understood," the motion concluded. In their motion attempting to keep cameras out of the courtroom, defense attorneys have cited the negative press earned by their client, noting that they fear further negative press could harm prospective jurors. They seek to limit their client's exposure by removing transparency from the proceedings.

In a Declaration of Counsel in Support of Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause, Robinson attorney Staci Visser stated that "The UCAO has made public statements about the case facts, evidence, litigation, victim, victim's family, and Mr. Robinson's guilt or innocence since the outset. This case began with Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray making such statements in a forty-minute press conference."

The press conference was on Sept. 16. Visser goes on to say that "On September 22, 2025, the Court issued an order governing the conduct of the lawyers participating in this criminal case. The order is title Protection Order Re: Pre-Trial and Trial Publicity." The order "directs that the lawyers 'who have participated, who are now participating, or who will yet participate in the investigation or litigation of this case in any way' must 'strictly comply' with the provisions of Utah Rule of Professional Conduct."

The rule prohibits a lawyer from making "extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicate proceeding in the matter."

Robinson Motion Contempt Show Cause by Hannah Nightingale