The man accused of assassinating conservative commentator Charlie Kirk remains eligible for the death penalty after a Utah judge ruled Friday that, although prosecutors violated a court-imposed gag order, the misconduct did not justify removing capital punishment from the case.

Judge Tony Graf found prosecutor Christopher Ballard in civil contempt for making comments to members of the media about the case involving defendant Tyler Robinson. However, the judge declined the defense’s request to strike the death penalty as a sanction.

The dispute stemmed from a defense filing that suggested the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had concluded that the bullet fired from the weapon Robinson allegedly used did not match the projectile recovered from Kirk’s body.

According to Robinson’s attorneys, prosecutors should be penalized for responding publicly to that filing, arguing that their statements violated the court’s gag order.

The defense filing sparked widespread online speculation and conspiracy theories about the circumstances surrounding Kirk’s death.

Judge Graf acknowledged that Robinson’s legal team had effectively “initiated the media frenzy” by filing documents that prompted inaccurate reports suggesting ATF evidence cleared Robinson of responsibility for the killing.

While Graf concluded that Ballard did not improperly discuss the forensic evidence when responding to those reports, he ruled that the prosecutor crossed the line when he told certain media outlets that his office possessed sufficient evidence to secure Robinson’s conviction.

Even so, the judge determined that the defense’s request to eliminate the possibility of capital punishment was “disproportional” to Ballard’s actions and “legally prohibited.”

Instead, Graf ordered the prosecution to reimburse Robinson’s legal team for the attorney’s fees incurred while pursuing the contempt motion.

To safeguard Robinson’s right to a fair trial, Graf also announced additional measures for the jury selection process. The court will summon a larger pool of prospective jurors and expand the screening process by adding more written questionnaire items as well as additional in-court questioning designed to identify potential bias stemming from the prosecutor’s public remarks.

{Matzav.com}