Lawyers for Charlie Kirk's accused assassin Tyler Robinson want cameras banned after report on taxpayer burden

Utah County Lawyers Seek to Ban Cameras in Charlie Kirk Murder Trial

Lawyers for accused shooter Tyler Robinson have filed a motion with Judge Tony Graf Jr. in Utah County to bar cameras from the courtroom in an upcoming hearing that could set a trial date. The attorneys argue that continuous media coverage—especially video—would “incrementally” harm Robinson’s right to a fair trial by turning public scrutiny on the cost of his defense into a prejudicial narrative.

The motion, filed Monday on behalf of the defense, cites the following concerns. “Only a few weeks ago, the media reported on costs associated with the defense,” the filing reads. “Against that backdrop, statements by defense counsel at the upcoming proceeding concerning the time and resources necessary to prepare this case are likely to be examined and disseminated in real time through social media and other media channels and viewed through the lens of cost, rather than in the context of Mr. Robinson’s constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel, a fair trial, due process of law, and a reliable penalty determination.”

The attorneys added that the “risk of reinforcing existing prejudicial perceptions of Mr. Robinson and his defense” is too great to allow cameras. “Although the resulting litigation schedule may be newsworthy, there is little additional news value in electronically recording and transmitting the back-and-forth among the Court and counsel concerning scheduling matters,” the motion states.

Robinson’s case, which stems from the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University, has already drawn national attention. Kirk was struck in the chest by a single bullet fired by Robinson, a 23‑year‑old University student, in front of a crowd of about 3,000 people. The incident has resulted in a federal indictment that carries a potential death penalty if Robinson is convicted of aggravated murder, the most serious charge in the case. Additional counts include felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and a violent offense committed in the presence of a child.

Robinson’s defense team has been fighting a costly battle. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah County has already paid $1.6 million to Robinson’s legal team, exhausting a special $1 million earmark that the state set aside for the case. Some experts estimate that the defense could ultimately cost as much as $10 million, given the need for expert witnesses, lab testing, and extensive investigations.

The hearing in question, set for October 23, 2026, is not expected to include witness testimony. Its primary purpose is to establish the trial schedule. However, the defense maintains that the presence of cameras during even a routine hearing could influence the public’s perception of the proceedings and potentially impact Robinson’s right to a fair trial.

Judge Tony Graf Jr. has historically leaned toward transparency. He has allowed cameras in most proceedings under a decorum order, but has also taken a pragmatic approach, limiting coverage when it might disrupt the court’s operation. In a prior hearing, one of Robinson’s attorneys, Richard Novak, laughed when the judge ruled that a request to allow a pool photographer had been filed too late, a decision that only permitted photography on days two through five of the five‑day preliminary hearing.

Robinson’s lead counsel, Kathy Nester, entered not‑guilty pleas on his behalf at a brief arraignment in September, further underscoring the case’s gravity. The attorneys’ motion is part of an ongoing strategy to keep the courtroom environment as neutral as possible. They have previously likened media coverage to a “reality TV show,” contending that cameras distract and pressure participants in the courtroom.

If Judge Graf permits cameras, Robinson’s team will have to contend with the potential for real‑time dissemination of defense strategy discussions, which they argue could be framed by the public in terms of cost rather than legal merit. The defense’s primary concern is that such framing could erode the presumption of innocence and influence jurors, even indirectly.

The Utah County courthouse will decide the motion on the next hearing, after which the case may advance to a full trial or be scheduled for a later date. Whether the court sides with the defense’s request or continues to allow cameras remains to be seen. In either case, the high‑profile nature of the case, the potential death penalty, and the extraordinary defense costs will keep it in the public eye as the proceedings unfold.