The defense of alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson told the judge on Friday that they need at least four months to prepare for a preliminary hearing.
As of Friday, the preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 18, 19 and 21. Fourth District Judge Tony Graf has yet to rule on whether to grant a continuance.
Graf also heard arguments about whether cameras should be allowed in the courtroom, with the defense expressing concerns that it could influence the fairness of the trial.
Richard Novak, a member of Robinson’s legal counsel, said their major dispute is over DNA evidence allegedly tying Robinson to the murder weapon.
According to the prosecution, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have turned in separate reports showing DNA consistent with Robinson’s on the firearm, a towel and three of the four cartridges inside the alleged murder weapon, a Mauser 98 30-06 rifle, a gun Robinson reportedly received as a gift from his grandfather.
Novak said his team does not have the “raw” data behind these reports. “We know that these data files exist because we have summary FBI and ATF reports summarizing the data analysis that go all the way back to September,” he said. If, during the upcoming preliminary hearing, the prosecution calls upon experts from the ATF or FBI to testify, the defense wouldn’t be prepared because it lacks the evidence it needs.
“We have a right to present evidence that gets at these DNA issues, and we have a right to do that through expert witnesses,” Novak said. “We cannot do that when the law enforcement partners, ATF and FBI, have not provided us with appropriate discovery.”
But the prosecution argued that the defense’s argument does not warrant a continuance and that “raw data” isn’t necessary for a preliminary hearing.
“We’ve provided those reports,” Utah County Prosecutor Chris Ballard told Graf on Friday. “What the defense wants is complete and total expert notice and expert discovery.”
The prosecution’s main argument is that a preliminary hearing, under Utah law, is to determine probable cause, and that does not require a full forensic analysis.
If Graf were to grant a continuance longer than a month, it would “infringe on the victim’s right to a speedy trial, as well as the state’s ability to present the case,” Ballard argued. “Justice delayed is justice denied, as the saying goes, and that’s because it affects the victim’s right to a speedy trial. It affects the public’s perception of legitimacy of the prosecution and the judicial system, and it has real effects on the evidence that may be presented at trial. Witnesses become unavailable, memories fade, evidence grows stale, and so the court should not be granting a motion to continue and delaying the proceedings, unless it’s necessary, especially for such a lengthy period.”
Defense says discovery load also demands a continuance
Robinson’s counsel also cited massive discovery as the second major reason they needed a delay.
A longtime Utah trial attorney and Robinson’s lead counsel, Kathy Nester, told Judge Graf that the evidence load the prosecution has given them is uniquely large.
“I handle quite a few murder cases in the state,” she said, noting that in her last murder case, the preliminary hearing was pushed back three times, and it only had two terabytes of evidence.
“This case has over 200 terabytes,” she said. “So I think in the scheme of preliminary hearings and timing, this is not unusual or out of the ordinary for a homicide case in the state, especially one that’s complex.”
Though Novak acknowledged that Charlie Kirk’s wife and the main victim in this case, Erika Kirk, deserves the right to a speedy trial, he said, “We can’t constitutionally shortcut Mr. Robinson’s right to the adequate assistance of counsel.”
Could cameras in the courtroom taint a jury pool?
The second order of business in court on Friday was over the defense’s ongoing concern about media coverage of Robinson’s case so far.
Michael Burt, co-counsel for Robinson, called two expert witnesses to give testimony that aligned with their concern that cameras in the courtroom would fuel sensational media coverage and risk prejudicing jurors.
Social psychologist and attorney Dr. Bryan Edelman, the defense’s first witness, was asked about a survey he conducted that found that while many potential jurors are aware of the Robinson case, most have not yet been exposed to key evidence, suggesting the jury pool is not fully biased — but could become so with increased media coverage.
The defense cited multiple examples of television news coverage of the initial Robinson hearings to demonstrate how “a lot of prejudicial details,” according to Edelman, were being shared with the public.
Edelman said that rather than focusing on what is occurring in the hearings, media outlets would take the opportunity to further share text messages between Robinson and his boyfriend/roommate, or use the livestream footage to judge Robinson’s composure.
“We’re completely speculating with sensational conjecture, because he didn’t blink properly, and his eyebrows didn’t go up enough, or whatever,” Edelman said.
In the prosecution’s cross-examination of Edelman, prosecutor Chad Grunander argued the survey measured only general awareness and does not justify restricting cameras in the courtroom.
Edelman pushed back. When asked by Grunander where a person can go to get unbiased information about the proceedings, he said, “We got accurate information for decades without live streaming.”
“They’re called journalists, and they would come, and they would write stories, and we’d read about them and hear what happened. We don’t need to create a circus-like atmosphere or a reality show out of the trial,” he said.
The second witness for the defense, Dr. Christine Ruva, an expert in cognitive psychology and decision-making in the legal system, said she believes pretrial publicity can influence juror bias without their awareness.
The state also called its own witness, Cole Christensen, with the Utah County Attorney’s Office, Bureau of Investigation, who conducted research related to media coverage in the Robinson case
Grunander said traditional news organizations are the ones livestreaming and with camera access, and these journalists aren’t the issue.
“The difficulty here that we’re confronted with is what is being done with that coverage by third parties, which can’t really be controlled,” he said. “We strongly support open and transparent proceedings in this case, so that the public will trust the process here. There are conspiracy theories that abound, there are questions being raised, and the best antidote for falsehood is the truth, is accuracy. It’s the actual real proceedings, and that’s why we favor opening this court and allowing the cameras in the courtroom.”
Graf will issue a ruling on both the issue of continuance and cameras in the courtroom on May 8.