'What is public is public?' Media attorneys argue in Tyler Robinson hearing

PROVO — Attorneys for the media say Tyler Robinson's request to keep cameras out of the courtroom for the final day of his preliminary hearing next week is a question that has already been asked and answered.

"(Robinson's request) repeats generalized policy arguments against electronic media coverage that this court has already rejected. Those arguments are not sufficient to overcome the presumption favoring electronic media coverage and should be rejected yet again," media attorneys state in their response.

Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. Prosecutors have stated they will seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

On Tuesday, Robinson will be back in 4th District Judge Tony Graf's courtroom for final closing arguments in his preliminary hearing.

Last week, Robinson renewed his request to keep cameras out of the courtroom during the hearing, claiming it could taint a future jury pool and potentially jeopardize his right to a fair trial.

In their response, attorneys for the media note that Robinson contends "prejudice is reasonably likely because hearsay testimony will be presented" and that Graf has already rejected the notion that having cameras in the courtroom will distract hearing participants and place added pressure on them.

"Moreover, the evidentiary portion of the preliminary hearing (held in July) was open to the public and live-streamed, so the hearsay testimony is already available to the public. Denying electronic media coverage now would only fuel speculation and erode trust in the criminal justice system," the media stated.

Additionally, online speculation, including conspiracy theories, about the case will continue whether cameras are in the courtroom or not.

"Regardless of whether there is electronic media coverage, members of the public will discuss this case. That fact does not, by itself, prejudice (Robinson's) fair trial rights—indeed, the public's constitutional right of access acknowledges the benefits of public discussion," according to the response.

The media is also opposing Robinson's request to classify his original motion to keep cameras out of the courtroom as "private." In a redacted version of their motion released to the public, a paragraph that follows the sentence: "Additional evidence of bias developing as a result of the widespread publication of this case can be tracked in real time," is blacked out.

"Court filings are presumptively public, and both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Utah Supreme Court have recognized the public's right of access to criminal proceedings, including pretrial filings," the media stated in their response. "(Robinson) cannot overcome the presumption favoring public access. He attempts to make secret information that is publicly available and that was, in fact, created by the public. What is public is public, and (Robinson) cannot change that by putting public information in a court filing.

"And (Robinson's) alarmist predictions about the effect of this public information remaining public are unsubstantiated and improperly based on generalized concerns about public access," the media continues.

Also this week, Graf issued an order banning cell phones and other electronic devices in the courtroom during Tuesday's hearing. Attorneys "and support staff or the victim representative's legal counsel" are exempt from this ban.

Reporters were already not allowed to have laptops, cell phones, Apple Watches and other electronic devices during the week-long hearing in July.

Related topics