Lawyers for Tyler Robinson urged a Utah judge to limit what the public and reporters can see during parts of a key preliminary hearing scheduled for July 6-10, as prosecutors prepare to present the evidence they say supports bringing the case to trial in the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The defense asked State District Judge Tony Graf to seal some evidence and bar reporters and the public from portions of the hearing after Graf declined to ban news cameras from the courtroom. Graf said he would rule June 1 on whether to implement restrictions.
As argued in court, Robinson’s defense has said broadcasts of the proceedings can lead to media “frenzies” that may misrepresent the defendant and affect potential jurors. The upcoming hearing, prosecutors and defense both indicated, will be the most significant presentation of evidence to date in a case that has included extensive public access during its first eight months.
The hearing in question followed a dispute that began Tuesday over outside statements attributed to one of the prosecutors. Richard Novak, an attorney for Robinson, told the court that Christopher Ballard went on a “media tour” and made what Novak characterized as “expressions of opinion as to Mr. Robinson’s guilt.”
Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride responded that Ballard had the right to speak to reporters to correct misinformation tied to an inconclusive preliminary ballistics finding, which had driven speculation about Robinson’s possible exoneration. McBride told the court that Ballard was “representing the true nature of that report” and did not make a statement of opinion about guilt.
Graf did not immediately decide whether to grant the defense request for an evidentiary hearing on that matter, and he reserved the broader question of evidence-and-media restrictions for his June 1 ruling. In the background of the arguments, prosecutors said the July hearing will include forensic analyses, surveillance video, recordings of witness statements, autopsy findings and alleged messages they say Robinson sent.
Prosecutors said that during the July proceedings they would introduce evidence including what they described as “reliable hearsay” — statements made outside court that they said are considered highly trustworthy for preliminary hearings. Chad Grunander, a deputy Utah County attorney, said such statements are typically allowed in preliminary hearings but not at trial, where the standards are stricter.
Defense attorneys argued that widely shared statements could still harm Robinson and later prove unusable at trial. Staci Visser said the defense worries that the statements will spread widely, harm their client and then not be admissible at a trial; Grunander replied that closing portions of the July hearing because of reliable hearsay would effectively “swallow the constitutional rights that the public has to be here and to witness these proceedings.”
Prosecutors said they intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. Robinson, 23, has not entered a plea. He is charged with crimes including aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 assassination of Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus.
In court filings and arguments referenced in the proceedings, prosecutors have said Robinson left a note for a romantic partner stating, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” and wrote in a text message about Kirk: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” Authorities also said DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the trigger of the rifle used in the killing, on the fired cartridge casing, on two unfired cartridges and on a towel used to wrap the rifle.
Earlier this month, Graf also took steps they said were intended to protect Robinson’s rights in court; he declined to bar cameras from the courtroom, a decision MSI previously reported on in relation to the defense’s earlier request. As the July hearing approaches, the parties’ dispute now centers on whether some exhibits should be sealed or not displayed in a way that could reach the broader public during preliminary evidence review.