Tyler Robinson will wear street clothes instead of prison garb while in court, a Utah judge ruled Monday.
Robinson’s attorneys requested two conditions during pre-trial hearings to maintain the 22-year-old’s presumption of innocence and preserve his right to a fair trial. Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf granted their request for plain clothes but denied a second request for him to be unshackled.
While he can be shackled, the public won’t see images. Graf banned news outlets from photographing or videoing Robinson’s restraints, including a prohibition on capturing him walking in and out of the courtroom, where they would likely be visible.
“Restricting the recording of restraint strikes the proper balance between Mr. Robinson's right to a fair proceeding and the public's right to access and transparency,” Graf said Oct. 27 during a virtual hearing.
The question at hand pertains specifically to pre-trial proceedings. During a jury trial, Graf stated that Robinson has the right to appear in normal clothes and not visibly restrained.
Robinson is accused of murdering conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in front of thousands. He has been charged with seven counts, including aggravated murder. Prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.
“Mr. Robinson sits before this court presumed innocent,” Graf also said. “That presumption remains unless and until each element of every offense charged against him is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. To date, this has not occurred.”
Graf said Robinson will be “dressed as one who is presumed innocent.”
Given the high-profile nature of the case and extraordinary worldwide media coverage, the defense argued any images of Robinson in court would be broadly disseminated. That happened with Robinson’s first appearance, where he appeared to be in a suicide-prevention smock. Images of Robinson in jail garb and shackles could prejudice potential jurors, his attorneys argued.
Prosecutors and the Utah County Sheriff’s Department opposed this request because jail clothes help with “safety and identification,” Graf said, summarizing their argument. Both sides met in a closed-door Oct. 24 hearing to argue their sides. It was debated in secret, the judge said, because they were talking about security protocols.
Graf agreed with the defense on the clothes and said Robinson’s right to the presumption of innocence outweighed any minimal inconvenience to the sheriff’s office.
“Images of Mr. Robinson in jail clothing are likely to circulate widely and influence prospective jurors,” Graf said. “Given the scale of that publicity, the risk of prejudice is significant.”
On the issue of shackles, he said Robinson has no criminal history and no record of misconduct while in custody. But there are concerns about safety and disruptions, given the seriousness of the charges Robinson faces and the emotional nature of this case.
The Utah County Sheriff’s Office is therefore ordered to use “the least restrictive restraints necessary to maintain safety.” If those restraints get in the way of Robinson talking with his lawyers, Graf said the defense can re-file their request.
A bigger issue about media coverage is still outstanding. Robinson's attorneys, as well as the sheriff's office, have argued that cameras should be banned from the courtroom.
The defense attorneys say this is necessary so Robinson’s “physical appearance is no longer the subject of interest.” The first virtual hearing was livestreamed, and clips from it have been broadcast thousands of times. His attorneys argued that exposed “countless numbers of prospective jurors to the image of [Robinson] sitting in jail, clothed in prison garb.”
They dubbed it a “content tornado” with a large mix of fact, fiction and opinions swirling online.
Graf said the broader camera-access issue was not ready to be ruled on.
During the last public hearing in September, Graf ended with a monologue stating his commitment to transparency and said, “these proceedings will be open to the public, conducted in accordance with the law, and handled with diligence and competence to ensure that justice is never compromised.”
While it was originally anticipated that Robinson would appear in person in court the last week of October, that didn’t happen. He appeared virtually from the Utah County Jail, where he’s been held since his arrest, and like the last hearing in September, Robinson’s camera was turned off. The only thing Robinson said was “yes, I can” when the judge asked if Robinson could hear him.
The court hearing originally scheduled for Oct. 30 was canceled. Graf said both sides needed more time for discovery and settling other issues. The next hearing isn’t until Jan. 16 and 30 at 1 p.m. Robinson is expected to appear in person then, which would be his first physical court appearance.
