ST. GEORGE, Utah — The prosecutor in the case against former BYU receiver Parker Kingston requested that the judge be removed from the case, but his motion was later denied by a supervising judge.
Washington County Attorney Jerry Jaeger filed a motion on Monday to disqualify Judge Jay Winward of the Fifth District Court. Winward presides over the proceedings in Kingston's case, in which he is charged with raping a woman at her home in St. George in February 2025.
Kingston was kicked off the BYU football team and expelled from the university after the charges were filed.
On Tuesday, Presiding Judge John J. Walton of the Fifth District Court denied Jaeger's motion.
Jaeger is accusing Winward of having a bias in Kingston's favor and giving him preferential treatment. Jaeger claims Winward has been "favoring [Kingston's] interests based upon his status as a prominent athlete.
One specific example is from a hearing on May 18, in which Winward said on the record that he needs to consider Kingston's sports career when setting the schedule, according to the motion.
WATCH: Judge orders former BYU football player Parker Kingston to stand trial on rape charges in St. George
Jaeger claims that the judge is moving Kingston's case along faster than is usual for "similarly situated" defendants — those who are not in custody and therefore do not have "liberty concerns typically associated with expedited trial settings."
Walton said Jaeger "misconstrued" Winward's comments when he brought up Kingston's athletic career, saying judges often consider a defendant's school and employment prospects, saying these are "essential factors" in one's right to a speedy trial.
Walton also pointed out that the trial has already been postponed once. It was initially scheduled for May 26 but was later moved to start on July 6. Walton said this was the judge's attempt to balance the woman's readiness to testify and Kingston's right to a speedy trial.
According to Jaeger, the judge did not enforce his own instructions that the alleged victim's identity be protected during a preliminary hearing. Jaeger says Winward instructed all participants in that hearing to not disclose the woman's name, but the defense did so twice. Jaeger says Winward failed to hold the defense attorneys in contempt. Walton's response was that the defense did not appear to name the woman intentionally, and therefore did not need to be held in contempt.
The prosecution also cited Winward's decisions in a previous case with similar traits. The case was against an athlete charged with rape and forcible sexual abuse in January 2024. The charges were dismissed without prejudice later that same year. According to Walton, the cases and their circumstances are "entirely different," and any disagreement with the judge's ruling is grounds for appeal and not disqualification.
