Tyler Robinson, the accused killer of Charlie Kirk, made his first in-person court appearance under visibly heightened security. Some streets near the Provo courthouse were blocked off, and the public was prohibited from bringing bags.
The 22-year-old’s previous court appearances have been by video or audio from the Utah County Jail, where he is being held.
Robinson has been charged with seven criminal counts, including aggravated murder. If convicted, the county attorney has said they will seek the death penalty.
Dressed in a button-up shirt and tie and handcuffed, Robinson faced straight ahead after he sat down. He appeared calm and was still most of the time.
His mother, father and brother sat in the front row of the gallery. His mother wiped away tears when he was brought in, and she wore sunglasses when she walked out of the courtroom past reporters. There was also a substantial crowd — journalists, many from national media outlets, as well as members of the public, including individuals who witnessed the Sept. 10 shooting at Utah Valley University. Some showed up hours before the noon hearing, lining up outside the courtroom to make sure they got a seat.
Multiple law enforcement officers stood along the walls, more than are usually seen in a courtroom. Four of them wore camouflage fatigues and SWAT gear.
Media and public access to proceedings were the focus of this hearing, a big and likely ongoing issue in such a high-profile case that has garnered international attention.
While journalists photographed and livestreamed this appearance, with some court-ordered restrictions on what they could capture, Robinson’s attorneys indicated they plan to keep fighting to ban cameras from the courtroom.
The defense and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office have previously asked to ban cameras, but Graf has not ruled on that yet.
Media attorneys representing local and national news organizations, including KUER, have asked for the transcript of a closed October hearing on security with limited redactions. Judge Tony Graf closed the hearing for over two hours to talk about it, meaning the public and Robinson’s family had to leave the courtroom. Saying he needed more time to consider the arguments, Graf said he’ll rule on that issue in a Dec. 29 remote hearing.
When things reopened to the public, Robinson’s defense attorneys said that a camera capturing the hearing had shown Robinson’s shackles on the livestream, violating the decorum order. The press has been prohibited from showing restraints, which the defense argued was necessary to preserve the potential jury pool.
The media attorneys apologized for showing the shackles, saying it was inadvertent, and removed it from the footage shared with other reporters
Defense attorney Staci Visser wanted Graf to end electronic media coverage for the rest of the day. The judge thought that would go too far, but he did move the two cameras to the other side of the courtroom, closer to the prosecution.
“I simply want to put all parties on notice — to the press, to all parties — that this Court takes this very seriously,” Graf said. “While the court believes in openness and transparency, it needs to be balanced with the constitutional rights of all parties.”
Another issue Graf said he’d rule on later in December is the media’s standing in this case. Attorneys for news organizations have argued that they should be notified of requests that would limit the public’s access to proceedings so that they can show up and argue.
“We are here to advocate for openness and against closure,”David Reymann, an attorney representing the media, said. “No one else represents our interests.”
Reymann said the media would have limited status and would not be at every hearing arguing.
While the state’s attorneys agreed with a limited role for the media, the defense has more concerns. Visser said she wanted it spelled out “what this enables them to do.” She said she was concerned about potential leaks and objected to providing anything to the media’s lawyers in advance. Reymann said the news organizations themselves would not see anything that was not public.
“We don't want the chaos that is out in the media in this courtroom. So whatever this court can do to prevent that is what we're asking,” Visser said.
The only issue Graf ruled from the bench was clarifying his previous gag order, which restricts people involved with the case from making public statements outside the courtroom. While roughly 3,000 people witnessed the killing of Charlie Kirk, Graf said the only lay people under that gag are witnesses whom the prosecution or defense believes they will call to testify.
Defense attorney Kathryn Nester also said they will argue in the future that the Utah County Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from prosecuting this case. The defense filed a motion, but it is sealed.
The next hearing is Dec. 29, where Graf will issue two rulings on the outstanding issues from Thursday’s hearing. They also have in-person hearings scheduled for Jan. 16 and Feb. 3.
