Tyler Robinson defense seeks contempt ruling over prosecutor comments in Charlie Kirk case
Thank you for the patience of the parties. This Court has considered the oral arguments made today and has considered the briefing, which has been previously submitted, and I commend the parties for. Their diligence, their And their arguments as well as the quality of briefing that was done on this issue. And so the court is going to issue its ruling on what is requested and what is before the court. Before the court are 3 motions to classify court records. Defendant’s motion to classify as private motion filed January 9th with exhibits. Defendants, and which is docket 285. Defendant’s motion to classify motion to exclude docket 310, and defendant’s motion to classify reply in support of motion to exclude docket 400. The public has *** presumptive right to access court records. Open court records assist in educating the public about the workings of governments and the decisions being made on the public’s behalf. Uh, contribute to the informed debate, allow the public to hold public officers and employees accountable, increase public confidence, and provide material for independent research on improving government policy. The right of access, however, is not absolute as cited to in Algiers. Other factors may favor closure of the records, such as protecting personal privacy, non-parties participating in the court proceedings, and *** defendant’s right to *** fair trial. *** court may consider any relevant factor, interest, or policy in both in favor of in opposition to closure in determining whether to classify or close all part, all or part of *** court record. In making its determination, *** court must make findings and conclusions about specific court records, identify and balance the interests favoring opening and closing the record, and if the record is ordered closed. Determine that there are no reasonable alternatives to closure sufficient to protect the interests favoring closure. With this legal framework in mind, the court now turns to the pending motions to classify. And it relate as it relates to defendant’s motion to classify as private motion filed January 9th with exhibits docket 285. Defendant seeks to classify *** motion filed on January 9, 2026 as private because it addresses evidence that has not yet been found to be admissible, and it is of *** nature that could easily taint potential jurors. If the court denies his motion to classify, defendant requests an opportunity to file *** public version of the motion that redacts the attached exhibits and details from the exhibit discussed in the motion. Defendant does not provide any specificity explaining why the potential evidence discussed in the underlying motion is of such *** nature that its disclosure could taint the jury pool. The potential evidence discussed in the motion is technical and discusses the process of scientific and forensic testing of physical evidence. It does not contain any obvious private or inflammatory information. And while the evidence has not been admitted at trial, there is no pending motion to exclude it. In balance, defendant has not provided *** sufficient basis for the court to find that the interests favoring closure outweigh the interests favoring an open proceeding. And the presumptive right to access. Moreover, as the Utah Supreme Court recognized, even in highly publicized cases, *** defendant’s right to *** fair trial can be protected through the regular time-honored process for for selecting jurors, like enlarging the veneer of potential jurors, utilizing *** detailed juror questionnaire, and conducting *** thorough verdire of potential jurors. Defendant’s request to classify the motion filed on January 9, 2026 is respectfully denied. As it relates to the motion to classify motion to exclude docket 310. Defendant seeks to classify his motion to exclude cameras from the courtroom because the motion compiles *** litany of unfairly prejudicial and oftentimes inaccurate electronic media interviews, comments, and. Um, photographs. Furthermore, the motion. References court filings that are classified as private and references the publication of private information of individuals involved in this case, allegedly in violation of law. Defendant does not provide any citations to the underlying motion to aid the court in identifying the potentially private information. The court is sensitive to the amount of pretrial publicity generated by this case, including an extensive amount of public commentary and inaccurate or conspiratorial descriptions of alleged evidence supporting or negating defendant’s guilt. *** substantial amount of this pretrial publicity is organized and memorialized into defendant’s motion because the references to pretrial publicity are by their very nature already contained in the public arena. Interests favoring closure are greatly diminished in this citing to State v. Algiers, the public has already. The public already has access to the majority of the information contained in the motion. Upon balancing the interests at play, the court determines that defendant has not shown that the interests favoring closure outweigh the interests favoring access to the record. With the exception of the potentially private information referenced in the motion to classify, the court orders defendant to file *** version of his motion to exclude cameras referencing docket 305 that redacts private information referenced but not specifically cited in his motion to classify. The redacted versions of the motion to exclude cameras must be filed with the with the court by the end of business on March 30th, 2026. If no redacted motion is filed by that time, the court will reclassify docket 305 as public. If *** redacted motion is filed, the court will maintain the private classification on docket 305. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Finally, turning to the defendant’s motion to classify reply docket 400. Defendant seeks to classify as private his reply memorandum in support of his motion to exclude cameras from the courtroom. Defendant argues that his reply memorandum should be private because it references portions of the motion to exclude cameras, which he has also moved to classify as discussed in the ruling on docket 310. Defendant does not cite any part of the reply memorandum that references potentially prejudicial information in the motion to exclude. Based on the record before it, the court concludes that defendant has not provided *** sufficient basis. For the court to find the interest favoring closure. Outweigh interests favoring access to the reply memorandum. As such, defendant’s motion is respectfully denied.
