Judge Makes New Ruling In Trial Of Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin
A Utah judge has ruled that cameras will be allowed inside the courtroom during a key upcoming hearing in the capital murder case against the man accused of killing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk — rejecting defense arguments that media coverage could jeopardize a fair trial.
Judge Tony Graf Jr. of the Fourth Judicial District Court announced Friday that cameras will be permitted during the April 17 hearing involving 22-year-old defendant Tyler Robinson. That hearing will determine whether television cameras, microphones, and photographers will be allowed to cover future pretrial proceedings in the closely watched case.
“In balance, the defendant has not provided a sufficient basis for the court to find that the interests favoring closure outweigh the interest favoring an open proceeding and the presumptive right to access,” Judge Graf said during Friday’s hearing.
While the April 17 session will largely be open to the public and press, the judge noted that limited portions could be temporarily closed if necessary to address privacy or safety concerns.
Robinson’s defense team has until March 30, 2026, to submit a redacted version of their motion seeking to bar cameras from the courtroom. That filing would allow attorneys to present more specific arguments about why certain materials or discussions should remain sealed.
In explaining his decision, Graf pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1981 ruling in Chandler v. Florida, which established that the presence of cameras in courtrooms does not automatically violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
The judge said his ruling attempts to strike an appropriate balance between the public’s right to transparency and the defendant’s legal protections — ultimately rejecting the defense claim that media coverage alone would irreparably taint the jury pool.
During the hearing, Robinson’s lawyers pressed the court to limit public access to certain evidence, arguing that widespread publicity surrounding the case could make it difficult to seat an impartial jury.
“So what we’re talking about is releasing preliminary evidence into the public sphere that has the potential to impact jurors,” defense attorney Staci Visser said. “And it is important enough that we are concerned that it will sway people’s opinions one way or the other.”
“I want to make clear that our concern here is with selecting an impartial jury,” Visser added. “Really, it goes both ways. Whether the evidence is good for my client or bad for my client, whatever it is, it makes it harder to find impartial jurors if they are entrenched in an opinion about our client’s guilt or innocence either way.”
Robinson appeared in court Friday wearing a blue dress shirt and tie and was occasionally seen taking notes as arguments unfolded.
Prosecutors say Robinson could face the death penalty if convicted in the September 10 killing of Kirk at Utah Valley University — a case that has drawn national attention and intense media scrutiny.
According to defense filings, Robinson’s attorneys want to present evidence behind closed doors regarding what they describe as damaging media narratives and statements made by government officials.
“Specifically, Mr. Robinson seeks to take evidence in a closed setting regarding the unfairly prejudicial and misleading media coverage and the improper statements of government officials in order to avoid republicizing the same. Mr. Robinson also asks this court to take evidence regarding the privacy violations detailed in the ‘motion to exclude cameras’ in a closed setting, to, again, avoid reiterating the violative material,” the defense wrote in court documents.
Defense attorney Michael Burt argued that extensive media attention surrounding the case could compromise Robinson’s constitutional rights.
“We’ll show both that we have categories of prejudice that are recognized as presumptively prejudicial, and we’ll show that beyond that, the overall picture of this case is one of extreme prejudicial pretrial publicity that justifies the kind of relief we’re asking for,” Burt said.
At the April 17 hearing, Robinson’s legal team plans to introduce examples of what they characterize as “harmful and prejudicial media coverage” tied to the case.
“While there is simply not enough time to present all of what is referenced in the ‘motion to exclude cameras,’ the compilation anticipated will highlight the most egregious and most concerning media coverage impacting Mr. Robinson’s case,” the defense stated.
Prosecutors, however, have firmly opposed the defense’s effort to restrict media access. They argue that the public has a right to transparency in a case of such magnitude — particularly one involving the killing of a nationally recognized conservative figure.
As the case moves toward trial, the court’s decision signals that much of the process will remain visible to the public — ensuring that the proceedings surrounding the alleged murder of Charlie Kirk unfold under the scrutiny of both the justice system and the American people.