PROVO — There have been a lot of high-profile court cases in Utah over the past 20 years, according to attorneys representing the media in the Tyler Robinson capital murder case, and all of them allowed some type of electronic media coverage.
"Nearly 20 years ago, recognizing the benefits of electronic media coverage, the Utah Judicial Council enacted (a rule) which creates a presumption favoring electronic media coverage when the 'predominant purpose of the (media) request is journalism or dissemination of news to the public.' The rule explicitly instructs courts to consider fair trial rights when determining if that presumption has been overcome. Many high-profile cases have been prosecuted and tried in this state since then, nearly all of which involved some level of electronic media coverage. This case is hardly the first," media attorneys wrote in their latest court filing.
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.
Robinson's preliminary hearing is scheduled to begin in less than two weeks. His attorneys, however, are trying once again to keep cameras and microphones out of the courtroom.
On May 29, Robinson filed a petition with the Utah Supreme Court, requesting that the court revisit 4th District Judge Tony Graf's ruling to allow cameras during Robinson's legal proceedings. The state's high court then requested that attorneys for the media and prosecutors each file a response to Robinson's petition before the judges decide if they will hear the case.
This week, those responses were filed.
While recognizing that the Robinson case is a high-profile matter, attorneys for the media note that Graf has been sensitive to both sides of the issue, and that the judge has already "issued a robust decorum order with strict electronic media coverage guidelines" that includes having cameras film from the back of the courtroom only.
"Despite all this, and contrary to the process set forth in the rule, (Robinson) asked the court to impose an advance categorical ban on all cameras in every single proceeding for the entire remainder of the case. Although the motion purported to be about electronic media coverage, it was nothing more than a lengthy polemic against 'the media' writ large and all negative pretrial publicity, no matter its source, including statements made by politicians and online commentators," the media states in its response.
"The 181-page motion to exclude is, at bottom, a rambling complaint about 'the media.' It devotes little time to the analysis required (law), focusing instead on arguing that various officials and commentators violated ethical rules," the media response continued.
That motion was denied, with Graf ruling that Robinson's right to a fair trial is not in jeopardy. Nevertheless, Robinson filed a request for the Utah Supreme Court to consider the issue, even though Robinson "has not demonstrated that immediate review is warranted, let alone that there are any reversible errors for this court to correct," according to the media's attorneys. "In short, when the district court denied the motion to exclude (electronic media), it plainly considered and rejected (Robinson's) argument that electronic media coverage was reasonably likely to prejudice his fair trial rights. And to remove any doubt, the court reiterated its constitutional ruling at the June 12 hearing."
The Utah Attorney General's Office also filed a response on behalf of the state and, like the media, agrees that there should not be a blanket ban on electronic media coverage for the duration of Robinson's case.
"Robinson does not explain how considering challenges to electronic media coverage on a proceeding-by-proceeding basis would negatively impact his substantive rights. Nor does he explain why his rights-based arguments could not be raised in a challenge to electronic media coverage of a particular proceeding," the state responded while also noting that the judge left the door open for Robinson to still challenge electronic media coverage on a scenario-by-scenario basis.
"Robinson will still have the chance—indeed, many chances—to argue that his constitutional rights require prohibiting electronic media access. As discussed in the previous section, the trial court's order requiring Robinson to challenge electronic media coverage on a proceeding-by-proceeding basis has not negatively impacted his substantive rights in any way.
"The trial court's order declining to issue a blanket ban on electronic media coverage does not meet the standard for granting interlocutory review because it does not affect Robinson's substantive rights," the state concluded.
As Robinson waits to hear whether the Utah Supreme Court will hear their appeal regarding cameras in the courtroom, he has again filed a motion in the 4th District Court to ban electronic media from the upcoming preliminary hearing, scheduled to begin July 6. Graf is expected to decide on that motion on Friday. He is also expected to announce on that day whether the Utah County Attorney's Office should be held in contempt of court.
