The Utah County Attorney’s Office says there’s nothing wrong with the sheriff’s office responding to motions in the Tyler Robinson capital murder case since it is the office in charge of court security.
The legal chess match that started with a request to allow Robinson to appear in court in civilian clothes and without restraints has prompted 4th District Judge Tony Graf to hold a closed-door hearing Friday afternoon, during which Robinson will be in the courtroom. The hearing will address the defense’s motion to allow Robinson to appear in street clothes. Because court security is expected to be part of the discussion, the judge closed the hearing to the public.
Robinson, 22, of Washington, Washington County, is charged with aggravated murder, a capital offense, and faces a potential death sentence if convicted of shooting and killing Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10 at Utah Valley University. Kirk, 31 — a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA — was sitting under a tent of an outdoor amphitheater-courtyard area at UVU, speaking in front of approximately 3,000 people, when he was shot in the neck by a gunman on the roof of the nearby Losee Center building.
On Oct. 9, Robinson’s defense team filed a motion requesting that their client be allowed to appear in court in his regular clothes rather than jail clothing and without restraints. The state filed its response to Robinson’s motion on Oct. 20.
On Tuesday, however, the defense asked the judge to strike the state’s response, arguing it should be written by the Utah County Attorney’s Office only and not co-authored by the sheriff’s office.
But in a new court filing, the state argues that the sheriff’s office has legal standing to respond to motions and that joint filings are “appropriate and efficient.”
“Both rule and statute require the sheriff’s expert input on court security issues,” the Utah County Attorney’s Office wrote in its opposition. “Contrary to (the defense’s) assertion, the fact that the sheriff may be required to provide documents or have his personnel testify at an evidentiary hearing doesn’t deprive the sheriff of standing.
“The sheriff is the expert on court security,” the reply continued. “Because the state agrees with the sheriff’s position on these matters, a joint response was both appropriate and efficient. … A joint response was not a veiled attempt to allow the sheriff to somehow ‘assume standing.’”
Also Wednesday, Robinson’s defense team filed an opposition to a request apparently made by the state asking for online court hearings.
“The state seeks affirmative relief from the court, requesting that ‘all noncritical, nonevidentiary hearings should be held remotely,’” the defense said in its opposition. “The state’s motion is improper and the blanket order it requests violates Mr. Robinson’s constitutional right to be present at his criminal proceedings.
“Mr. Robinson has a right to be present and to participate in his own defense and these interests are paramount.”
The defense argues that there are many times during a hearing when they would need to consult privately with their client.
“Not having Mr. Robinson present and available for consultation will result in the necessity of continuances and cause delay. Not having Mr. Robinson present also makes it impossible to explain matters to him as they develop during court hearings and prevents him from providing information to counsel that is germane to the issues. This impacts the fundamental attorney-client relationship,” the motion states.
While the defense concedes that it may be appropriate to hold some hearings virtually, one of their “most significant concerns” for having their client appear via video from the Utah County Jail is the “intense media attention” the case is receiving.
“Mr. Robinson appearing from Webex in the jail does not solve this problem, since Mr. Robinson’s custody status is readily apparent,” the motion argues.
Robinson’s defense team says that continuing to show images of Robinson from the jail “threatens to cause preconceived prejudice amongst the future jury pool” because of the vast media coverage.
The defense expanded on that argument in a separate 25-page filing on Wednesday in which they again pointed to concerns about the high publicity this case is receiving and how it could potentially prejudice future jurors.
“Even before Mr. Robinson’s first court appearance, politicians, federal and state law enforcement officers, and the lead prosecution attorney in this case publicly offered their opinions about Mr. Robinson, the details of the investigation (including an alleged confession), and even specific items of evidence and forensic tests that have not yet been deemed admissible at trial,” the defense’s reply states. “Two days after the shooting and shortly after Mr. Robinson’s arrest, President Donald J. Trump appeared on a nationwide television broadcast and announced ‘with a high degree of certainty, we have him’ and stated, ‘I hope he is going to be found guilty’ and ‘I hope he gets the death penalty.’”
Robinson’s defense also pointed to press conferences with FBI Director Kash Patel, Gov. Spencer Cox and the 45-minute press conference Jeff Gray held announcing the charges and laying out evidence that has been collected, as well as a TV appearance by Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith and additional comments made by Trump at Kirk’s memorial service.
“The foregoing is illustrative, but not exhaustive. There are thousands of similar, and in most instances, much worse items of prejudicial pretrial publicity that have relentlessly focused on Mr. Robinson’s demeanor and appearance during his jailhouse court appearance and have polluted the waters of justice in this case.
“These concerns are real, not hypothesized, and there can be no doubt that … prospective jurors have in fact seen this coverage and will be affected by it,” the defense argues.
While there have been many high-profile criminal cases in Utah, First Amendment attorneys have argued that no case in Utah has found that a defendant did not receive a fair trial because of pretrial publicity.
Robinson’s attorneys, in their latest court filing, also provided more arguments about why they believe Robinson should have the option of attending every hearing in person.
“Mr. Robinson must be accorded a corresponding and absolutely necessary right to rebut that prejudice by the lawful, easily achievable, and minimally intrusive means of allowing him to be physically present in the courtroom, in street clothes, and without shackles, so that he can be treated as, and perceived to be, the human being that he is, and not a chained animal,” the attorneys wrote.
The defense further states that media coverage of Robinson’s court proceedings should be limited.
“Because of the extraordinary nature of this capital case and the need to ensure a fair and impartial jury that may ultimately decide whether he lives or dies, Mr. Robinson agrees with the sheriff that the court should limit media coverage, or video and photographic coverage, at the least, so defendant’s physical appearance is no longer the subject of interest and he has some chance of securing a fair and impartial jury.
“The court thus has ample authority to restrict the media in this case and should prohibit any further still camera, photography, or video coverage of any proceedings,” the defense argues.
Robinson’s next open court hearing is scheduled for Oct. 30.