Fourth District Judge Tony Graf Jr. ruled Friday to unseal court documents in the case of Tyler Robinson, the man accused of shooting and killing Turning Point USA cofounder Charlie Kirk at a Utah Valley University outdoor rally on Sept. 10, 2025. Robinson's defense team fought to keep the filings under wraps, arguing that public access would poison the jury pool. The judge was not persuaded.
Graf found that much of the information the defense sought to keep sealed already exists in the public sphere. He rejected the argument that unsealing the documents would prejudice Robinson in the eyes of potential jurors. He did, however, grant one concession: Robinson's attorneys may file a redacted version of one motion. The specific motion was not publicly identified.
Robinson faces the death penalty if convicted in the shooting death of Kirk, who was a national figure in conservative politics. His defense team mounted a broad argument for sealing, but according to Courthouse News, never landed on specifics.
Attorney Staci Visser, who represents Robinson, told the court that releasing evidence could influence potential jurors in either direction but did not identify which materials should be excluded. Her argument was sweeping:
Whatever it is, it makes it harder to find impartial jurors.
She added: "We're not trying to try this case in the public." Fellow defense attorney Michael Burt argued that categories like confessions and statements from people including President Donald Trump warranted privacy from public view. Burt said "that evidence has been reamplified, commented upon."
Attorney Michael Judd, representing several media outlets, pushed back directly on the vagueness. He argued Robinson's team failed to point to specific information that should remain sealed.
We don't know what the ask is.
That exchange is telling. A defense team asking a court to seal documents bears the burden of showing why secrecy is necessary. Broad claims about pretrial publicity, without identifying the precise material at issue, do not meet that standard. Graf's ruling reflects that principle.
The prosecution's account of the evidence is damning if proven. Prosecutors have said Robinson confessed or implied his involvement in the shooting to a family member. They also claim Robinson texted his roommate after the shooting, directing the roommate to the location of a note. In that note, Robinson supposedly wrote that he had an opportunity to "take out" Kirk and planned to do so. These are allegations, not established facts, and no trial has taken place.
President Trump once called Kirk's shooter an animal. Defense counsel Burt specifically cited statements from Trump as one category of information that should be shielded from public view.
Graf also addressed the next major proceeding: an evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 17. The judge made clear his default position.
The presumption is it will be open.
He acknowledged he could close portions if needed. Prosecutor Christopher Ballard, with the Utah County Attorney's Office, agreed with the defense on two narrow points: that portions of the hearing addressing media violations of the judge's decorum orders and personal safety concerns could be closed. Otherwise, Ballard supported public access and argued that standard jury selection tools, including an expanded jury pool, detailed questionnaires, and targeted questioning of potential jurors, can address any taint concerns.
Behind the sealing dispute sits a more practical problem. Defense attorney Richard Novak told the court he is still waiting on discovery, meaning evidence the prosecution is required to provide. Without it, he warned, the May preliminary hearing, the proceeding where a judge determines whether enough evidence exists to send the case to trial, may need to be postponed.
It's not little, tiny pieces of witness statements here and there.
Novak stressed the scope of what is missing: "Our experts can't advise us on the data if we don't have the data." The bottleneck is not entirely within the Utah County Attorney's Office. Chief Deputy County Attorney Chad Grunander told the court he has spoken with federal authorities about providing the necessary materials and pushed them to move quickly. But the gap remains.
We are candidly still waiting for some information.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed which federal agencies hold the outstanding discovery or what specific categories of evidence remain undelivered.
The April 17 evidentiary hearing is now the next scheduled proceeding, and Graf has signaled it will be public. The May preliminary hearing remains on the calendar but could slip if the discovery logjam with federal authorities is not resolved. Robinson's defense team retains the option to file a redacted version of one motion.
Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at a public rally on a university campus six months ago. The man accused of doing it faces the death penalty. The public has a right to see how the legal system handles this case in real time, and Judge Graf's ruling ensures that, for now, courthouse doors stay open. The discovery delays are a separate concern. When federal authorities hold evidence that a state prosecution needs to move forward, and that evidence is not arriving, the question shifts from transparency to competence. The court and the public are waiting.
