Full Trial Audio: UT v. Tyler Robinson: Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Pretrial Hearing - Sep 1 2026
Sep 2, 2026 · 4 hr 36 min · 19 segments
Full Trial Audio: UT v. Tyler Robinson: Assassination of Charlie Kirk
Sep 2, 2026 · 4 hr 36 min · 19 segments
Chad GrunanderGuestRyan McBrideGuestRichard NovakGuestStacey VisserGuestMichael BurtGuestKathy NestorGuestI'm
going to deny the request to withdraw for consideration what was argued in the sealed closure hearing in the interest of transparency and taking in consideration the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk.
The court recognizes that it is allowing the cameras in the courtroom prior to making the ruling, and it's done in the interest of transparency.
KUTV's August 17th, 2026 request for electronic media coverage seeking permission to conduct live streaming and still photography and the Salt Lake Tribune's August 14th, 2026 EMC request seeking permission to conduct newspaper still photography during the upcoming preliminary Examining preliminary hearing oral arguments on August 22nd, 2026, defendant filed timely opposition to both EMC requests, raising substantial constitutional and statutory concerns regarding pretrial bias, courtroom physical capacity, and witness privacy.
On August 27th, a broad coalition of news organizations collectively reviewed referred to as news media, filed a timely, consolidated opposition to defendant's motion to classify and a consolidated response to defendant's EMC oppositions, asserting a presumptive constitutional and administrative right of public access to both courtroom proceedings and record filings.
Because defendant's motion to restrict access was contested, Rule 4-202.04 requires a closure hearing.
and given an opportunity to be heard on the record.
The court limited access to the closure hearing only to the extent necessary to avoid disclosing the information whose classification remained unresolved.
Due to the nature of the charges and the prominent public profiles of the individuals involved, this case has received extensive and continuous publicity.
On May 8th, 2026, the court entered an order establishing specific procedures for resolving challenges to electronic media requests, including a four page limit for objections, a prohibition on oral argument, and a timeline for filing.
The preliminary hearing was open to the public and was subject to electronic media coverage under the terms of the court's standing decorum order.
In support of his current opposition and his motion to classify, defendant incorporates the extensive evidentiary record developed at the April 17th, 2026 hearing on his prior motion to exclude.
During that hearing, defendant presented expert testimony from Dr. Brian Edelman, a trial consultant, and Dr. Christina Ruva, a cognitive psychologist, to demonstrate the prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity.
Dr. Edelman conducted a survey of 200 residents in Utah County and prepared a report concluding that 99% of the community recognized the case, and 64% had already formed an opinion that defendant is guilty.
Dr. Edelman testified only about 25% of the viewers watch court live streams directly, while the majority consume sensationalized social media commentary or news snippets which typically reinforce the prosecution's narrative and spread misinformation.
I'm
going to deny the request to withdraw for consideration what was argued in the sealed closure hearing in the interest of transparency and taking in consideration the constitutional rights of both Mr. Robinson and Ms. Kirk.
The court recognizes that it is allowing the cameras in the courtroom prior to making the ruling, and it's done in the interest of transparency.
KUTV's August 17th, 2026 request for electronic media coverage seeking permission to conduct live streaming and still photography and the Salt Lake Tribune's August 14th, 2026 EMC request seeking permission to conduct newspaper still photography during the upcoming preliminary Examining preliminary hearing oral arguments on August 22nd, 2026, defendant filed timely opposition to both EMC requests, raising substantial constitutional and statutory concerns regarding pretrial bias, courtroom physical capacity, and witness privacy.
On August 27th, a broad coalition of news organizations collectively reviewed referred to as news media, filed a timely, consolidated opposition to defendant's motion to classify and a consolidated response to defendant's EMC oppositions, asserting a presumptive constitutional and administrative right of public access to both courtroom proceedings and record filings.
Because defendant's motion to restrict access was contested, Rule 4-202.04 requires a closure hearing.
and given an opportunity to be heard on the record.
The court limited access to the closure hearing only to the extent necessary to avoid disclosing the information whose classification remained unresolved.
Due to the nature of the charges and the prominent public profiles of the individuals involved, this case has received extensive and continuous publicity.
On May 8th, 2026, the court entered an order establishing specific procedures for resolving challenges to electronic media requests, including a four page limit for objections, a prohibition on oral argument, and a timeline for filing.
The preliminary hearing was open to the public and was subject to electronic media coverage under the terms of the court's standing decorum order.
In support of his current opposition and his motion to classify, defendant incorporates the extensive evidentiary record developed at the April 17th, 2026 hearing on his prior motion to exclude.
During that hearing, defendant presented expert testimony from Dr. Brian Edelman, a trial consultant, and Dr. Christina Ruva, a cognitive psychologist, to demonstrate the prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity.
Dr. Edelman conducted a survey of 200 residents in Utah County and prepared a report concluding that 99% of the community recognized the case, and 64% had already formed an opinion that defendant is guilty.
Dr. Edelman testified only about 25% of the viewers watch court live streams directly, while the majority consume sensationalized social media commentary or news snippets which typically reinforce the prosecution's narrative and spread misinformation.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.