Robinson’s defense requested the attorney’s office be removed because the daughter of prosecutor Chad Grunander was present at the Sept. 10 event at Utah Valley University where Charlie Kirk was shot and killed, and alleged efforts were not made to screen Grunander from the case. The defense also argued Grunander’s connection prompted an emotional response from the prosecutors in their decision to pursue the death penalty. 

Graf concluded the defense did not establish a factual basis for a finding of conflict of interest or impropriety that rose to a constitutional concern. 

“The court is unpersuaded that Mr. Grunander’s relationship with (his) daughter creates an appearance of bias in this case,” Graf said. “Prosecutors need not be immune to the emotional response of others to prosecute a case.”

Robinson, 22, of Washington, Utah, faces seven criminal charges, including aggravated murder, after he allegedly shot and killed Kirk, a conservative activist, in front of thousands of people at the UVU event. County Attorney Jeff Gray announced plans to pursue the death penalty against Robinson when he filed charges on Sept. 16. 

A hearing on the defense’s motion to remove the prosecutors from the case took place between two courts sessions on Jan. 16 and Feb. 3 and included the defense calling Gray, Grunander and Grunander’s daughter to the stand. 

In concluding arguments following testimony from the witnesses, defense attorney Richard Novak cited Grunander’s admittance that in his experience, he’d never seen a decision to seek the death penalty be made without regard to information about the accused. 

“And there’s a hint there that there was an emotional response to Mr. Kirk’s death, which there’s a strong implication, creates an appearance of impropriety,” Novak said. 

Prosecutor Ryan McBride argued in closing statements that Grunander’s daughter was not a witness to the shooting, is not necessary to the case and that Grunander was not motivated by retribution for his daughter to go after Robinson. 

“The idea that the defendant was charged for killing someone because a prosecutor’s child was present when it happened is almost laughable,” McBride said. “He’s being prosecuted for killing someone because he killed someone; at least, that’s what the evidence will show.”

Graf determined Tuesday that the prosecuting team should have immediately screened Grunander from the office and that they failed to do so. He said there is “a hint” that the decision to seek the death penalty was an emotional response to Grunander’s concern for his daughter. 

However, he said the relationship did not create “a reasonable perception” of improper prosecution because there was no additional evidence of personal bias or influence.  

“The defendant has not shown that there is a significant risk that Mr. Grunander’s loyalty to (his) daughter has or will materially limit representation of the state, nor has the defendant demonstrated that his due process rights are compromised by the continued prosecution of this case by the Utah County Attorney’s Office,” Graf said. 

The case will return to court at 10 a.m. March 13 in Provo’s 4th District Court.