Document text
Court Proceeding — Accused Charlie Kirk Killer Attends Motions Hearing To Limit Media Access
Court proceeding — State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson (Case 251403576, 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Utah County). Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track of the Court TV feed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w9P_EQm91E) — verbatim ASR, not a certified court transcript.
Welcome back to CourtTV Live. I'm Julia Jana along with Judge Ashley Wilcott. Thanks so much for following along with us as we are in a Utah courtroom right now. A hearing is underway for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk last September. Kirk was killed, shot and killed while attending an event in Utah Valley University. Now Robinson ran off after the shooting which prompted a massive manhunt. He did surrender just one day later and now faces several charges including aggravated murder. Today, Robinson made his first in court appearance where the judge addressed several issues, including one about unsealing some audio and a transcript from a hearing that was held in October. Now, that particular issue was argued behind closed doors. Now, court has resumed and our cameras are now allowed in as the judge hears other motions, including one for a gag order. This is the pool camera that we are tapping into. Not particularly our cameras, but let's get you inside of the >> All right, let's move to the next matter And of course, I'm looking for my notes and they've disappeared. But that's [clears throat] okay. happens. All right, let's go ahead and address the state's motion to amend or clarify the publicity order and I'll hear from all parties and I know that I know it has been briefed but and responses but I'll hear brief argument and then we can Thank you, your honor. Uh, with respect to this motion, I think as we've expressed in the past, we all everyone in this room shares the same goal, and that is to ensure that there's a fair trial that happens in this case. And we recognize that the court's uh pre-trial publicity order was is intended to further that goal. And again, as I've stated before, the state plans to try this case once. Um the state is also committed to complying with its eth ethical duties with respect to pre-trial publicity. We have complied with those duties. We will continue to comply with those duties. Um the the issue we bring before the court here is that there's one portion of the pre-trial publicity order that can be interpreted to reach beyond those ethical requirements and um what and have the effect of being what would be an unlawful order, an unlawful prior restraint on speech. And our goal therefore is to get an order that's clear, that's lawful, and that the state has the ability to comply with. And the issue with the order that the state has is the use of the term witnesses in the order. Um, we believe that terms vague and ambiguous. Does it mean anyone with relevant information about this case? Does it just mean uh those people that are going to be subpoenaed to testify in this case or is it limited to just the prosecution team? And I think as we've expressed in our um filings, we believe that the court intended that that term just be limited to the prosecution team because that is the way that rule 3.8 reads. Rule 3.8 8 uh of the rules of professional conduct that deals specifically with requirements for prosecutors um talks about investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in so in other words, the prosecution team. And there's no rule or case law or statute that expands the prosecution's duties beyond um that group, the prosecution team. So um with respect to clarity, we're seeking clarity as to what exactly does the court mean by witnesses? And we think the court just means the prosecution team because if the that term stretches beyond just the prosecution team then the order is written uh we don't believe is a a valid and lawful order because it would result in a prior restraint on certain speech and at the very least would have a chilling effect on that speech. Um if the the prosecution agrees that we have an ethical duty to take reasonable measures to make sure that those who are identified with the prosecution team are alerted to the requirements of the court's order and to make sure that they do not make a statement that the prosecutors themselves would not be able to make a public statement. Um, but if the order extends beyond that, then we have concerns because a prior restraint is an order that forbids certain communications in advance of the time that they are to occur. And uh as the court of appeals has recognized, the Utah Court of Appeals has recognized in state versus LM and widespread publicity in a case does not itself justify a prior restraint. the as um the United States Supreme Court has recognized in Nebraska Press Association there there's no justification for a prior restraint unless it's clear that the the fer further publicity unchecked would so distort the views of potential jurors that you couldn't find 12 jurors who could be fair and impartial. That's the high standard that applies in this case. And so in order to apply a prior restraint to persons beyond the prosecution team, the court would need would need to engage in a very detailed and demanding analysis. The court would have to make a factual finding of necessity that the speech that would be restrained poses a risk of material prejudice to the ongoing judicial proceedings. The court would need to make findings that there are no less restrictive measures and that the prohibitions are likely to prevent the uh potential prejudice and that whatever prohibitions this court decides on are very narrowly tailored. And uh as the state has explained, the Spencer versus State case from the Arkansas Supreme Court that just issued earlier this year is very helpful, I think, on this issue in explaining um the analysis that applies to various different people that might be associated with a criminal case. You have attorneys uh that category of part trial participants. Certainly the court has uh the highest degree of um ability to be able to restrain that the speech of attorneys and in fact as I've expressed the um ethical rules require that. But when it comes to trial participants like witnesses uh the standards are more demanding as far as restricting the speech of trial participants. And as um SP the Spencer case pointed out, non- attorney trial participants, the court can impose a restraint on their speech only to the extent that the the court first finds that any speech by those non- attorney trial participants poses a serious and imminent threat of material prejudice to the ongoing proceeding. And I think the court also needs to note that uh there are there are several people associated with this case who have um very significant interests in exercising their first amendment rights in talking about how this case has affected them. And of course um can't say that someone's one person's first amendment right is more important than another person's but there are certainly some people here who have a larger uh some people involved who have a larger um or a greater interest in in speaking than others. And so I think the court needs to take that into consideration if this order is meant to apply beyond just the prosecution team. And then finally, um, as far as making the order, so we need a a clear order. We need a lawful order, and then we need an order that the state can actually comply with. And the state recognizes that there are serious