of the rules of professional conduct that deals specifically with requirements for prosecutors

debating the Charlie Kirk assassination.

We're going to follow this for a while.

Law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor.

So in other words, the prosecution team.

And there's no rule or case law or statute

that expands the prosecution's duties beyond that

group, the prosecution team.

So with respect to clarity, we're seeking clarity as to what exactly does the court mean by witnesses.

And we think the court just means the prosecution team because if that term stretches beyond just the prosecution team, then the order is written.

We don't believe is a valid and lawful order because it would result in a prior restraint on

certain speech and at the very least would have a chilling effect on that speech.

If the prosecution agrees that we have an ethical duty to take reasonable measures

to make sure that those who are identified with the prosecution team are alerted to the

requirements of the court's order and to make sure that they do not make a statement that the prosecutors themselves would not be able to make a public statement.

But if the order extends beyond that, then we have concerns because a prior restraint is an order that forbids certain communications in advance of the time that they are to occur.

And as the Court of Appeals has recognized, the Utah Court of Appeals has recognized in State versus L.M.

And widespread publicity in a case does not itself justify a prior restraint.

The, as the United States Supreme Court is recognized in Nebraska Press Association, there's

no justification for a prior restraint unless it's clear that the further publicity unchecked would so

distort the views of potential jurors that you couldn't find 12 jurors who could be fair and impartial.

That's the high standard that applies in this case.

...