Attorneys for the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk want prosecutors punished over bullet comments

But prosecutors said they had a right to correct misinformation from Robinson's attorneys about an inconclusive, preliminary finding by ballistics experts, who could not immediately match the bullet fragments with a gun allegedly used by Robinson. Details about the preliminary finding spurred stories speculating about Robinson’s possible exoneration.

“The rules expressly allow lawyers to set the record straight,” Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard wrote.

Robinson’s lawyers have tried to guard against media coverage that they say sometimes misrepresents their client, as his case has drawn tremendous public attention. The 23-year-old from southwestern Utah is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 assassination of Kirk, cofounder of the conservative Turning Point USA organization, on the Utah Valley University campus.

Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. He has not yet entered a plea.

Robinson’s attorneys did not specify what sanctions should be levied against prosecutors if Graf agrees they violated his orders and holds them in contempt. But in court filings, the defense team pointed to another criminal case where prosecutors were accused of contempt and said one potential remedy was to bar the state from seeking the death penalty.

While the judge in that earlier case disagreed that an order barring the death penalty was merited, Robinson’s attorneys noted that, “the court did not conclude that such a remedy was beyond its authority where the facts support it.”

Graf has said he will issue his decision about the contempt allegation at a later date.

A key hearing in the case is scheduled for next month, when prosecutors must show they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. That would mark the most significant presentation of evidence to date in the case that has so far focused on matters of media access.

Robinson’s attorneys have asked Graf to halt the proceedings while they appeal a June 1 order in which the judge declined to bar cameras from the courtroom.