sanctions that this court can impose for violations of a court order, as we've just seen. And so we want to avoid these. We want to avoid litigation over whether there's been a a violation of the order. And as it stands right now, we don't believe that there will be any issues if the court limits the term witnesses to just the prosecution team. We can comply with that order. um it gets more difficult for the state if that if the term witnesses then applies even broader um at this stage of the litigation for the state to be able to comply with that order depending on how the court clarifies what witnesses mean. Um score have any questions for the state? >> Mr. Novak. I'm going to try to be brief because our views on the propriety of the court's order um were set forth in a publicly filed document um which um of course the court has reviewed. And the first thing the order that the court issued is not a prior restraint on any member of the public. Uh and it's certainly not um I think as the state's motion suggested some sort of a prior restraint on the the press. This has nothing to do with the press. Um the order as we noted in our papers is directed at the conduct of and the court's expectations for counsel. So even if under that order that the court issued, somebody who we could all agree is a witness within the court's definition of that um made public statements which implicated Mr. Robinson's fair trial rights. the potential sanction is on the party who had a duty to make a reasonable effort to notify witnesses that they should not be doing so. Um, if I represented a witness um who was accused of saying too much publicly, the first thing that I would tell this court is the order isn't directed at the witness. The order is directed at the council for the parties. There may in the future be some theoretical situation where the court issues orders that um control the statements or conduct of specific people but this or other than council but this order is directed at council and we have no meaning Mr. Robinson's defense council have no problem complying with the order and we also think that we understand um what a witnesses when when the court it is our view that the court's order um is not over broad. It's not vague. doesn't put um the states um the state or the state's attorneys in at some untenable position. it's a little too simple to say witnesses are either everybody under the sun or people who are under subpoena at the last second because council have not only the training but a duty to figure out along the way who the potential witnesses are and to notify those people. And yes, down the road maybe there's going to be an issue and maybe um an attorney on either side of litigation is going to have to explain to the court when a particular person did or did not become a potential witness in the eye of in the eyes of that party. Um that doesn't make it impossible for the state to comply with the order. It just means that the state needs to be thinking along the way about who its witnesses may be. And that's why potential lay witness because we believe that the court intended it to go beyond members of the prosecution team which are law enforcement officers, retained experts, retained consultants. Um, >> already disagreements between the prosecution and the defense attorney in their legal arguments. We need to pause it there for a moment. When we come back, we will hear more of the argument to amend publicity [music] order. Keep it here on your front row >> The disappearance [music] of mother Anna Walsh. >> Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. >> Mr. Walsh was suspecting his wife of having an affair. >> A massive trail [music] of evidence. >> This incredible timeline of Google searches. >> It shows everything that was in his mind. >> He searched, "How long before a body starts to smell?" >> The disappearance of Anna Walsh murder trial. Live coverage [music] today on [music] Let's go back to Utah for more in the motions hearing that we've been watching for Tyler Robinson. He's accused in the murder of Charlie Kirk that happened in September during an appearance at Utah >> And um and we don't believe that that creates an enforcement problem. We don't think it creates a compliance problem. Um, we noted in our papers and I'll emphasize here again that the court's order actually places responsibilities on defense council that the rules don't the rules have special um um guidelines for the prosecution and the court has expanded that to include the defense and and we don't have a problem with that. I also think that the standard that the state is suggesting for when a potential lay witness as as we've defined that in our papers um may make public statements that violate the court's order. Um the best standard is actually the one that we believe um the court should look to which is the standard set by the 10th circuit because as the state points out it may be that there isn't any Utah law on this issue. So, it seems to me that the closest um source of authority on on this um constitutional question um is going to be the 10th Circuit. And that's the case United States versus Tarina. And I'll spell it. T I J E R I N A 412 Fed 2 Second 661 10th Circuit 1969 where the court says that um the constitutional balance between the First Amendment rights of a non- attorney participant and the defendant's right to a fair trial are properly balanced where extrajudicial statements present a reasonable likelihood of prejudicing a fair trial. That is a more protective standard than that which appears in rule 3.6 and we think it's the appropriate standard which should be applied here. Um and um that's part of as we've told the court before um a motion that we will bring because we actually think that while the court's order is wholly appropriate, it's not vague, it's not over broad, it's not a prior restraint, and it doesn't create um a lack of clarity for the state. Um we would like it to be a little bit broader in in other areas. um especially concerning the standard to be applied and the definition of what is um the prosecution team. But that's that's not gerine to hear. So we think that um while we understand the state's concern, we think that their motion should be denied. I think at the last hearing the court actually clarified verbally from the bench what it meant by a witness. And I think that's pretty close to what we described in our papers as a potential lay witness. Um, so I don't I I feel like if I say anything more, I'm going to be reiterating again what's already in our papers. If I've muddled it, I'm sure the court will tell me and I'll clarify it. I I hope I haven't. >> Thank you, Mr. Nvac. