Journalists can keep filming and photographing court proceedings for the Utahn accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk. A judge ruled Friday against Tyler Robinson’s defense, which asked that cameras be permanently booted from the courtroom, claiming they would bias the jury pool.
“Because defendant has not shown that a categorical ban on electronic media coverage for all proceedings, in this case, is allowed by Utah law, defendant's motion is respectfully denied,” ruled Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf.
The judge read his written ruling during a remote hearing May 8. Robinson, 23-years-old, attended virtually from the Utah County Jail, where he is being held, and didn’t have his camera turned on.
Media and public access have been a dominant issue during the early stages of the high-profile case. It’s something the defense has focused on, but the prosecution has also advocated at times for restricting access.
Utah judicial rules say there’s a “presumption” that electronic media coverage by journalists is allowed in public court hearings. A judge can restrict media coverage, such as cameras, if there’s a compelling reason — like a likelihood it could “prejudice the right of the parties to a fair proceeding.”
In April, the defense presented its argument to Graf. They called expert witnesses to the stand, including one who had surveyed Utah County residents about the case. The defense and their experts showed examples of media coverage they said was “sensational and misleading,” including speculative stories that tried to analyze his body language in court or commentators calling him a “monster,” vilifying him.
Robinson’s attorneys said this was prejudicial to their client and argued that cameras in the courtroom could make it hard to get an impartial jury.
“This court is not so cynical as to conclude that just because the parties did not present evidence of responsible journalism, none exists,” Graf read from his ruling.
Additionally, Graf explained that under Utah’s judicial rules, when deciding whether cameras are allowed to be inside for a hearing, the court is looking at the intentions of the specific news outlets asking to capture pool photography or livestream the proceedings — are they trying to disseminate news to the public or do they have another motive?
The court isn’t looking at “the entire universe of media outlets and social media sites that have published information or misinformation about this case,” he said.
So far, only traditional local news outlets have had cameras in the courtroom.
Media organizations, including a local coalition of which KUER is a member, prosecutors and Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, have argued against the defense’s camera ban request. The prosecution argued that transparent proceedings would help the public trust the process. They also contend courtroom transparency is the best antidote to conspiracy theories.
Robinson faces several criminal counts, including a first-degree felony charge of aggravated murder. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.
While Graf ruled on the requested blanket ban on cameras in the courtroom, the defense will likely continue to push in the future for restricting public access to certain documents or hearings. Graf noted that since each court proceeding is different — some are just scheduling and others are evidence-focused — he would consider any potential restriction requests on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, Graf ruled that when media outlets want to photograph or video hearings, that request must be filed two weeks in advance to give the sides time to object. Usually, outlets only have to file one business day in advance.
In the seven months since Robinson was charged, hearings have focused primarily on procedural and technical issues. Both sides have signaled there are mountains of evidence, which have yet to be shared publicly, and the case hasn’t even made it to a preliminary hearing. As such, Robinson hasn’t entered a plea yet, either.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled to start May 18, but Graf agreed to move it back to early July at the defense’s request.
The defense said in April that they were waiting to receive forensic reports from federal law enforcement, and attorneys argued they need time for their own experts to analyze those reports before a preliminary hearing can proceed. The prosecution argued that those reports aren’t necessary to meet the low bar of probable cause. At the May 8 hearing, the prosecution said they had since provided those missing reports to the defense.
Given the massive volume of evidence in this case, Graf said he anticipated the preliminary hearing might be pushed back and ruled it a reasonable request.
