Attorneys for the man charged with gunning down Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk filed two motions seeking to block cameras from a pivotal court hearing, arguing the case should not become a "reality TV show."
Tyler Robinson's four-lawyer defense team filed the motions on Saturday in Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, ahead of a September 1 hearing where Judge Tony Graf Jr. will decide whether prosecutors have shown enough probable cause to send the 23-year-old to trial for aggravated murder. Robinson has not entered a plea. He faces a potential death sentence if convicted.
The filing marks at least the second time Robinson's attorneys have asked the court to shut out cameras. Judge Graf rejected an earlier version of the same request, ruling that livestreams promote public accountability and access to justice. Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, media organizations, and prosecutors had all urged the court to keep cameras rolling, arguing that coverage was the best way to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories swirling around the case.
In their Saturday filings, defense attorneys Kathy Nester, Michael Burt, Richard Novak, and Staci Visser argued that broadcasting the September 1 hearing would spread unreliable evidence far beyond the courtroom. The hearing centers on oral arguments, not live witness testimony, and the defense contends that much of the state's evidentiary presentation rests on hearsay that would never survive the stricter standards of a full trial.
Fox News obtained the filings, which included several redacted paragraphs. In one passage, the defense team wrote:
"Specific to the oral argument on the preliminary hearing, the EMC (electronic media coverage) will memorialize and widely disseminate argument discussing the largely hearsay based evidentiary presentation made by the State. Such evidence is, by its very nature, insufficiently reliable for admission at trial."
The attorneys also claimed that witnesses who gave statements admitted as "reliable hearsay" during the week-long July preliminary hearing had been harassed by media and outside parties. Both filings warned that public bias against Robinson is growing in real time.
From the filing:
"The media presence in the courtroom both distracts and places added pressure on hearing participants to present for the media, as opposed to focusing on the facts, evidence, and mechanics of the hearing."
And in the bluntest line of the motion: "Mr. Robinson's case is not and should not be made into a reality TV show."
Robinson stands accused of shooting Kirk in the neck on September 10, 2025, while Kirk addressed a crowd of thousands at a Turning Point USA "American Comeback Tour" event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk was 31 years old.
The July preliminary hearing gave the public its first extended look at the prosecution's evidence. AP News reported that prosecutors played surveillance video allegedly showing Robinson on the rooftop from which the fatal shot was fired, footage that caused an emotional reaction from Kirk's widow and mother in the courtroom. Chief Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander told the court after the hearing:
"The evidence is overwhelming. It's devastating."
National Review detailed the breadth of the prosecution's case: video footage placing Robinson on the university campus, DNA evidence recovered from the rifle matching the type of bullets used to kill Kirk, and multiple alleged confessions. Robinson's former roommate and reported romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, testified that Robinson cried and said he wished he hadn't done it the day after the shooting. Twiggs also told the court that Robinson confessed in person, in a Discord message, and in a handwritten letter left at his home that read: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it."
Prosecutors also showed doorbell camera footage of Robinson driving to a neighborhood near the university, and presented crime scene mapping evidence, the New York Post reported.
The defense, for its part, has tried to sow doubt about the strength of that evidence. Robinson's attorneys noted during the preliminary hearing that prosecutors themselves acknowledged Robinson "seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes misses the target completely" when practicing with the suspected murder weapon, an argument aimed at undercutting the idea that Robinson could have made the shot. The defense also contended that a single shot was fired from an elevated position, though the specifics of that claim were not fully detailed in public filings.
The aggravated murder charge carries a sole aggravating factor: that Robinson allegedly endangered other lives by firing into a crowded venue. That factor is what makes the death penalty a legal possibility. Breitbart reported that Robinson also faces charges of felony discharge of a firearm, two counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering, and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child.
When Judge Graf rejected the first camera-ban motion in May, the defense had cited a survey showing 64 percent of Utah County residents already believed Robinson was guilty. The judge delayed the preliminary hearing from mid-May to July 6 to give defense attorneys more time to review the growing volume of evidence, including the DNA analysis linking Robinson to the weapon, but held firm on camera access.
University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, a former federal judge, offered his assessment of why prosecutors laid out such a detailed case at the preliminary stage. He told AP News:
"I think that the prosecution wanted to dispel those theories by putting out into the public record the overwhelming case that it possesses against Robinson."
A source close to the Kirk family said Erika Kirk, along with Charlie Kirk's parents Rob and Kathy Kirk, all plan to attend the September 1 hearing. Their presence will put the family face-to-face with the defense team's argument that the proceedings deserve less public scrutiny, not more.
Judge Graf has not yet ruled on the new camera-ban motions. He will hear arguments from both sides at the September 1 hearing before deciding whether enough probable cause exists to send Robinson to trial.
The defense team's core argument, that cameras distort the process and spread unreliable evidence, is not frivolous on its face. Pretrial publicity can complicate jury selection, and hearsay evidence presented at a probable-cause hearing does operate under looser rules than what a jury would see at trial. But the defense is asking the court to shield from public view a case that involves the killing of a prominent public figure in front of thousands of witnesses, with a potential death sentence on the line. Transparency in a case this consequential is not a sideshow. It is the bare minimum a free society should expect from its courts.
If Robinson's lawyers believe their client is innocent, a camera in the courtroom should be the least of their concerns.