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, and we'll turn to the last matter. Uh, anything further, council? Yes, thank you, your honor. I just I do want to point out that the the court's order as it's written does impose limitations on speech and the issue here is whose speech? Is it just the prosecution team members or does it extend beyond that? Um, and limitations on speech are a prior restraint. The court's order says um that if you look at page two of the order, it specifically talks about lawyers that lawyers cannot make a statement that would um violate rule 3.6 and need to inform witnesses uh that they cannot make similar statements and then requires uh the parties to inform um lawyers, excuse me, I'll just read it. lawyers participating in the investigation or litigation of this case shall inform all witnesses and then the list that I read about the prohibitions contained in this order. So the order is prohibiting speech and because if it extends beyond the prosecution team it needs to have the findings that are required for that kind of prohibition on speech. That's what we're asking the court to do. >> Thank you Mr. B. >> Thank you. let's turn to the final matter before this court. >> Some really interesting legal arguments. Let's bring in our guest this era to help us break it all down. Joining us in studio is attorney Miguel Castio. Thank you so much for being with us here in person. So really the prosecutor is saying, "Look, judge, you've issued this order and we feel that it's too broad because we don't know exactly who it applies to. It is limiting a speech, but does it only apply to the attorneys in our office? Does it apply to all witnesses? We need better direction. And then the defense says, "Well, we don't think it's prior restraint on anyone. You should leave it in place. It's great as it is." What are your thoughts? >> Well, I think the defense clearly wants to leave it in place because it can just cover more people than less people. Uh, but I think the judge actually needs to give a little bit more guidance to be very specific. Is it just the attorney? Is it just the trial team? Is it witnesses as well? And it's something that I think because the it's constitutional. >> I think it's so important that the judge does need to step in here and give some clear guidance, >> clear clarity maybe. >> Yeah, we've got witnesses that perhaps they don't even have on the list yet. I think is one of the real questions that the prosecution had because so many people witnessed this. There were so many people there. may not have even interviewed yet who were there at Utah Valley University and they don't want something to be said by them and then it be on them for saying well we didn't even tell them yet that there is this gag order. Uh what do you think about this being three sides in there? We've got the prosecution, the defense, and the media is making the argument that we don't want any restraints on not only freedom of speech but if the media goes out and talks to someone. >> Yeah. Well, clearly I'm not surprised by the media attorney's uh uh posture here, but something that is just very I don't know. I think obvious is that is this person ever going to get a fair trial? I mean, I I think there's going to be the jurors are going to be able to access information through their phones, through TV, newspapers, and it's going to be really hard whether there's a gag order or not for jurors to come in here or go into the court uh unbiased. I I think they're already going to show up with, you know, them thinking one way or another, which shouldn't be, but it happens. and and all generally most people see about a case like this on the news or their friends or family speaking to them about it. And I would argue in spite of every single best effort and I'd like to know Miguel based on your experience that jurors often know things or talk about things or see things that they're instructed to ignore during deliberations. >> I was on a jury panel. I was the foreman. And it was just shocking to see how many jurors were talking about things that they were bringing up that had nothing to do with the evidence that was shown in trial. >> And in fact, I would say it was about a quarter to a third of the dialogue that occurred in that room that had nothing to do with the evidence. >> Wow. Wow. >> And you know, if they're seeing this, they're saying, "Wow, look, this is the guy that we served on a jury with." But I think that may happen. Yeah, I hate to to accept that it happens because, you know, you want a fair trial. You want the jurors to follow the rules, and I know a lot of them do, but it it can't happen. We got to get to a break. When we come back, though, we're going to go back into that Utah courtroom. [music] The judge is going to hear arguments by the media. You heard the beginning of that. They want access to this trial. [music] Keep it right here on your front Welcome back to Court TV Live. I'm Judge Ashley Wilcott along with Julia Jana. We're both happy to be with you this afternoon where we are continuing our coverage in emotions hearing for Tyler Robinson in the Charlie Kirk assassination case out of Utah. Robinson could face the death penalty if he is convicted of shooting and killing Kirk during a political event at Utah Valley University back in September. Now, the attorneys inside of this courtroom, they are arguing a motion that has to do with the media and their access to this trial, perhaps whether there will be cameras once there is a trial. Let's get you back into court now. There is a camera for this hearing and an attorney representing the media is speaking. matter before this court, the motion for limited intervention and request for notice of motions to close, seal or reclassify. And I'll hear from the Thank you, your honor. Uh David Ryman representing the news media. Mr. Jud and I represent different groups of clients, so I'm going to invite him if I miss anything to to weigh in after I'm done. But I'm my intent the issues are basically the same. So, my intent is to address them for all of the the uh um interveners at once. And I'll be very brief. Um we have only ever sought in this case uh limited party status. That is what we um do in every high-profile case that involves these type of closure issues. Uh we are not seeking to be parties for all purposes. We are just seeking to be parties for the purpose of showing up um and being heard, which we unquestionably have a right to do. we unquestionably have standing that is settled law in Utah and um the filing the last filing at least that we got from Mr. Robinson's team that just came in, I don't know if it was a couple days ago, basically gets there at the end where it says, "Look, if you're going to if you're going to grant them intervener status, um it should just be limited. That's all we've ever sought." And so the the question that was raised in the in the only case that they cite, this FL case from the Utah Supreme Court that addressed whether we wanted to allow full party status under rule 24 of the civil procedure rules in a criminal case. They said, "We don't need to do that." um the the woman in that case just needed limited party status. And so in a way we're not really the state really hasn't disagreed with this either, but we're not really disagreeing with um with Mr. Robinson's team. Um we have explained in our papers um that uh we've cited the court to extensive authority saying that this is the procedure uh to use. It's the most efficient procedure to use. Otherwise, I don't know what exactly the suggestion is for Mr. Robinson's team that we were that we're supposed to do from here on out. But it kind of sounds like just this sort of ad hoc show up anytime you happen to see something on the public docket that might affect the public's rights. And that's just not the orderly way that this this typically happens. Um, the other thing, as I've mentioned in our papers, that it does, um, is it allows for the media to be able to take an appeal of a closure issue, um, without having to rely [clears throat] on the court's extraordinary red jurisdiction. And um, that was what they had to do in um, in either Kern Tribune or Bullock where the media was not granted um, uh, party status. And it is the situation that happened in FL um where they had to review her claim regarding records under extraordinary jurisdiction rather than um invoking their appellet jurisdiction because she was improperly denied limited party status. So all of that authority supports the process