Robinson back in court as widow Erika Kirk calls for open court proceedings
Feb 3, 2026, 12:58 PM
PROVO — Tyler Robinson is scheduled to be back in court on Tuesday.
The hearing regarding whether the Utah County Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from prosecuting Robinson’s capital murder case because of an alleged conflict of interest comes as the widow of Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, has asked 4th District Judge Tony Graf to keep the ongoing legal proceedings open to the public.
“As this court is aware, this matter has received significant public attention. This public attention cannot be ignored. And although it is critical that this court balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial with the public’s First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings, any request, by either party, to essentially close these court proceedings from the public eye should be denied,” Kirk and her attorney, Jeffrey Neiman, said in their court filing Monday.
“The public assassination of Mr. Kirk has profoundly affected many. Without meaningful access to these proceedings, the public will be unable to directly observe and evaluate the evidence presented, leaving a critical gap in understanding the circumstances surrounding his death. In the absence of transparency, speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories are likely to proliferate, eroding public confidence in the judicial process. Such an outcome serves neither the interests of justice nor those of Ms. Kirk. There is no adequate substitute for open proceedings,” Erika Kirk stated.
Robinson, 22, is charged with capital murder and faces a possible death sentence if convicted of assassinating Charlie Kirk, 31, on Sept. 10 on the campus of Utah Valley University during one of the Turning Point USA founder’s “Prove Me Wrong” events.
Erika Kirk’s notice to the court comes on the heels of two motions Robinson has filed that Graf has not yet made decisions on — whether cameras and microphones should be banned from the courtroom, and whether the Utah County Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from prosecuting the case.
Tuesday’s hearing, scheduled to start at 1 p.m., will, in part, be a continuation of the hearing that began on Jan. 16.
Robinson and his defense team contend that because an adult child of one of the prosecuting attorneys — a UVU student — was at the rally when Charlie Kirk was shot, the entire office should be disqualified from prosecuting him. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray was on the witness stand in January when the hearing went late into the afternoon and was continued until today.
According to another court filing made on Monday, when it is time for the prosecutor and the UVU student to take the witness stand, the courtroom will be closed to the public to protect their identities.
The court filing describes the attorney as a “long-time prosecutor” who has received threats as recently as last year from defendants in other cases. In 2025, one defendant “made efforts to collect personal information, including Social Security numbers and property titles of (the prosecutor), law enforcement, and their family members to disseminate on the dark web” and called the prosecutor his “No. 1 priority target,” according to court documents.
To protect the identities of the prosecutor and his adult child, both parties have agreed to hold the portion of Tuesday’s hearing involving them in closed session.
“The case of State v. Robinson has generated great publicity. Some people have threatened retaliation against Mr. Robinson, while others have applauded the killing of Charlie Kirk. Many witnesses in this case have received threats because of their involvement. Some have relocated to avoid these threats,” according to the court filing. “Members of Charlie Kirk’s security team have reported threats, doxing — the publication of personal information online for harassment purposes, and risks to them since Charlie Kirk’s murder.”
Also on Monday, the Utah County Attorney’s Office responded to Robinson’s renewed request to have the Utah Attorney General’s Office argue the motion to disqualify Utah County prosecutors from the case. The state believes the motion should be denied and says Robinson “completely misreads the statute that is the only support for his request.”
“Defendant’s renewed, but still last-minute, attempt to continue to delay an evidentiary hearing on the disqualification issue rests entirely on a misreading of an obscure statute. … That statute does not allow this court to refer anything to the Utah Attorney General’s Office, or to require the Utah County Attorney’s Office to step aside so the attorney general can step in,” prosecutors wrote in their reply.
Furthermore, prosecutors say Robinson “continues to spring this issue on the prosecution and the court in a way that prevents full briefing and consideration without delaying the scheduled evidentiary hearing. There has already been too much delay in this relatively new case.
“This court must firmly grasp the reins of this case to ensure that May’s preliminary hearing goes forward on schedule and that a trial is held as soon as possible thereafter.”
In December, Graf agreed to schedule a three-day preliminary hearing for May 18, 19 and 21, despite the objections of Robinson’s defense team, which wants to have rulings on their motions first, as well as enough time to sort through the mountain of evidence that’s expected.
This story will be updated.
