Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Tyler Robinson's attorneys seek to close parts of his preliminary hearing.
- Robinson faces capital murder charge for allegedly killing Charlie Kirk in September.
- Prosecutors and media oppose closure, citing public's right to court access.
PROVO — Tyler Robinson will be back in court Tuesday arguing that portions of his preliminary hearing should be closed to the public.
The judge in his capital murder case has already ruled cameras will be allowed in the courtroom during his legal proceedings. But Robinson's attorneys say they want parts of his upcoming preliminary hearing closed and some evidentiary items kept out of the public eye, claiming again that their client's right to a fair trial will be compromised.
Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing political activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. He faces a potential death sentence if convicted.
Tuesday was originally scheduled to be the second day of Robinson's preliminary hearing. But earlier this month, 4th District Judge Tony Graf agreed to postpone the hearing until July 6-10.
Since attorneys for both sides had already cleared their calendars in preparation for a possible preliminary hearing on Tuesday, they will now meet in Graf's courtroom instead to argue outstanding motions.
Watch a livestream of Tuesday's hearing here:
The three motions Graf has yet to rule on include:
- Whether the Utah County Attorney's Office should be held in contempt of court.
- Whether portions of the preliminary hearing should be closed to the public and evidence sealed.
- Whether hearsay can be presented as evidence during the preliminary hearing.
On Friday, prosecutors and attorneys for the media made separate court filings opposing Robinson's efforts to close portions of the preliminary hearing and seal evidence. Robinson contends that evidence that would be inadmissible during trial should not be publicly disclosed during the preliminary hearing.
But both the Utah County Attorney's Office and attorneys for the media say Robinson is being too vague in his reasons for closure.
"(Robinson) has not identified the specific testimony or exhibits he seeks to suppress, and he has not demonstrated how any potential publicity from the hearing would create a 'realistic likelihood of prejudice' to his right to a fair trial," prosecutors argued in their opposition. "The burden rests squarely on (Robinson) to show that closure is the only viable way to protect his right to a fair trial. But he has offered only vague assertions."
"(Robinson's) failure to make specific arguments regarding closure and sealing cannot be excused," the media concurred in its opposition, while also noting that "much, if not all, of the evidence and testimony at issue is already public."
On Monday, Robinson listed some of the items of evidence he believes should be sealed at the preliminary hearing, including DNA and ballistics reports from the ATF and FBI, text messages between Robinson and his roommate Lance Twiggs, the recorded statement of Twiggs, a burnt note found in Robinson's apartment, Discord chats between Robinson and his friends, videos recorded from behind where Kirk was sitting at UVU, and even the autopsy report from the state medical examiner.
The defense argues in its latest court filing that although some of the evidence has already been made public, such as the messages between Robinson and Twiggs,
"the republication of evidence only serves to recirculate purported evidence that was improvidently released."
As for hearsay evidence, prosecutors say it "is a staple of preliminary hearings." The state says the evidence prosecutors plan to introduce at the preliminary hearing "includes witnesses' personal observations, photographs of seized physical evidence, witness recordings of the alleged crimes, surveillance video, foundational statements for evidence, statements from law enforcement officers to other officers, autopsy findings, forensic laboratory findings, and (Robinson's) own admissions. None of this evidence is speculative in nature, inaccurate, or inflammatory, and (Robinson) has not argued that the substance of this evidence would be inadmissible if introduced directly rather than as reliable hearsay.
"Here, none of the state's proposed evidence is speculative, inflammatory, or inaccurate, although the videos of (Kirk) being shot are sensitive. And again, there is nothing to suggest that the substance of the evidence is inadmissible."
Prosecutors further emphasize that a preliminary hearing is a public proceeding.
"Consequently, the media has a right to be present and to report on the hearing," the state argues. "(Robinson) has not shown that the media's presence and reporting on this case will jeopardize his right to a fair trial. As the court has repeatedly recognized, the public and news media enjoy a presumptive constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings."
The media points to one of Graf's earlier rulings denying Robinson's motion to have court filings sealed. The judge said that "even in highly publicized cases, a defendant's right to a fair trial can be protected 'through the regular, time-honored processes for selecting jurors' like enlarging the venire of potential jurors, utilizing a detailed juror questionnaire, and conducting a thorough voir dire of potential jurors."
Robinson, however, also points to earlier rulings by the judge, stating, "The volume and vitriol of both formal and informal media coverage of the shooting death of Mr. Kirk and the prosecution of Mr. Robinson is so pervasive that this court has already made findings that even images of Mr. Robinson shackled in the courtroom presents 'a strong likelihood' that potential jurors will associate the images 'with indicia of guilt.'"
This story will be updated. To be notified about updates, please click Follow This Story below on the KSL app.
