Judge hearing arguments on Tyler Robinson’s court attire during closed hearing — why it matters

UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — A judge is hearing arguments Friday afternoon over the hotly debated issue of whether the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk can wear civilian clothes during future court appearances.

Tyler James Robinson, 22, is facing several charges, including one of aggravated murder, for allegedly shooting and killing conservative influencer Charlie Kirk during a rally at Utah Valley University in September.

On Oct. 9, a motion was filed by Robinson and his attorneys, seeking an order that would permit Robinson to make all court appearances in civilian clothing and without wearing restraints.

Since then, there has been a back and forth between the prosecution and the defense, culminating in an accusation by Robinson’s attorneys that the Utah County Attorney’s Office (UCAO) had “conflated its role in the case” by involving and speaking for the Utah County Sheriff’s Office.

The State has responded to that accusation, arguing that the sheriff’s office has a standing to respond. saying that the joint response from the prosecution and sheriff was “appropriate and efficient.” The defense is now replying to this and again asking that the motion be stricken.

The initial motion and the following back-and-forth arguments will be the topic of discussion at a closed hearing on Oct. 24 at 3 p.m. A second hearing will be held on Oct. 27 at 1 p.m. — this one open to the public — where the judge will issue his ruling.

Initial motion and filings

On Oct. 9, Robinson and his attorneys filed a motion for an order that would permit Robinson to make all court appearances in civilian clothing without wearing restraints. They argued that because this is a high-profile case, making court appearances in inmate clothing could damage the public’s view of Robinson and sway the jury’s “presumption of innocence.”

The following week, on Oct. 14, Judge Tony F. Graf, Jr. created an interim order on the motion. He ruled that because the motion would not be reviewed until Oct. 30, a temporary order could be reviewed ahead of the hearing. Although the court initially required both the State and the sheriff’s office to respond, that was modified on Oct. 14, only requiring the State to respond.

The court ordered Robinson to serve his motion on the Utah County Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division no later than Oct. 15, and that the prosecution must file a response by Oct. 20. Then, following the state’s response, Robinson and his attorneys were ordered to file a reply by Oct. 22.

On Monday, Oct. 20, the prosecution filed its response to the motion on wearing civilian clothing without restraints. That response was classified, meaning it cannot be read by the public.

Debate between defense and prosecution

Following the prosecution’s response, on Oct. 21, Robinson’s attorneys filed a motion to strike that response, arguing that the UCAO was choosing to represent the Utah County Sheriff’s Office instead of fulfilling its prosecutorial duties due to a joint filing from the two agencies.

“It is not appropriate for UCAO to assume a role as counsel for the Sheriff’s Office and allow the Sheriff’s Office to assume standing through UCAO’s participation as a party in this case. The opposite is likewise true — it is not appropriate for the Sheriff’s Office to assume a prosecutorial role in this case, but that is what has occurred,” the defense previously concluded.

On Oct. 22, the State filed an opposition to the defense’s motion to strike. The prosecution argued that the sheriff’s office “has standing to respond” in the case. Initially, the Utah County Sheriff’s Office was directly asked to respond due to their oversight of court security, the State argues.

The prosecution further states that the fact that the sheriff’s office may need to act as a witness “doesn’t deprive the [Utah County Sheriff’s Office] of standing.” Court cases are not limited only to the prosecution and defense, and sometimes have additional parties, such as crime victims who provide testimony.

“The State and the Sheriff filed a joint response because their positions are aligned on these issues. As the court’s security rule recognizes, the Sheriff is the expert on court security… a joint response was both appropriate and efficient. Moreover, because the Sheriff has standing for the reasons explained above, a joint response was not a veiled attempt to allow the Sheriff to somehow ‘assume standing,'” the prosecution concludes in their opposition.

On Oct. 23, Robinson’s attorneys filed a reply to support their initial motion to strike. The defense doubles down on its arguments and pushes back against the State’s opposition.

Robinson’s defense pushes back on the State’s argument that the sheriff’s office acting as a party in the case is similar to a crime victim. His attorneys state that crime victims’ involvement in cases is based on constitutional and statutory rights that law enforcement does not possess as an agency.

They further argue that there is now no question about whether the UCAO was representing the sheriff’s office in the case rather than fulfilling its prosecutorial duties.

“Any guise that the prosecutor’s office is and has been representing the people of the State of Utah is obliterated by the fact that the State is now making a standing argument on behalf of the Sheriff,” the defense writes.

Robinson’s attorneys claim that if the prosecution wanted input from the Utah County Sheriff’s Office, there were ways to go about it without directly involving them in the criminal proceedings.

“None of these issues require an uninvited responsive pleading from a non-party — the Sheriff. To the extent the State desired the Sheriff’s position to be considered at this stage of proceedings, the State could have properly provided affidavits or other admissible evidence for this Court’s consideration,” Robinson’s attorneys argue. They again conclude that the State’s response to the motion should be stricken from the record.

Limiting media coverage

In a separate filing supporting the initial motion for Robinson to appear in civilian clothing without restraints, his attorneys show numerous examples of how public the discussion of his case has been. They argue that this widespread discussion, conspiracy, and accusations make it more important that he appear in court in street clothes.

The defense argues against the Utah County Sheriff’s Office’s suggestion that concerns about this pretrial publicity can be solved by “limiting in-person appearances.” Although it could limit how often Robinson is seen, it goes against his right to appear and defend himself and “would frustrate the fairness of proceedings.”

Although disagreeing with one of the sheriff’s office’s points, the defense states that they agree with limiting video and photographic coverage of court proceedings in order to protect Robinson’s right to a fair trial.

“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 ‘[t]o safeguard the
due process rights of the accused,’ and to discharge its ‘affirmative constitutional duty to
minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity,'” the defense writes, citing a 1997 Supreme Court ruling on Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale.

Robinson’s next public court hearing will take place on Oct. 30, and he will appear in person.