The most contested document in one of Utah’s highest-profile homicide cases is one that the public is not allowed to read. While a 200-page defense motion remains under seal, prosecutors and media lawyers are arguing in open court about whether the public should even know what is inside.
The Case at the Center of a Secrecy Fight
According to reporting by Fox News, Utah prosecutors and a coalition of national and local media outlets are challenging an effort by defense attorneys for Tyler Robinson to keep key pretrial filings sealed from public view. Robinson is accused of fatally shooting Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk from a rooftop during a speaking event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, in September. He has not entered a plea, and the court has not yet made a probable cause finding because of repeated postponements of his preliminary hearing and arraignment, Fox News reports.
The current dispute is not about guilt or innocence. It is about what the public can see while the criminal case moves forward. Robinson’s defense team has filed a lengthy motion under seal. They want news cameras barred from the courtroom and say secrecy is necessary to protect what they describe as their client’s absolute right to a fair trial.
What the Defense Wants Closed
Fox News reports that the defense filed a roughly 200 page motion that is currently sealed. In that motion, they ask the court to exclude cameras and classify their filing, arguing that revealing its contents would unfairly influence the potential jury pool.
According to the same reporting, defense filings argue that the public’s right of access to court proceedings is not absolute, while a defendant’s fair trial rights are. The defense has also objected to close-up video of Robinson in court, claiming that third-party “lip readers” used broadcast footage to interpret and distort private conversations at the counsel table. They accuse some media outlets of trying to “turn a profit at the expense of allowing this case to proceed as the Constitution requires, both public and fair,” according to Fox’s summary of their filing.
Defense counsel has not publicly addressed specific pieces of evidence described by prosecutors, including an alleged text message exchange that appears to contain an admission, Fox News reports. The outlet states that Robinson’s attorneys did not respond to its requests for comment about that alleged exchange.
Prosecutors and Media Argue for Open Courts
Utah County prosecutors oppose the sealing effort. In a filing quoted by Fox News, Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard wrote that Robinson’s team had not met the legal standard for limiting public access. He argued that the defense had failed to justify confidential treatment of its motion or to explain specifically how disclosure would prevent a fair trial.
“Given Defendant’s inadequate justification for restricting access to his motion, and the existence of these ‘reasonable ways to ensure a fair trial’ despite pre-trial publicity, Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that the public should have access to his motion,” Ballard told the court, according to Fox News.
A coalition of media organizations, including Fox News and other national and local outlets, has joined prosecutors in opposing the seal. Their position rests on a line of United States Supreme Court decisions that recognize a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings.
In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), the Court held that the public and the press have a constitutional right to attend criminal trials. The decision emphasized the long history of open courts in the United States and concluded that “the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment.” The Court contrasted that ruling with Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (1979), which had allowed closure of a pretrial hearing. Media lawyers in the Robinson case argue that Richmond Newspapers effectively limited the scope of Gannett, according to Fox News, and that the defense is relying on outdated law.
Media attorney Royal Oakes, who is not part of the case but has followed it, told Fox News that courts rarely allow the level of secrecy Robinson’s lawyers are seeking. “My take is that the defendant’s efforts to keep things under wraps is doomed,” Oakes said. He added, “Not every document, snippet of testimony, or fact is automatically open to the public and press simply because it relates to a legal proceeding, but nearly everything is.”
Oakes also argued for transparency around the very question of sealing. “Any paperwork submitted by one of the parties supporting or opposing the sealing of documents, or the closing of court proceedings, or the approval or disapproval of cameras should absolutely be public documents,” he told Fox News Digital. “Transparency not only encourages people to do the right thing, it lets the public and the press push back if secrecy is unwarranted.”
Managing Pretrial Publicity Without Closing Doors
The Supreme Court has long recognized that extensive media coverage can complicate jury selection in high-profile cases. In Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the Court overturned a murder conviction because the trial judge failed to control a media environment that had become chaotic and prejudicial. Yet later cases have emphasized that heavy coverage does not automatically make a trial unfair and that judges can use targeted tools such as careful jury questioning, changes of venue, continuances, or instructions to jurors.
According to Fox News, prosecutors in the Robinson case are citing this line of precedent to argue that pretrial publicity, even if intense, does not in itself justify closed proceedings. One filing reportedly summarizes Supreme Court doctrine as holding that “pretrial publicity, even if pervasive and concentrated, cannot be regarded as leading automatically and in every kind of criminal case to an unfair trial.”
From prosecutors’ and media lawyers’ perspectives, the correct remedy for concerns about potential juror bias is robust voir dire during jury selection, not sealing broad categories of filings in advance. They contend that the public’s ability to monitor both the prosecution and the defense is a core safeguard in the criminal justice system.
The Evidence Already in the Record
Even as the defense seeks to restrict access to new filings, several significant allegations are already part of the public record, based on earlier prosecution submissions described by Fox News.
Prosecutors say Robinson spent about a week planning the killing of Kirk, then allegedly carried it out by firing from an elevated position onto the outdoor event at Utah Valley University. They also point to what they describe as a text message exchange between Robinson and his roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, who is cooperating with investigators.
According to Fox’s reporting on those filings, Twiggs texted, “You weren’t the one who did it right????” Prosecutors allege that Robinson replied, “I am, I’m sorry.” Robinson’s defense team has not publicly commented on this alleged exchange, and at this stage it remains a prosecution claim rather than a fact found by a court.
If convicted of aggravated murder, the top charge he faces, Robinson could be eligible for the death penalty under Utah law, Fox News reports.
A Side Battle Over Alleged Conflict of Interest
The secrecy fight is not the only procedural dispute in the case. Separately, Robinson’s attorneys are asking the court to remove the Utah County Attorney’s Office from the prosecution because of what they describe as a conflict of interest.
Fox News reports that the defense points to one deputy county attorney whose adult child was in the crowd at Utah Valley University during the shooting. They argue that this personal connection disqualifies that prosecutor’s office. Prosecutors have denied that there is any disqualifying conflict.
According to Fox’s account of a recent hearing, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray has been called to the witness stand in connection with the disqualification motion. At the time of that reporting, the hearing on the alleged conflict had not yet concluded.
What Remains Unresolved
Important pieces of the Robinson case are still unsettled. There has been no probable cause ruling. No trial date is on the calendar. The defense’s core motion to seal its 200 page filing and restrict cameras remains under consideration. The motion to remove prosecutors because of an alleged conflict is also unresolved.
Until the judge rules, the public does not know precisely what Robinson’s attorneys are asking to keep out of view, even as they argue that secrecy is necessary to protect fair trial rights. The outcome will determine how much of this politically loaded homicide case the public is allowed to watch and how much will be argued on paper that only the court and the parties are permitted to see.
