Tyler Robinson now wants his prosecutors held in contempt

PROVO — Tyler Robinson and his defense team want the Utah County Attorney’s Office to be held in contempt for allegedly breaking a gag order in the case.

Robinson filed a motion Wednesday asking that Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray and his staff be held in contempt, and he also wants the judge to order the county attorney’s office to give the defense evidence that Robinson claims is being withheld.

On March 27, Robinson filed a motion to either vacate or postpone his scheduled preliminary hearing. In the motion, the defense notes that during initial ballistics testing by the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it “was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson.”

That information received attention from several national outlets, such as USA Today, TMZ and Politifact. In his motion, Robinson says Chris Ballard, who is a prosecutor in the Robinson case as well as the spokesman for the Utah County Attorney’s Office, is quoted by those news outlets.

Ballard told TMZ that the bullet fragment was not an issue. “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.”

Defense attorneys argue, “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.'”

On April 3, the defense requested that prosecutors hand over information related to their correspondence with the media since March 27. On April 10, the Utah County Attorney’s Office objected to the motion in court documents.

“There can be no dispute that the Utah County Attorney’s Office, including both Mr. Gray and Mr. Ballard, were well aware of the conduct and statements which the order enjoins, and that there is no legitimate limitation on their ability to comply with it. While a finding of intentionality is not necessary here, the decision to engage in media interviews and to send written statements to the press demonstrates the willfulness of the violations,” Robinson’s defense team wrote in its motion asking the judge to force prosecutors to turn over that correspondence information.

Meanwhile, more information about the ballistic testing was revealed in the now unsealed Jan. 9 motion “with exhibits” that Robinson had originally filed under seal until 4th District Judge Tony Graf ruled in March that it be made public.

The state has indicated that the FBI wants to conduct a second comparative bullet analysis. But in their reply to Robinson’s request to delay the preliminary hearing, prosecutors stated, “What (Robinson) neglects to mention is that the reason the FBI has not completed this second comparative analysis is that he objected to it.”

The motion filed on Jan. 9 by Robinson seeks to halt any further testing of the bullet fragment pending examination by a defense expert. The defense argues that since there is only one bullet to test and that it is now potentially exculpatory evidence, they don’t want it manipulated to the point that their experts can’t use it.

“The evidence thus possesses an apparent exculpatory value … and because the FBI is aware of these exonerating testing results, and is also aware by way of this motion that the defense considers the evidence to be exculpatory, any destruction or alteration of this evidence would be in bad faith,” the motion argues. “Because there is only one bullet fragment recovered in this case, if this evidence is altered to the point where it cannot be subject to independent testing, then by definition the defense cannot obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.”

According to the ATF report included as an attachment to the Jan. 9 motion, the bullet jacket fragment tested “could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from (the rifle). …The result of the comparison was inconclusive,” the report states. The report also noted that the characteristics of the fragment tested is similar to many makes and models of guns, and the “lead fragments are not suitable for microscopic comparison.”

Robinson is scheduled to be back in court on Friday. At that time, a hearing on whether cameras and microphones should be allowed in the courtroom will be held.