that we are requesting um in this case. Uh we think it's the most orderly way to do it. And and I'll end just by saying you know there's been some discussion and especially from Mr. Robinson's attorneys about what rule it is that you need to do this under, whether rule 24 applies, they seem to suggest that it doesn't. I will just point the court to two different rules um that uh give you the authority to um to to do what we're requesting aside from rule 24. Rule 24 is in the civil procedure rules, but rule 81 and particularly subsection F of that rule says that the rules of civil procedure govern in criminal proceedings where they don't conflict with a rule of criminal procedure. That's the case with rule 24. That's why um courts in criminal cases um have relied on that rule. The other one is rule 31 and that's in the criminal procedure rules and that gives this court um the discretion if it's not inconsistent with the rules to fashion uh remedies um and to deal with civil procedure not civil procedure but rather just procedural matters and so that is essentially what um happened in the FL case um which is that you know whether you do it under rule 24 whether you do it as a judicially created you know remedy it doesn't matter it's the same it gets to the same place which is just that we um interveners for the very limited purposes that we've uh set forth in our order. Um we're not going to be here at every hearing arguing. You know, we didn't take a position on the the gag order motion that you just heard. we are only um planning to appear and argue um so that the court has the benefit of someone who's representing the interests um against closure because as you know and this is sort of why we're here today a lot of time this just happens by stipulation because these you know the state and and Mr. Robinson's lawyers, they may may not want to fight over a particular issue. And so it really is a situation where no one really represents that interest. And um the purpose of this whole process is to give the court the benefit of the briefing that we've submitted and the benefit of arguments um to represent the public's right uh to attend these proceedings. So um unless the court has any questions, that's all I have. >> Thank you. Your honor, as as the state briefed in uh briefing on a prior motion, I think it's clear that um parties have the or excuse me, outside entities have the ability to intervene in a case as a limited purpose party when there's a statute, a rule, or case law that authorizes them to take specific action in a proceeding. And there's wellestablished case law that allows the media to intervene to be able to be to appear and be heard on uh matters of public access to court proceedings and of the rules of judicial administration also make it clear that the media can appear and do just exactly what they've done in the closed session that we held earlier. Uh so it doesn't make them a capital P party to the case. It makes them a limited purpose party and they certainly have the right to be able to do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mer. >> Mister. >> Thank you, your honor. Um, so I just want to clarify the issue really, um, if we boil it down is if these 23 media entities have met their burden to be a limited purpose party in this case. And I think another part of that is what that means. Um, and really that is what we are primarily concerned with. What does that mean? What does that enable them to do? what um jurisdiction is this court exercising over them as a result of them being a limited purpose party because I do believe that is another aspect of asking to intervene in a case. Um I do think that rule 24 does not apply here. I think that's what we learn from the Supreme Court. They don't want individuals using rule 24 of the rules of civil procedure because it's too expansive. It's about broad entry into a case for many purposes. In the instances where our courts have allowed intervention into civil cases, and I want to be very clear here, the case law is is in the civil arena. There are very few instances where we're dealing with this in a criminal case on appeal. Um, so we're a little bit in the dark and we're asking this court to kind of wade through and make a decision that potentially hasn't been made before. But I would ask the court to be very clear, no matter what it does, on what the media can and can't do in this case. And it sounds to me like the media has somewhat conceded that their role in And all right, we need to pause it there. We're going to hear more arguments about media access to this trial when Court TV Live returns. Stay tuned. >> The disappearance of Anna Walsh. >> Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. >> The disappearance of Anna Walsh murder trial. Live [music] coverage today on Court TV. Tonight on Closing Arguments, will safety concerns [music] trump public access in the Charlie Kirk assassination case. We'll bring you the latest developments from today's [music] big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at Welcome back to CourtTV Live. We want to get you back inside of that motions hearing in Utah for Tyler Robinson. He's the man accused of murdering a conservative podcaster and activist Charlie Kirk. This is back in September. We want to get you back inside the courtroom now. We are listening to arguments about media access to all of the proceedings involving this case, including the trial and the constitutional arguments being made to the court and their role is to have a voice regarding closure, which has already happened today and will surely happen again. We have no objection to that. And to be clear, we're not objecting to the court's order about notice. We will provide notice. We will follow the court's order. We have no problem with it. But we do want this court to make the procedure very crystal clear. We want time frames. We want orders saying this is when you need to respond so that we don't end up with filings like we did this week very shortly before the hearing that we have to rush to respond to. We're all attorneys. We all know that these things happen from time to time. Um, and we're not unreasonable folks. If they reach out to us, we will grant reasonable requests for extension, just so everyone is aware. But there was no communication. So, I want it very very clear what they they can and can't do. It's less about semantics. This isn't about semantics. It's about substance. What are they allowed to do? If this court wants to call them a limited purpose party, that has to be well, it's so you can exercise your rights under 4-202.04. And in doing so, this is what you need to do. That's what we're asking the court to do. Um, and I also have some practical concerns that maybe need to be addressed with the court's clerk. Uh, for example, are we adding all 23 media entities to the court docket? Um, will they have access to all of the filings? I have had instances in the past where unfortunately parties have been added to a case and still receive um documents that are intended to be private or non-public. I'm very concerned about that. Um, so I think it would be appropriate if they are going to be added to the docket that it be um, reasonable perhaps just the two entities that are requesting, the two conglomerate entities that are requesting and that there be a an order from the court saying if they receive something that they shouldn't have, they notify us in the court immediately and they delete it. They don't review it. um at a minimum I think that's necessary but I also think it would be reasonable for this court to not to put them on the docket for that very same reason. So we don't think that they should have permanent status in this case. We don't dispute that they are going to be here. They're already here as we well know. But we do think how that happens is important and that this court should exercise its authority to make very clear what everyone's roles are here. And as I believe they put in their briefing that they are neutral observers, neutral observers. We don't want the chaos that is out in the media in this courtroom. So, whatever this court can do to prevent that is what we're asking. >> Does the court have any questions for me? