Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
- Judge Tony Graf ruled Tyler Robinson's preliminary hearing in July will remain open to the public.
- Now Robinson's defense is seeking to delay all proceedings while it appeals the cameras in the courtroom issue to the Utah Supreme Court.
- Robinson faces capital murder charges for the September 2025 killing of Charlie Kirk.
PROVO — The preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson's capital murder case will remain open to the public.
Fourth District Judge Tony Graf announced his decision Monday, denying a motion by Robinson and his defense team to close the hearing.
"A party seeking to close a preliminary hearing must show that 'adverse publicity traceable to the open hearing' poses a 'realistic likelihood of prejudice to a fair trial' to overcome this presumption. The party seeking closure must also show there are no less restrictive alternative means to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the jury," the judge said in his ruling. "The court finds these showings have not been made here."
But while Graf's ruling will keep the hearing open to the public, Robinson is asking for yet another delay — that all legal proceedings in the case, including the preliminary hearing, be put on hold while they make an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court over Graf's earlier decision to allow cameras in the courtroom.
Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing political activist Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. He is charged with capital murder and faces a potential death sentence if convicted.
On May 19, Graf heard arguments in court on two issues — whether a full evidentiary hearing should be held to determine if the Utah County Attorney's Office should be held in contempt of court; and whether portions of Robinson's preliminary hearing, currently scheduled for July 6-10 after already being delayed once, should be closed to the public and some evidentiary items sealed.
In denying the motion to close the preliminary hearing, Graf noted that the defense had not adequately shown how an open hearing might prejudice a jury pool, that there are many tools already available to attorneys to prevent seating a prejudiced jury, and that much of the evidence prosecutors plan to present at the preliminary hearing is already public.
"The motion raises generalized concerns regarding hearsay and expert reports without identifying particular evidence warranting closure," Graf said. "The possibility that evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing may later be ruled inadmissible at trial does not, standing alone, bar the public from the courtroom."
Also Monday, Graf granted Robinson's motion for an evidentiary hearing on the contempt issue. Each side will have 90 minutes on June 12 to show why they believe the Utah County Attorney's Office did or did not violate a court order that forbids attorneys from making extra public statements or comments to the media.
"The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the evidence establishes the elements of contempt. Namely, whether (1) the Utah County Attorney's Office and its representatives knew what was required under the court's pretrial publicity order; (2) the respondents had the ability to comply with that order; and (3) the respondents, by making specific statements to various media outlets, intentionally failed or refused to comply with the pretrial publicity order," the judge said.
A hearing to argue the issue of whether hearsay evidence from law enforcers will be allowed at the preliminary hearing was already scheduled. Graf says that hearing will now include the contempt of court issue.
"Utah has allowed prosecutors to introduce reliable hearsay at preliminary hearings for more than 30 years. Federal prosecutors have introduced hearsay at preliminary hearings for over 50 years, and at grand jury proceedings since our nation's founding. Forty-four other states allow hearsay at preliminary hearings and grand jury proceedings. These well-established procedures are not unconstitutional," prosecutors said in their motion filed last week opposing Robinson's effort to preclude hearsay evidence.
Meanwhile, Robinson and his defense team are now asking Graf to put all proceedings on the case on hold while he asks the Utah Supreme Court to revisit the issues of cameras and microphones in the courtroom.
Robinson had filed a motion requesting that "television cameras and microphones, still photographers, radio microphones and other similar implements of the electronic or broadcast media" be kept out of the courtroom during his legal proceedings. A hearing was held on the issue on April 17. Graf denied the request on May 8.
On Friday, however, Robinson notified the court that he is appealing that decision to the state's high court and wants all proceedings in the case stayed — including the July preliminary hearing — until the high court decides whether to take up the issue.
"Mr. Robinson asks the Utah Supreme Court to grant interlocutory review for three reasons: 1) Review is necessary to protect Mr. Robinson's fundamental federal and state constitutional rights to a fair and reliable trial by an impartial jury at both phases of his capital case; 2) It was error to deny Mr. Robinson's requested relief without reaching the constitutional issues; 3) This court's imposition of severe procedural restrictions violates Mr. Robinson's state and federal constitutional rights to procedural due process," the defense argues in its motion.
