A Utah judge on Friday rejected the defense team's attempt to restrict public access to court filings and bar cameras from the courtroom in the case against Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused of killing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.
Judge Tony Graf Jr. ruled that Robinson's attorneys failed to justify closing proceedings that carry a presumption of public access under Utah law. The ruling keeps pretrial filings available and cameras rolling as the case heads toward a preliminary hearing in May.
Judge Graf delivered a firm message from the bench on Friday, siding with transparency over the defense's claim that pretrial publicity could poison the jury pool.
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.
Graf pointed to established jury selection tools as the proper remedy for publicity concerns, citing the Utah Supreme Court's recognition that fair trial rights can be protected even in high-profile cases. Voir dire, the pretrial process of questioning and selecting jurors, remains the standard mechanism for screening out bias, Graf noted, including expanded questioning and detailed juror questionnaires.
Moreover, as a Utah Supreme Court recognized, even in highly publicized cases, a defendant's right to a fair trial can be protected through the regular time-honored process for selecting jurors, like enlarging the voir dire of potential jurors, utilizing a detailed juror questionnaire and conducting a thorough voir dire of potential jurors.
In addition to denying the motion to restrict access to filings, Graf denied the defense motion to ban cameras from Robinson's hearing. He did, however, order the defense to file a redacted version of its motion to exclude cameras by March 30.
Robinson's attorneys argued that releasing preliminary evidence into public view before trial could make it impossible to seat an impartial jury. Defense attorney Staci Visser framed the concern as cutting both ways, saying any public exposure to evidence, whether favorable or damaging to Robinson, deepens the problem.
So what we're talking about is releasing preliminary evidence into the public sphere that has the potential to impact jurors.
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."
Defense attorney Michael Burt told the court the team intends to demonstrate "categories of prejudice that are recognized as presumptively prejudicial" and argued 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 filings described what Robinson's team characterized as "unfairly prejudicial and misleading media coverage" and "improper statements of government officials," though no specific officials or statements were identified in the filings as quoted. The defense also referenced unspecified "privacy violations" detailed in the motion to exclude cameras.
Utah County Attorney's Office general counsel Christopher Ballard rejected the defense framing, making clear the state was not acting as a proxy for media interests but was instead defending the public's stake in open proceedings.
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.
That distinction matters. The defense tried to paint the prosecution's opposition to sealing as a media play. Ballard shut it down cleanly: the Utah County Attorney's Office represents the people, not the press.
Friday's rulings followed another defense setback at a Feb. 24 hearing, where Graf denied a motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office from the case. The defense argued there was a conflict of interest because a prosecutor's daughter was present at the shooting at Utah Valley University.
Graf found the argument insufficient.
Because defendant has not established a factual basis for a finding of conflict of interest or an objective appearance of impropriety, rising to a constitutional concern, his motion is respectfully denied.
The court's language was precise: Robinson's team alleged an "appearance of bias" but did not establish a factual basis rising to a constitutional concern. That is a high bar, and the defense did not clear it.
Robinson, who appeared in court Friday wearing a blue dress shirt and tie and was seen occasionally taking notes, faces a potential death penalty if convicted. No specific charges have been publicly identified by name in available court records as described in Fox News reporting.
Three dates now define the road ahead. Robinson's defense must file a redacted version of its motion to exclude cameras by March 30. The April 17 hearing will take up that camera motion, and the defense plans to present a compilation of what it calls the most concerning media coverage in the case. The defense has also asked to close portions of that April 17 hearing to the media. A preliminary hearing, where a judge will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to send the case to trial, is set for May 18 through 20.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed specific charges by name, and the defense has not publicly identified which government officials allegedly made "improper statements" referenced in its filings. Those details will need to surface as the case moves toward the preliminary hearing.
Judge Graf's Friday rulings send a clear signal: the public's right to observe its own courts does not bend simply because a case is famous. The proper answer to pretrial publicity is rigorous jury selection, not closed doors. That principle protects Robinson's rights and the public's rights at the same time, and a court that forgets either one has failed both.