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you, your honor. Just very briefly, I'm not sure what neutral observer is supposed to mean. We have interests in the case. We are here to advocate for openness um and against closure. And so I'm not uh I'm not I don't think that's what council um meant to imply, but that's the whole reason we're here is that no one else represents our interest. That is straight down the middle of what the intervention rule requires. Just a couple clarifications. Council said we haven't cited any criminal cases where this has been allowed. That's not true. We cited the court to eight different cases, all criminal cases in the state of Utah where this is the procedure that judges routinely follow, including judges in this building. um uh council said that our role is strictly limited to advocating for what is under rule 4202.04. I don't think she meant this, but um as the court probably knows that just deals with court records. Um we are also entitled under uh governing constitutional case law to advocate against the closure of proceedings and uh that rule does not uh technically apply to proceedings. It just applies to records. So, just to be clear, um, but I think we have been clear and this is all I mean there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between what council was just suggesting our role should be and what we've asked for, you know, which is just if if they file a motion that seeks to prevent that wants to classify something as non-public like they did um last night with uh the motion to disqualify. Um, they were able to to at least provide that to us. Um, it's not very hard to send an email. That's all that we've asked for in terms of the notice. And then we have the right to be heard on those issues. And so I didn't really hear from council any reason why we should not be granted limited party status in this case other than just some sort of, you know, um uh [snorts] confusion on on their part as to what that would actually look like. I don't know how the clerk deals with parties on the docket. I assume you guys can sort that out. Typically when we intervene on behalf of the news media in cases they are listed because they are limited purpose parties but the court can you know um if it doesn't want to hear from us on a particular issue it can certainly say that. I mean we don't have any interest in weighing in on on aspects of the >> All right let's step aside and break this down a little bit. Bringing back in trial attorney Michael Custodio is with us. Miguel it's great to see you. Let's talk about this because I've actually been in this position that the media is a bit of inside baseball the way he's explaining it. But the issue is when you are inside of the courtroom as a member of the media and the defense team or the prosecution says, "Judge, we want this proceeding to be closed to the media. They need to leave or they need to turn off their cameras." Then the media at that moment can't really appeal. They can ask the judge for something, but if the judge denies it, they don't have any real recourse in that moment. They'll have to go get their attorney. And once their attorney gets down to the courthouse or anything like that, then the hearing is over and everything's moot. So, what they're asking for is to be a party. That means they have to be heard. They have to wait for their attorney to come before something adverse happens. What does that look like from the attorney standpoint, the prosecution and defense, to allow the media to have that much input? >> Well, I I think it it messes up with your flow as an attorney. you have thoughts and you have an argument and you have a strategy and the fact that there's a third party that's intervening and you got to sometimes wait to see what the judge is going to rule regarding something that that third party attorney is asking for. I think it kind of disrupts the flow uh of trial, but it's also in the public's interest to have an open trial and open proceedings. Uh, I think that allows more faith in the judicial system when people know what's going on. And so I think even though the judge should weigh in here with regards to being a little bit more clear, I think that he has to allow uh the the media inside this courtroom. >> And so that was my one of my questions for you. You know, one of them said if it could be clear what the media can and can't do. And I think it boils down to this for all three really arguments parties right now that are arguing it just they need clear direction that's reasonable that I think a judge can craft. >> Yeah. I think they just need clarity because if the judge is not providing clarity then we're going to have these disruptions occur several times during this trial. And one thing I wanted to note is that we've already seen that there they showed shackles just a couple segments ago. We heard somebody saying something off the mic. And so I think these violations are going to occur. My question is at what point does the judge say that these violations to a gag order get to the point where the the proceedings are closed? That's going to be an interesting uh uh intersection. And I'm glad you mentioned we did hear what they said on the mic. Great work after they made an argument. And that's something I would agree they really need to prevent. >> Yeah. And I don't know who that's on. If that's on the media or on those people at the table to turn off the mics that are there [clears throat] from the courtroom, we don't have access to all of that. But let's get to our break. Thank you, Miguel, for being with us here in studio. When we come back, we're going to get you back inside of that courtroom for arguments in that important motions hearing in [music] the Charlie Kirk assassination case in Utah. You're watching Court TV, your front row seat to justice. [music] Welcome back to CourtTV Live. I'm Julia Jana. Thank you for following along with us this afternoon. And we are following together a hearing underway in Utah for Tyler Robinson. He is the man who is accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk last September. He was shot and killed while attending an event, speaking at an event at Utah Valley University. Robinson allegedly ran off after the shooting which prompted a massive manhunt. He surrendered a day later and now faces several charges including aggravated murder. Today, Robinson made his first in court appearance where a judge addressed several issues, including one about unsealing some audio and a transcript from a hearing in October. That issue was actually argued behind closed doors. Everyone is back inside of open court, and the attorneys are wrapping up their arguments regarding whether or not the media will have access to court proceedings as a party. Let's pick it up where we left off. The media attorney is addressing the court >> that don't have anything to do with the public's right to know. And so I didn't really hear an argument against what