Advertisement
The man accused of killing Charlie Kirk is due back in court Friday as his attorneys seek to hold prosecutors in contempt for comments they made in the media about a bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body.Defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson have accused prosecutors of going on a “media tour” to discuss expert reports about the bullet. The defense claims those statements violated restrictions imposed by Judge Tony Graf against speaking about the case outside of court.But prosecutors said they had a right to correct misinformation from Robinson’s attorneys about an inconclusive, preliminary finding by ballistics experts, who could not immediately match the bullet fragments with a gun allegedly used by Robinson. Details about the preliminary finding spurred stories speculating about Robinson’s possible exoneration.“The rules expressly allow lawyers to set the record straight,” Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard wrote.Robinson’s lawyers have tried to guard against media coverage that they say sometimes misrepresents their client, as his case has drawn tremendous public attention. The 23-year-old from southwestern Utah is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 assassination of Kirk, cofounder of the conservative Turning Point USA organization, on the Utah Valley University campus.Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. He has not yet entered a plea.Robinson’s attorneys did not specify what sanctions should be levied against prosecutors if Graf agrees they violated his orders and holds them in contempt. But in court filings, the defense team pointed to another criminal case where prosecutors were accused of contempt and said one potential remedy was to bar the state from seeking the death penalty.While the judge in that earlier case disagreed that an order barring the death penalty was merited, Robinson’s attorneys noted that, “the court did not conclude that such a remedy was beyond its authority where the facts support it.”Graf has said he will issue his decision about the contempt allegation at a later date.A key hearing in the case is scheduled for next month, when prosecutors must show they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. That would mark the most significant presentation of evidence to date in the case that has so far focused on matters of media access.Robinson’s attorneys have asked Graf to halt the proceedings while they appeal a June 1 order in which the judge declined to bar cameras from the courtroom.
The man accused of killing Charlie Kirk is due back in court Friday as his attorneys seek to hold prosecutors in contempt for comments they made in the media about a bullet fragment recovered from Kirk’s body.
Defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson have accused prosecutors of going on a “media tour” to discuss expert reports about the bullet. The defense claims those statements violated restrictions imposed by Judge Tony Graf against speaking about the case outside of court.
Advertisement
But prosecutors said they had a right to correct misinformation from Robinson’s attorneys about an inconclusive, preliminary finding by ballistics experts, who could not immediately match the bullet fragments with a gun allegedly used by Robinson. Details about the preliminary finding spurred stories speculating about Robinson’s possible exoneration.
“The rules expressly allow lawyers to set the record straight,” Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard wrote.
Robinson’s lawyers have tried to guard against media coverage that they say sometimes misrepresents their client, as his case has drawn tremendous public attention. The 23-year-old from southwestern Utah is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 assassination of Kirk, cofounder of the conservative Turning Point USA organization, on the Utah Valley University campus.
Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if Robinson is convicted. He has not yet entered a plea.
Robinson’s attorneys did not specify what sanctions should be levied against prosecutors if Graf agrees they violated his orders and holds them in contempt. But in court filings, the defense team pointed to another criminal case where prosecutors were accused of contempt and said one potential remedy was to bar the state from seeking the death penalty.
While the judge in that earlier case disagreed that an order barring the death penalty was merited, Robinson’s attorneys noted that, “the court did not conclude that such a remedy was beyond its authority where the facts support it.”
Graf has said he will issue his decision about the contempt allegation at a later date.
A key hearing in the case is scheduled for next month, when prosecutors must show they have enough evidence to warrant a trial. That would mark the most significant presentation of evidence to date in the case that has so far focused on matters of media access.
Robinson’s attorneys have asked Graf to halt the proceedings while they appeal a June 1 order in which the judge declined to bar cameras from the courtroom.
