- Tyler Robinson's defense denies seeking a "secret prosecution" for his murder case.
- Robinson argues media coverage threatens his fair trial rights, citing prejudicial content.
- Prosecutors oppose banning the media, emphasizing transparency's importance despite the case's widespread publicity.
PROVO — Tyler Robinson and his defense team are firing back at the notion that they want his capital murder trial handled in secret.
On Friday, Robinson filed his reply to the news media's opposition to banning cameras and microphones from the courtroom, and said the idea that Robinson is seeking a "secret prosecution" is "absurd." But they don't want the public to know what their arguments are.
"Nothing is further from the truth. Mr. Robinson properly seeks to safeguard his right to a fair trial by not making public the contents of the motion," the defense argues.
Robinson, 22, is charged with capital murder and faces a possible death sentence if convicted of shooting political activist Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University on Sept. 10 as Kirk was speaking in front of an estimated 3,000 people.
Robinson says he does not deny the public has a right to access his legal proceedings, but claims the publication of certain information included in what they say are "private" documents will put Robinson's right to a fair trial at risk. The defense wants to "eliminate the predictable and further prejudicial republication of the litany of already prejudicial electronic media articles, videos and 'expert' commentary by paid pundits that has been generated by the news media.
"This court and the news media need only look to the news media's own publications since Sept. 10, 2025, to note the overwhelming emphasis on matters that have no bearing whatsoever on the public's ability to see how the justice system works, how this court makes its decisions, and the role of the press in ensuring confidence in the public that justice is indeed being done. Rather, the news media uses their platforms to, for example, call for Mr. Robinson's death, to have 'body language experts' make irrelevant and entirely unscientific claims about Mr. Robinson's character, and to transmit video worldwide that is in clear violation of the court's orders — video that will exist on the internet regardless of what is done after the fact to modify it."
The defense further claims that "rather than being a beacon for truth and openness, the news media have simply become a financial investor in this case, seeking to turn a profit at the expense of allowing this case to proceed as the Constitution requires — both public and fair," the reply states. "Mr. Robinson does not claim that he cannot receive a fair trial simply because his case is high profile. Mr. Robinson does claim he cannot receive a fair trial if the news media is allowed to continue pursuing its monetary interests in this case under the guise of the public's right of access, at the expense of Mr. Robinson's constitutional rights and the integrity and dignity of the court."
Also Friday, the Utah County Attorney's Office filed its opposition to Robinson's continued efforts to keep electronic media out of the courtroom.
Prosecutors do not dispute "that this case has generated intense public interest" and "that modern media ecosystems amplify and distort information."
"But those realities do not justify the remedy the defense seeks. The Constitution does not permit courts to compromise their commitment to openness simply because publicity is widespread, contentious or uncomfortable. Nor does (the law) authorize termination of electronic coverage based on speculative harms, generalized critiques of media culture, or fears untethered from concrete courtroom effects," the state wrote in its opposition.
The state further notes that even before Robinson's first courtroom hearing with cameras, "this case was already the subject of national reporting, political commentary, and online speculation. That publicity did not arise from courtroom broadcasting.
"The defense repeatedly invokes misinformation, conspiracy theories, and distorted narratives as reasons to exclude cameras. The factual posture of this case demonstrates precisely why transparency is essential," prosecutors wrote.
Prosecutors argue that the judge can refine the existing decorum order as needed. But "the extraordinary relief sought — categorical restriction based on speculation and generalized critique — finds no support in the Constitution, Utah law, or the actual record of this case."
Also on Friday, Robinson filed a renewed request to have the Utah County Attorney's Office disqualified from the case, wants all court proceedings to be put on hold, and wants the Utah Attorney General's Office to argue its disqualification motion.
"The request is only, at this time, that the court direct the county attorney to refer this motion to the attorney general, pursuant to clearly established Utah law, so that the court, the public, and Mr. Robinson have no doubt that the disqualification issue is addressed, on behalf of the people of the state of Utah, by prosecutors who have no conflict of interest whatsoever and whose participation does not present even a perception of a conflict of interest."
The defense claims the county attorney's office has a conflict of interest because the adult child of one of the prosecutors, a UVU student, witnessed Kirk's shooting death.
Robinson's next scheduled court hearing is Tuesday. The hearing will be a continuation of one that started Jan. 16 regarding disqualification.