it is that we um that we are um asking to do. Just one last point on well two things. One is that uh council's chastising us for filing something late. I mean this was a stipulated motion that got us here today. We weren't asked to weigh in on it. It was submitted to your honor with an order, you know, which they just assumed you would sign because it was stipulated. It was only because this court said, "No, I'm not going to do that. I want to actually hear from the parties that we weighed in. So, um this was not your typical like uh uh deadline where we were invited to weigh in and just didn't. Last thing is um in terms of docket access, you know, Mr. Hunt and Mr. Jed and I are all officers of the court. Um, if the court says you can have access to things that are that are uh the parties are seeking to classify as uh non-public, but you can't share them with your clients until further notice from the court, that's fine. Some judges do handle it that way. Sometimes we just, you know, if if they don't concern closure, um sometimes we don't um weigh in at all. But you know when they file things that they say we need to file this under under seal and we're not allowed to see it then the briefing for you is not super helpful you know and so typically the way this happens is we are allowed attorney's eyes only access to you know documents just like the state and and the defendants would be their council can see things that are non-public and we don't share them with our clients unless the court orders otherwise. And typically if the court decides, no, this really doesn't need to be filed under seal, then we can provide it to our clients at that time. But this idea that our clients are somehow going to get access to things that are non-public, that's just not the way this typically works. If they're if they're not public on the docket, if they're public on the docket, anyone can get them. And if they're not public on the docket, then our clients can't get them. And if there's a procedure where we can see them so that we can give the court the benefit of briefing substantively as to what it is, um then we keep them attorney's eyes only until the court orders otherwise. And that's just typically the way this works. So >> thank you. >> Your honor, I'm not going to belabor what's already in the briefing. Um, I do think it's concerning to just cite to a bunch of trial court cases without providing any pleadings or context for what occurred in those cases. I can't argue against what happened in other cases. This is our case. Our case is different. This court has already acknowledged it. There are many interests. We have concerns about leaks, information getting out that shouldn't be out. I think those are valid. And our concern is access. I'm not impugning the integrity of these gentlemen. I'm sure they would act as officers of the court. But the more this court controls the information that ultimately it determines to be private, the more able we are to identify if there are leaks, if there's information that's getting out that shouldn't be, and who did it. Um, so we are objecting to providing the media our pleadings in advance, even just to their counsel. We don't think that's appropriate. I don't see any authority for that. We're asking the court not to consider that. Um, and we we're concerned about opening the door to multiple other entities, just filing in on this case, getting involved in the proceedings. [clears throat] Um we don't know exactly what media means either. So our position is and remains they can file what this court has authorized to file in the manner they this court authorizes to file it and be heard in the manner this court indicates. We understand they're entitled to closure hearings. [clears throat] And I did make a mistake. We're we agree that they have standing to object to closure as well. So they should be able to file those things, but we do not agree that that requires status in our case. So does the court have any questions? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. I appreciate the argument from all parties throughout this day. Uh I wish to commend the preparation and the quality of the arguments as well as the civility uh that is sometimes overlooked but I wish to recognize that and appreciate uh council's uh demeanor and their arguments today. I previously uh stated when we began that I would be issuing rulings on the first issue. Uh and and when I began, I initially said October 14th. It's actually the October 24th audio recording of the closed hearing as well as the October 24th transcript of that hearing. And so I wanted to create uh just make that small correction. But given the the in-depth and necessary uh arguments made in the closed hearing, I I wish to take the time to issue a ruling that that will say what will be disclosed and what will be kept private because this court has a duty to do so. and I would rather do it right and take more time than to be rash and and miss the mark. I I need to be narrow in my approach and it is an important issue and so I I plan to do that. Uh in regards to the motion for limited intervention and request for notice of motions to close or reclassify, I also wish to craft my order uh in such a way that is concise and addresses all the issues the important issues brought up by all parties and and so I will be uh issuing that ruling at the same time. And so I will be issuing the ruling uh in regards to the state's motion to clarify court's pre-trial and trial publicity order and and I am prepared to do so. Before I do that, what I want to do is and and council is is being caught off guard because uh they were anticipating a ruling today. But what the court is intending to do is and proposing to the parties is uh issuing an or an oral ruling on WebEx that all parties can attend to. Uh the reason why is I I want I don't want to take a lot of time. These are important issues. I don't want to wait until January 16th and and I want to uh talk about potential dates. I don't imagine it will take longer than 20 20 minutes uh for this court to issue ruling and and I want to get the party's input in regards to their thoughts of the court issuing an oral ruling on WebEx and so I'll open it up to the parties. >> We don't have any objection to that, your honor. >> Thank you. >> We have no objection to that, your honor. >> Yeah, same. >> All right. Well, next comes the trickier part when you have a room full of attorneys trying to find a date that we're all available um to uh our staff. Uh what dates do we have available for a 30-minute block before the end of the year? >> Um judge, we do have December 29th at 10:00. >> How does that appear? How does that date work for council? >> That was 10:00 a.m. on the 29th. >> Yes. Your honor, that works for Mr. Robinson. Thank you. >> Same for us. >> All right. And to defense, uh, in regards to Mr. Robinson, uh, what is your position on if it is on WebEx, it would he would be appearing by WebEx or >> Your honor, if we could just have audio only for Mr. uh Robinson to appear. Um since we will not be present, I would rather not have him in the courtroom without council present. >> All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, we will set uh the court's ruling on those two issues for December 29th at 10:00 a.m. And note that it will be a audio only for Mr. Robinson per defense's request. And uh to the last issue is well before I issue my ruling uh I I anticipate and council are we still on the same page in regards to our January 16th hearing? Are we planning for that? >> Your honor, we we are. Um we believe that most likely