Utah judge in Charlie Kirk killing case denies some efforts to limit media access

PROVO, Utah (AP) — The man accused of killing Charlie Kirk on a Utah college campus was back in court Friday as a state judge denied some efforts by his attorneys to limit public access to certain documents while not ruling out the possibility of closing portions of an upcoming hearing.

The outcome sets the stage for an April hearing in which attorneys for Tyler Robinson will make their case to exclude TV cameras, microphones and photographers from the courtroom.

Judge Tony Graf has been weighing the public’s right to know details about the case against concerns by defense attorneys that the media attention could undermine Robinson’s right to a fair trial. Prosecutors, Kirk’s widow and attorneys for news organizations have urged Graf to keep the proceedings open.

Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty for Robinson, 22, who is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem. They have said DNA evidence connects Robinson to the killing.

Robinson has not yet entered a plea.

Attorneys on Friday debated whether the defense’s written request to exclude cameras, which was classified by the court as private, should be made public.

Graf said the defense failed to make its case to keep the motion private but that he will continue “balancing all the factors” when deciding which portions of the upcoming hearing may be closed.

Staci Visser, an attorney for Robinson, told the judge that the defense is not arguing in the court of public opinion.

“There seems to be an idea that flooding the public sphere with information from this courtroom will somehow dispel conspiracy theories or shift public narratives. That, in and of itself, is concerning to the defense,” Visser said. “All we should be worried about is protecting what happens in this courtroom.”

Robinson’s defense team went on to say that the April hearing will involve discussions about prejudicial pretrial publicity — for example, evidence that has yet to be admitted, confessions, personal opinions about guilt or public statements that would otherwise be inadmissible in court.

“We don’t want to be in that position of bringing in front of the court all of this prejudicial information and having the press regurgitate it yet one more time, and reinflicting a wound that we’re seeking to avoid,” defense attorney Michael Burt said.