A Utah judge refused to hide court documents from the public in the case against the man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk, ruling that open proceedings trump defense complaints about media coverage.
Judge Tony Graf Jr. handed down the decision Friday in Provo, denying defense motions to restrict access to filings and ban cameras from the courtroom. Tyler Robinson, 22, faces a potential death penalty if convicted of killing the Turning Point USA founder at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025.
Robinson’s attorneys, Staci Visser, Michael Burt, and Richard Novak, pushed to seal a motion seeking to bar cameras from an upcoming April 17 hearing. They also asked to close portions of that hearing to the media. Fox News Digital reported that Graf rejected both requests, finding the defense failed to clear the legal bar for secrecy.
The judge put it plainly:
“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.”
That’s the right call. American courts operate in the open, especially when a young man stands accused of gunning down a prominent public figure on a college campus.
Visser argued that releasing preliminary evidence could poison the jury pool. She framed the concern as cutting both ways:
“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.”
Defense filings cited “harmful and prejudicial media coverage of this case thus far” and claimed Robinson sought to present evidence in a closed setting about “unfairly prejudicial and misleading media coverage and the improper statements of government officials.”
Fellow defense attorney Burt went further, promising the team would demonstrate “extreme prejudicial pretrial publicity” at the April hearing. But as the Washington Times noted, prosecutors pushed back hard. Utah County Attorney’s Office general counsel Christopher Ballard dismissed the media-coverage argument:
“So just saying that this a content tornado or there’s been a barrage of media coverage doesn’t necessarily mean that there is going to be prejudice to the defendant.”
Visser offered a revealing complaint in that same hearing, as the Washington Times reported: “There seems to be an idea that flooding the public sphere with information from this courtroom will somehow dispel conspiracy theories or shift public narratives. That, in and of itself, is concerning to the defense.”
Translation: the defense doesn’t want the public to know what happened.
Ballard drew a sharp line. He told the court:
“Our client is the people of the state of Utah who do have an interest in the public nature of these proceedings. But whether any particular document in this case is public or private is really of secondary concern to the state here. We’re not trying to represent any kind of media interest, and I think it’s improper for the defense to suggest that.”
AP News reported that prosecutors said DNA evidence links Robinson to the Sept. 10 shooting and that they intend to seek the death penalty. Much of the evidence likely to surface at the April hearing is already public, prosecutors noted.
Graf pointed to Utah Supreme Court precedent, noting that even in high-profile cases, fair-trial rights can be protected through standard jury-selection tools:
The judge also swatted down a separate defense gambit. Robinson’s team had moved to disqualify the Utah County Attorney’s Office, arguing a conflict of interest because a prosecutor’s daughter was present at the shooting at UVU. Graf denied that motion at a Feb. 24 hearing, saying the court was “unpersuaded” by claims of an “appearance of bias.”
As Just The News detailed, cameras, including video, still cameras, and microphones, will be allowed at Robinson’s April 17 hearing. During that hearing, the defense told the court it would present a compilation highlighting “the most egregious and most concerning media coverage impacting Mr. Robinson’s case.”
The fight over transparency isn’t finished. Graf ordered the defense to file a redacted version of its motion to exclude cameras by March 30. Newsmax reported that while the judge rejected sealing the filing, he said he is still considering whether portions of the April 17 hearing itself should be closed.
The Washington Examiner noted that the court will continue “balancing all the factors” in deciding whether limited portions of the next proceeding could be restricted. Robinson’s preliminary hearing is set for May 18, 20.
Robinson appeared Friday in a blue dress shirt and tie. He could be seen occasionally taking notes during the hearing. His parents, Matt and Amber Robinson, also arrived at the 4th District Court in Provo.
The public deserves to see justice done, especially when a conservative leader was murdered in broad daylight on an American campus. Courtroom secrecy serves the accused; courtroom sunlight serves everyone else.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.