what we would anticipate doing is on January 16th arguing our um motion to disqualify the county attorney's office which was just filed. That should give them enough time to respond to that. Um, and also possibly we anticipate filing our own motion about the pre-trial publicity order that has a little bit different take on it. That should be filed in plenty of time for us to argue that on the 16th as well. Um, I think we have set aside the 30th. Um, and that might be the one we want to save to argue our, uh, anticipated motion that's coming about, uh, keeping cameras out of the courtroom. Um, and we will, um, I imagine the media will, depending on the court's ruling today, will want to weigh in on that one as well. And that would give them enough time as well. So that would be January 30th. >> All right. All right. And before I go to the other parties, uh the January 30th date, there was some complications and so we have to find another date. >> Okay. >> And so I just wanted to let all parties know before we we we lock in our schedules, uh when what dates do we have >> It's okay. My problem's wrong. The microphone >> and council, I appreciate you giving me that road map that helps plan so it allows the other parties to take in So, as staff is doing that, they are looking for uh hearing dates. And one of the complications is as a judge, I have 1,49 cases as of last Friday. And so, trying to find a spot is tricky. And I'm grateful for my staff who works so hard to manage that calendar. So, that is part of the reason for the delay. and we're trying to to find a date because this is an important case as is all those cases. They matter to me. >> Your honor, while while we're waiting, can I if I might just make uh one point that might make things smoother as we go >> Mr. Just to to Miss Netor's point, Mr. Novak earlier mentioned something about a redacted motion to disqualify. And I don't know if that is something that they're planning to file, but I was just going to say sometimes, you know, what we heard earlier about that particular incident is probably not something that we care that much about in terms of what they would redact. And so instead of opposing the motion to classify, if if your honor, um I don't know if this is the plan already in this in this case or whether that's what they were planning to do, but if they file a redacted version that, you know, just takes out the stuff they care about rather than closing the whole thing, then we don't have to say anything and probably avoids, you know, fighting over unsealing that document. So, I just wanted to I just wanted to say that I'm happy to confer with council if you'd rather us do that. if you don't want to do it by way of a court order. But >> no, I appreciate that input. >> I'll hear from both parties and then we'll get to the date. >> Your honor, um I do anticipate going through and seeing what we can redact and working with the state on that as well and with media counsel. So, >> all right. And we agree that filing a redacted version uh is a good way to go. We can work together on that. As far as the January 16th hearing, the state will do everything it can to respond to these motions as timely as we can, as expeditiously as we can. Um, I just want to note that that January 16th hearing um was set with the expectation uh the previous expectation was that defense council was going to get us these motions before Thanksgiving and we just got the motion to disqualify last night. So, we'll do everything we can to respond to those as expeditiously as we can and hopefully keep that date, but I'm not guaranteeing that we'll make that date. >> All right. I appreciate the heads up. Going to staff, what uh dates do we have available for in lie of the 30th? >> We look at February 3rd and we have double day available. So, morning or afternoon? >> February 3rd. Morning or afternoon setting? >> Mhm. >> That works for Mr. Robinson, your honor. >> All right. Thank you. And uh morning or >> Either works for us, your honor. >> All right. >> As well as for the state, we're available on the third. Anytime. the afternoon would be better because it may be that it reduces um travel time. >> All right. Well, it is always nice when all parties agree. So, we have February 3rd at 100 p.m. Uh it is anticipated to be in person and Ms. Nester, is Mr. Robinson planning on appearing? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Uh that concludes that particular issue about future dates and I appreciate counsel >> concludes that issue but the court does have more ahead and he's mentioning Tyler Robinson being present there inside of the courtroom. You see he's allowed to wear civilian clothes even though he is someone who is behind bars at this time has been denied bond. We're pausing it there. When we return the judge is going to move into a different issue and is going to issue a ruling on some of the other motions [music] that The disappearance of Anna Walsh. >> Her husband now charged with her murder. All eyes on this accused killer. >> The disappearance of Anna Walsh murder trial. Live coverage today on Court TV. >> Tonight on Closing Arguments, will safety concerns trump public access [music] in the Charlie Kirk assassination case? We'll bring you the latest developments from today's big hearing. Closing arguments tonight at An accused assassin who allegedly did carried out his crime on a college campus is inside of the courtroom for the first time and we're watching it together. this motions hearing for Tyler Robinson, accused in the murder of Charlie Kirk in September during an appearance at Utah Valley University. Let's pick it up where we left off. The judge about to rule on some of those motions that have been argued today, including one about a gag order and media access. Me on that, we have December 29th at 10:00 a.m. for the uh court ruling on these two issues, and that will be via WebEx. And then February 3rd, uh, January 16th, I believe that is at 1:00. Is that correct? All right. That's in person as well with, I believe, uh, defense has indicated Mr. Robinson will be present as well. And finally, February 3rd at 1 p.m. and also indicating that Mr. Robinson will be present. And in regards to the final issue, uh the ruling on um the state's motion to clarify court's pre-trial and trial publicity order. This is the order of the court. The court issued a protection order regarding pre-trial and trial publicity in this case. The order prohibits attorneys who are associated with the prosecution and defense of this case from intentionally, knowingly or recklessly permitting a witness, investigator, consultant, staff member, or other member of the prosecution or defense team to make extrajudicial statements which if made by the lawyer would v violate rule 3.6. To that end, lawyers participating in an investigation or litigation of this case shall inform all witnesses, investigators, consultants, staff members, or other members of the prosecution or defense teams about the prohibitions contained in this order. The state moves to amend or clarify the court's use of the word witness as used in the publicity order because it is vague, ambiguous, or over broad. The state asserts that are there are over 3,000 lay witnesses of the alleged homicide. The state does not know if it must inform each potential witness or each potential and possible witness of the prohibitions in order or whether the order applies only to witnesses who are members of the attorney's teams such as investigators or experts. Due to the potential confusion, this court grants the state's motion and offers the following