LIVE | Accused Charlie Kirk killer Tyler Robinson back in court

Ajouté : 2026-06-02

[00:07:04]Okay.

[00:07:05]Okay.

[00:12:51]Good morning. Court is now in session.

[00:12:55]Calling case number 251501576.

[00:13:02]State of Utah versus Tyler James Robinson.

[00:13:05]Council, could you please enter your appearances?

[00:13:09]>> Dad Grunander, Ryan McBride, and Christopher Ballard for the state, your honor.

[00:13:15]>> Good morning.

[00:13:16]>> Good morning, your honor. Richard Novak, Stacy Visser, and Michael Bert or Mr. Robinson.

[00:13:25]I believe Miss Nester is on is on an airplane somewhere, so she's not with us today. And Mr. Robinson should be appearing audio only from the jail.

[00:13:39]>> All right, Mr. Robinson, are you with us?

[00:13:43]>> Thank you. Good morning to you all.

[00:13:48]The court now issues its uh rulings on the two outstanding matters that we recently heard.

[00:13:58]I'll start with the ruling and order uh addressing the defendant's motion to or order to show cause.

[00:14:08]Defendant Tyler Robinson filed a motion for an order to show cause docket 504 seeking an order requiring Utah County Attorney Jeff S. Gray and Utah and Deputy Utah County Attorney Chris Ballard to appear in court and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the pre-trial and trial publicity order originally issued on September 16th, 2025 and amended on December 15, 2025.

[00:14:39]And as I'm reading this, I'm going to be filing my written uh rulings. And so I'm going to omit the citations to the dockets and case. Uh but that will be in its full form.

[00:14:54]The motion is fully briefed. The court heard oral arguments on May 19th, 2026.

[00:14:59]Having considered the papers and the oral arguments, the court now rules in orders as follows.

[00:15:05]defendant alleges the conduct occurred outside the immediate view and presence of the court.

[00:15:12]Thus, section 78B-6-302 sub2 requires defendant to file an affidavit or statement detailing the facts constituting the contempt. Which statement together with the subsequent court order forms the basis of the contempt charge?

[00:15:34]Defendants April 16, 2026 declaration of counsel in support of the order to show cause satisfies that requirement.

[00:15:43]In the declaration, defense council identifies alleged conduct and provides specific examples.

[00:15:51]Defense council asserts that Utah County Attorney Jeff S. Gray and Deputy County Attorney Chris Ballard violated the court's pre-trial publicity order by making specific statements to various news outlets including TMZ, USA Today, Fox News, Political Facts, and others.

[00:16:11]Accordingly, the court grants defendants's motion for order to show cause. The issuance of this order reflects a determination that defendant has made a sufficient preliminary showing under Utah law to warrant further proceedings and does not constitute a finding of contempt. An evidentiary hearing will take place during a portion of the previously scheduled June 12th, 2026 proceeding.

[00:16:37]The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the evidence establishes the elements of contempt, namely whether the Utah County Attorney's Office and its representatives knew what was required under the court's pre-trial publicity order. The respondents had the ability to comply with that order, and the respondents by making specific statements to various media outlets intentionally failed or refused to comply with the pre-trial publicity order. Because defendant seeks an order for civil rather than criminal contempt.

[00:17:11]And because the focus of the claims is on the potential impact the disseminated statements may have had on the potential jury pool, the court respectfully declines to issue an order compelling the Utah County Attorney's Office to produce the requested discovery.

[00:17:29]Each side will have 1 hour and 30 minutes to present evidence after which the court will take the issue under advisement and issue a ruling at a future date. This is the order of the court. And that concludes the first ruling by this court.

[00:17:47]Turning to the second issue.

[00:17:52]This is regarding defendants's motion in lemonade to close portions of the preliminary hearing testimony and seal preliminary hearing exhibits.

[00:18:02]Defendant Tyler Robinson, I'm sorry, defendant Tyler James Robinson seeks to close portions if not all of the preliminary hearing and to seal preliminary hearing exhibits. The motion has been fully briefed and oral arguments were heard on May 19th, 2026.

[00:18:22]At oral arguments, the parties arg agreed that neither the public nor the media should be permitted to inspect or copy exhibits presented at the preliminary hearing except as published in court as part of the hearing. With the issue of the exhibits resolved, the court turns to the closure of the preliminary hearing itself. The public and the media enjoy a presumptive right to access court proceedings, including preliminary hearings. A party seeking to close a preliminary hearing must show that adverse publicity traceable to the opening hearing poses a realistic likelihood of prejudice to a fair trial.

[00:19:02]To overcome this presumption, the party seeking closure must also show there are no less restrictive alternative means to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the jury. Public access to the judicial to judicial proceedings also serve in an important role in maintaining confidence in the fairness and transparency of the judicial process. This court finds these showings have not been made here.

[00:19:32]First, the motion does not identify with sufficient specificity that the evidence, if presented in the public proceeding, would create a realistic likelihood of prejudice to defendants's right to a fair trial. Despite receiving notice of the state's witnesses and exhibits for the preliminary hearing, the motion raises generalized concerns regarding hearsay and the expert reports without identifying particular evidence warranting closure. Bergen wore much of the evidence the state indicated it intends to offer during the preliminary hearing is already in the public arena and was identified in the information and probable cause statement. The possibility that evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing may later be ruled inadmissible at trial does not standing alone bar the public from the courtroom. The court, however, acknowledges defendants's pending motion in lemonade to preclude 11:02 evidence and reserve ruling on that issue until the matter has been fully briefed and heard. Even assuming specific evidence has been identified that could present a risk to defendants's constitutional right to a fair trial. If publicly disclosed, the motion does not establish that a no less restrictive alternative uh remains available. Several methods remain available to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, including enlarging the veneer of potential jurors, utilizing detailed juror questionnaires, and conducting thorough vow dire all methods routinely used to safeguard a defendant's constitutional rights. For these reasons, the court respectfully denies defendants's motion. This is the order of the court. Council, I will go ahead and sign these orders and it will be uploaded to the docket today. And with that, uh I believe we have our next hearing on June 12th starting at 9:00 a.m.

[00:21:32]And we'll and that is in person. Uh I'm anticipating Mr. Robinson being present and uh we will uh adjourn until that date.

[00:21:42]Your honor, may I just ask the court one scheduling question?

[00:21:45]>> Absolutely, Mr. Na.

[00:21:47]>> Um, so we have these two matters on June 12th. One is argument on the motion that the court just referenced and one is the order to show cause hearing. Did the court have a preference for which um of those two matters it does first and which it does second?

[00:22:06]Let's go ahead and do the order to show costs first and the evidentiary hearing and then uh we'll turn to the second matter. Thank you for that question.

[00:22:15]>> Thank you.

[00:22:16]>> All right. Anything further from the parties?

[00:22:20]>> Nothing from the state, your honor.

[00:22:22]>> All right. Thank you to all parties. I wish you a good rest of your day. Court is in recess.