After weeks of back-and-forth, the judge in the capital murder case against Tyler Robinson, who is accused of killing conservative icon Charlie Kirk, made an important decision about whether cameras would be allowed in the courtroom.
Judge Tony Graf Jr. of the Fourth Judicial District Court said that cameras will be allowed in the courtroom for the April 17 hearing in the case against Robinson, who is 22 years old. The hearing will decide if the media, including TV cameras, microphones, and photographers, should be allowed to cover future pretrial stages.
“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. He further noted that while the April 17 hearing would generally be open, portions might be closed to protect privacy and safety concerns.
The defense had until March 30, 2026, to file a redacted version of their motion to keep cameras out of the courtroom. This would let them make arguments about certain closures.
The ruling on Friday cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Chandler v. Florida, which said that having cameras in the courtroom does not automatically violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Graf argued that the decision struck a balance between the public’s right to know and the defendants’ rights. In the end, they rejected the defense’s claims that media coverage could bias potential jurors in this high-profile case.
During the hearing, Robinson’s attorneys argued to exclude certain evidence from public access, highlighting concerns about finding an impartial jury in this high-profile case.
“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, 22, may face the death penalty if convicted of killing Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10. He appeared in court wearing a blue dress shirt and tie and was seen occasionally taking notes during the hearing on Friday.
“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,” according to defense filings.
Robinson’s defense team also wants to prohibit cameras and microphones, claiming that media coverage could bias the jury. The defense team requested portions of the April 17 hearing be closed to the media, claiming that prejudicial media coverage affects Robinson’s right to a fair trial.
“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,” defense attorney Michael Burt said.
At the April 17 hearing, the defense team plans to showcase evidence regarding “harmful and prejudicial media coverage of this case thus far,” the defense said.
“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,” said the defense.
However, prosecutors pushed back against the defense team’s motion to limit media access to Robinson’s pretrial hearings, arguing that the proceedings should remain open and that the public has a right to information about the case.