clarification. The word witness as used in this order applies to all witnesses who are part of the prosecution and defense teams. This includes any witness including lay witnesses whom the prosecution or defense has a good faith belief will be called to testify at a hearing or trial. The court also clarifies that the publicity order as written regulates the behavior of attorneys who are associated with the defense team or the Utah County Attorney's Office. It requires the attorneys to abide by rule 3.6 and in order to deter non- attorneys from making prejuditial statements requires the attorneys to inform witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order. Informing witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity one moment as I regain my place as I read. Informing witnesses about the prohibitions in the publicity order is a necessary step toward not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly permitting witnesses from making prejuditial statements. The publicity order does not regulate the behavior of any person who is not an attorney associated with this case. And this order will be signed today by myself and made public. Council, is there anything further that we need to address today? >> Thanks, your honor. Yes, just the matter of uh having Mrs. Erica Kirk designated as the victim representative in this case. Uh she has filed through her council a request to be designated as the the victim representative and uh we would like the court to formally formally acknowledge that request and formally designate her as the victim representative. And I guess along those lines, I wanted to make clear as well, I think this court um stated earlier that there was an alleged victim in this case. And I know that there is case law talking about being careful about how we refer to victims and alleged victims. But in this case, uh that case law makes clear that those those cautions don't apply with the same degree where it's clear that we have a victim who was killed in this case. We don't have an alleged victim. We have an alleged perpetrator, but we do know that we have a victim in this case. >> Thank you, Mr. Ballard. I'll hear from the parties. >> Your honor, on behalf of Mr. Robinson. We certainly think it's appropriate for um Mrs. Kirk to be designated as the victim representative if that is the desire of the state. Um just so there can be no doubt that she's afforded all of the rights um assured to her under our our state statutes. And we have no objection to that. >> Thank you. Thank you to all parties. This court will uh recognize Miss Erica Kirk as the designated victim representative in this case. Thank you, council. I believe that concludes our matters for the day. >> One more. >> Maybe not. >> One thing that both of these sides can agree on here, identifying the widow of Charlie Kirk, Erica Kirk, as the victim representative in this case. Let's bring in our guest for this hour. where we have criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Marcia Mo with us. Marcia, so good to see you. Let's talk about just that moment at the very end. Why was this so important for the prosecutor to say this on the record in front of everyone so that the judge can make that confirmation? >> Well, it's important because remember the person who is the victim representative has to be kept a breast of the proceedings by the state. So, they're going to get a victim witness advocate who's going to say, "Hey, we're having hearings this week or we're having things that are going on or I need to contact you. Is there anything that you need?" And they can be the community liaison for this uh the the spouse in this situation. So, it's it it is important when you have a murder case, when the person is deceased and you don't have the victim that's going to come forward and testify in the case that you'd be contacting that a representative be designated. >> Oh, yeah. I'm glad that you explained that because it seemed that that's really at issue today. Not just of course victim representative, they agreed on that, but what they didn't agree on is whether or not the media can be kept a breast of everything as if they were a party. Uh what do you think about the arguments over access, the gag order, the judge giving more details on what he means by no one who is a party of the prosecution member of the prosecution team can be speaking out and he defined witnesses. So that means witnesses can't be speaking until we get to a trial and to the other side of this case. It's important for the judge to control the case so that they can balance the first amendment rights of the media under the constitution against the sixth amendment rights of the defendant in the constitution. This is a tough job. I've never seen this much request. So this request is uncommon because usually the media wants to be present. They want to be able to televise or they want to be able to have um um pictures taken. Like in federal court, you won't have cameras, but they can stand outside the court and express to the viewers or the public what's going on in court. This one is a lot more because they're asking to not have hearings and to have the party's motions shared with them before proceedings or before they're filed. That's a whole lot of burden on not just the prosecution, but the defense in this case. It's uncommon. And I think the court in this situation is probably going to limit it so that you don't end up with a mistrial based on including a third party that was really not necessary as it pertains to prosecuting a murder case. >> Marsha, you are right that this is unusual. I'm glad you highlighted that because it just shows just how high-profile this case is, especially in that area. 24 different entities all came together to pay for a media lawyer to get that access. I don't know much about that jurisdiction in terms of how their relationship is with the media. There are some jurisdictions, just saying from experience, where they're a bit more resistant and the media does feel like they need to make sure that they hold the court's feet to the fire. They make sure that they are present and kept a breast of everything because sometimes things happen. You know, we when we are covering most of our trials, there's someone who's designated to tell us everything that's happening and it's a bit easier. But there are some jurisdictions where it is more difficult. Uh we're seeing Tyler Robinson inside of the courtroom for the first time. Any impressions of seeing him there? And what do you think about him being allowed to present in civilian clothes for a hearing when there's no jury? Well, when the case has this much publicity, one of the constitutional rights of the defendant is not to be presented in prison garbs because the psychological effects of seeing him in those suits will give you the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence. So, it's not uncommon for cases where there's huge media attention for judges to say, "Hey, my potential jurors are watching. I am not going to risk them seeing this defendant in an orange jumpsuit or a striped jumpsuit which is going to affect the ability to get a fair and impartial jury. Where would you try this case with this much media attention if you allowed that to happen? So I think the court aired on the side of caution in this situation and said look let him have on regular clothing because we are not trying to prejudice his case. We want him to have a fair trial, due process rights, not trampled on fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment rights. So, it's easier since it doesn't