Defense Attorney Weighs In on Media Access Ahead of Tyler Robinson Hearing

Robinson's lawyers argue for closed proceedings to avoid prejudicial media coverage ahead of upcoming evidentiary hearing.

Mar. 13, 2026 at 3:39pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Tyler Robinson, the man accused of shooting and killing Charlie Kirk, is expected back in court Friday for a state judge to weigh whether certain documents and proceedings will allow media access and be open to the public. Robinson's attorneys have filed a motion arguing for closed proceedings, citing the need to avoid prejudicial media coverage that could jeopardize his right to a fair trial.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing tension between the public's right to information and a defendant's right to a fair trial, especially in high-profile cases that receive extensive media coverage. The judge's decision on media access will set the stage for the upcoming evidentiary hearing and could have significant implications for how the case proceeds.

The details

In their motion, Robinson's attorneys cite a 1984 Utah Supreme Court case, Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Lewis, which differentiated between media access to trials versus preliminary hearings. The attorneys argue that preliminary hearings, where the rules of evidence are more lax, pose a greater risk of prejudicing potential jurors, and therefore the media should be excluded to protect Robinson's right to a fair trial.

  • Robinson is expected back in court on Friday, March 13, 2026.
  • The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for April 17, 2026.

The players

Tyler Robinson

The man accused of shooting and killing Charlie Kirk.

Charlie Kirk

The victim who was shot and killed.

Skye Lazaro

A Salt Lake City-based criminal defense attorney who is not associated with the Robinson case, but provided analysis on the legal issues involved.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“What this case did is analyze the historical view the United States Supreme Court has taken on the press's First Amendment right to cover trials. What this case does is differentiate between a trial and, as here, a preliminary hearing.”

— Skye Lazaro, Criminal Defense Attorney (KUTV)

“The rules of preliminary hearings are far different than the rules at trial. The rules of evidence are different. Hearsay can be admitted. So, because the rules are so different at a preliminary hearing juncture vs. the trial juncture, a defendant would want to limit the public's access to things that may or may not be admissible down the road.”

— Skye Lazaro, Criminal Defense Attorney (KUTV)

“As a defense attorney, your duty is to your client, and so you do everything you can to protect information getting out there that may sway a jury or information that may not be admissible in trial that goes to your defendant's character, things along those lines.”

— Skye Lazaro, Criminal Defense Attorney (KUTV)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Friday whether to allow media access and public proceedings for the upcoming evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 17.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing legal balancing act between the public's right to information and a defendant's right to a fair trial, especially in high-profile cases that receive extensive media coverage. The judge's decision on media access will be crucial in determining how the case proceeds.