PROVO, Utah — Erika Kirk, the widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, filed a new motion this week demanding that all evidence presented during the preliminary hearing for the man accused of killing her husband be made visible to everyone in the courtroom, a request a Utah judge ultimately denied as the proceedings continued into their fourth day Thursday.
Tyler Robinson, 23, is charged with 10 crimes in connection with the September 10, 2025, shooting death of Kirk, who was fatally shot while speaking at a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University in Orem. The charges include aggravated murder, a capital first-degree felony; felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, a first-degree felony; two counts of obstruction of justice, a second-degree felony; two counts of tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony; and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, a Class A misdemeanor. Robinson has not been convicted, and the charges against him remain allegations that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
The preliminary hearing, which began Monday and is scheduled to run through Friday, is intended to determine whether prosecutors have established probable cause for the case to proceed to trial. Judge Tony Graf has presided over several days of testimony and argument, including disputes over how much evidence can be shown publicly in the courtroom given ongoing concerns from Robinson’s defense team about protecting his right to a fair trial.
In a supplemental filing submitted Wednesday evening, attorney Jeffrey Neiman, representing Erika Kirk on behalf of the victim’s family, argued that Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents had traveled to the courthouse specifically to observe the evidence being presented against the man accused of killing their husband and son, only to find themselves unable to view certain exhibits admitted during testimony. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing,” the filing stated, according to multiple outlets that reviewed the document. “They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: the ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.”
The filing went further, characterizing the current process as insufficient to satisfy the family’s rights as crime victims under Utah law. “The right ‘to be present’ is hollow if the victim or his representative is physically in the room but is prevented from seeing the evidence the Court is receiving,” Neiman wrote. “A right to attend that does not include the ability to perceive what is happening is not meaningful presence at all.”
Neiman’s filing specifically requested three things: that all exhibits admitted into evidence during the first three days of the hearing but not shown in the courtroom be published during Thursday’s proceedings; that any exhibit admitted during the remainder of the hearing be displayed openly and in real time for everyone lawfully present; and that no further evidence be received by the court in a manner that conceals it from those in the courtroom. The filing directly criticized the alternative approach taken so far, stating, “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom—as happened today—is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want.”
Judge Graf ruled on the motion Thursday, deciding that the court would continue its existing case-by-case process for determining how evidence is presented rather than adopt a blanket requirement to display all admitted evidence to the courtroom, according to reporting from KUTV. Graf has previously described the task of balancing transparency in judicial proceedings against a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial as a “fine line.”
Much of the dispute over evidence access this week has centered on a recorded interview with Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s former roommate and romantic partner. Prosecutors sought to admit the full recording, including audio that could be captured by courtroom cameras, while Robinson’s defense team pushed for significant redactions, arguing that unrestricted public release of the video could compromise Robinson’s right to a fair trial. Defense attorney Richard Novak told the court that “the number one concern in this proceeding is Mr. Robinson’s right to a fair trial.” Following extended arguments Wednesday, Graf ordered additional redactions to the interview before it could be shown, and prosecutors agreed to prepare the edited version for presentation during Thursday’s session, with the redacted recording distributed to both the defense and the court once the edits were completed.
Neiman had separately argued in court that the Kirk family strongly believes the full Twiggs interview should be made public. “The Kirk family believes strongly it should be made public for the world to see,” Neiman said, according to KSL.com. “To not be transparent here will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system.”
The preliminary hearing has featured testimony from multiple law enforcement witnesses over its first several days, including a University police officer who was present at the scene of the shooting, a Utah State Bureau of Investigation agent who collected footage and other evidence following the shooting, and a forensic examiner called by the defense to testify about a screwdriver and towel recovered from the crime scene. Doorbell and surveillance footage tied to the investigation has also been presented during the proceedings.
Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents have attended the hearing in person since it began Monday, according to multiple outlets covering the proceedings. The hearing is scheduled to conclude Friday, at which point Judge Graf is expected to rule on whether prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence for the case against Robinson to proceed to trial.
