Judge Tony Graf is scheduled to rule May 8 on whether cameras will continue in the case. The decision will balance public transparency against fair trial protections in a high-profile murder prosecution.
The defense team for Tyler Robinson, accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, pressed a Utah judge Friday to ban cameras from his courtroom proceedings. Robinson’s attorneys argue that live broadcasts are fueling media sensationalism and depicting the 23-year-old as a “monster,” making a fair trial impossible.
Media organizations, prosecutors, and Erika Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s widow, oppose the ban, contending that transparency is the strongest guard against misinformation and conspiracy theories that concern Robinson’s defense team.
Defense concerns about media coverage
Bryan Edelman, a social psychologist with a California-based trial consulting business who testified as a defense witness, said the cameras create pervasive pressure on those involved in the proceedings. “It’s turning outside the courtroom into like a reality TV show,” Edelman said. “I think it creates pressure on everybody to have cameras in here, from the jury to everyone involved.”
Robinson’s parents sat behind him for Friday’s hearing in a half-full courtroom. His father lowered his head and stared down at his hands while the defense played a Fox News clip in which a commentator identified as a former FBI agent opined that Robinson was a sociopath.
The case background
Robinson, 23, is accused in the Sept. 10 killing of Kirk, a conservative activist who was addressing a crowd of thousands on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem when he was shot in the neck. Robinson turned himself in a day after the shooting and has not yet entered a plea. A trial date has not been set.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Robinson if he is convicted of aggravated murder. A preliminary hearing scheduled for May will determine whether prosecutors have sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
Evidence presented by prosecutors
Authorities have said DNA consistent with Robinson’s was found on the trigger of the rifle, the fired cartridge casing, two unfired cartridges, and a towel used to wrap the rifle. Surveillance video shows Robinson near the university from the morning of the shooting wearing the same clothes as when he turned himself in. Robinson left a handwritten note for his romantic partner confessing to the crime and confessed to friends on the chat room platform Discord, according to prosecutors.
Prosecutors argue for camera access
Utah County prosecutor Chad Grunander noted that nearly all of the clips shown by the defense as examples of media sensationalism did not include material from the courtroom livestream. “Mischief lurks in the dark or in secret,” Grunander said. “Let’s shine a light on these proceedings, a bright light, so the public can have confidence in what happens in this courtroom.”
The sensationalism around the case has cut both ways. In a March 30 headline, the U.K.-based Daily Mail reported the bullet that killed Kirk “did NOT match” a rifle allegedly used by Robinson. The story was based on an inconclusive, preliminary finding by ballistics experts and led to speculation about Robinson’s possible exoneration. The FBI is running additional tests on the evidence, according to court documents.
Prior camera incidents and current rules
Judge Graf has encountered problems with camera operators during earlier hearings. During a December hearing, he temporarily stopped the livestream after it showed the defendant’s shackles in violation of a decorum order. A January hearing was interrupted when Robinson’s attorneys said close-up shots of Robinson being livestreamed by a local television station could lead to claims based on lip reading. Graf ordered the camera operator not to film Robinson for the remainder of that hearing.
In recent hearings and again Friday, pool cameras for the media have been stationed at the rear of the courtroom, behind Robinson. This positioning sharply limited opportunities to film or photograph him in court. Graf also made camera operators come before him to acknowledge they understood the rules.
Mike Judd, lawyer for a coalition of media organizations including The Associated Press fighting to preserve access, said the judge has focused on whether his rules inside the courtroom are being followed, not what the media is saying outside of court. “The court can do all of that in order to try to control what gets fed into that media ecosystem,” Judd said. “You reduce the likelihood of somebody publishing things that you think may be of potentially biasing concern later on.”
Judge Graf said he would rule May 8 on whether cameras will continue to be allowed.