In Brief
Rory Safir appeared on NewsNation on November 8, 2026, to discuss Tyler Robinson’s request to keep cameras out of a Utah court hearing and the defense argument that a social media post by President Trump could prejudice a future jury. Utah’s court rule presumes electronic coverage is allowed unless a judge finds compelling reasons to restrict it. Safir said the question is whether narrower protections could work, that the defense would be expected to raise the president’s post, and that a death penalty case should not be rushed because errors prolong it.
On This Page
On November 8, the day before the hearing, I joined NewsNation to talk about Tyler Robinson’s request to keep cameras out of his next court date in Utah. Robinson is charged with aggravated murder in the shooting of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, and he could face a death sentence if convicted. Like everybody in this country, he is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair and impartial jury.
What the Defense Asked the Judge to Do
KSL reported on November 2 that Robinson’s lawyers asked Fourth District Judge Tony Graf to keep electronic media out of the November 9 hearing, which is set to work out a schedule for the case. The defense cited a social media post by President Trump about the judge and argued that coverage could prejudice a future jury. NewsNation read part of the post on air: “The whole country is mocking him and our legal system.” KSL also reported that the defense acknowledged the hearing is largely administrative, and that an earlier effort to block a still news photographer at an October 23 hearing did not succeed.
Attorneys for the media responded, according to a KSL story published by East Idaho News on November 5. They said Utah presumes in favor of electronic coverage, that the president’s post has nothing to do with cameras, that ending coverage would not stop commentary and would remove a reliable source of unfiltered information, and that the court has already rejected the same request numerous times.
I was asked whether barring electronic recording is reasonable when the press and public can still attend. I said it comes down to whether narrower protections could be used instead of blacking out the recordings. Having some kind of camera in court is not unusual. The concern is more about the broadcasting and about protecting a future jury from prejudice.
What Utah’s Rule Says About Cameras
Utah’s rule on electronic coverage starts on the side of access. Rule 4-401.01 of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration says, “There is a presumption that electronic media coverage by a news reporter shall be permitted in public proceedings.” A judge can limit that coverage, but the rule says the judge may do so “only if the judge finds that the reasons for doing so are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the presumption.”
One of the factors the rule lists is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that electronic media coverage will prejudice the right of the parties to a fair proceeding.” A concern about a future jury speaks to that factor.
Could a President’s Post Affect a Jury?
I told NewsNation the defense argument makes a lot of sense. Everybody is presumed innocent, and we are all entitled to a fair and impartial jury. A statement from an authoritative figure who can have an impact across the country is something you would expect the defense to raise.
The Supreme Court took up outside influence on a trial in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), a decision about publicity surrounding a murder trial. The Court wrote that “due process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences,” and that “the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused.”
What the Supreme Court Has Said About Cameras in Court
Florida is part of this history. After Post-Newsweek Stations petitioned the Florida Supreme Court in 1975, that court ran a pilot program and then revised Canon 3A(7) to permit electronic and still photography coverage of trials, subject to the control of the presiding judge. In Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with a program like that one.
The Court wrote that “an absolute constitutional ban on broadcast coverage of trials cannot be justified simply because there is a danger that, in some cases, prejudicial broadcast accounts of pretrial and trial events may impair the ability of jurors to decide the issue of guilt or innocence uninfluenced by extraneous matter.” It described “the appropriate safeguard against such prejudice” as the defendant’s right to show that coverage “compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly.” Each state writes its own rules from there, which is why Utah’s rule governs the request in this case.
When I was asked how public broadcast might affect the outcome of a case like this one, I said I don’t know how much of an impact it will necessarily have. It is a capital case, and a lot goes into it.
Why a Death Penalty Case Takes So Long
Everybody wants justice without needless delay, especially Charlie Kirk’s family. KSL reported that the defense says it needs three years to prepare and estimates a seven-month trial, while prosecutors estimate a four-month trial and say they can be ready by January 2028. The later report on East Idaho News says the defense told the court it would not be ready until the third quarter of 2029.
What I explained on air is that this is a death penalty case. The defense has to review the evidence and also prepare for two possible phases, the trial itself and, if there is a conviction, sentencing. The judge has to keep the case moving, and you don’t want to rush a death penalty case because that can create errors that prolong things.
Utah has its own capital procedure. Florida’s statute shows the second phase in plain terms: after a conviction of a capital felony, section 921.141(1) says “the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” The firm’s pages on violent crime defense and challenging the evidence in a violent crime case cover how serious charges work in Florida.
Common Questions
Why does Tyler Robinson’s defense want cameras out of the November 9 hearing?
KSL reported that the defense asked Judge Tony Graf to exclude electronic media from the hearing, arguing that coverage risks prejudicing a future jury and citing a post by President Trump about the judge.
Does Utah allow cameras in court?
Utah’s Rule 4-401.01 presumes that electronic media coverage by a news reporter is permitted in public proceedings. A judge may prohibit or restrict that coverage only after finding reasons sufficiently compelling to outweigh the presumption.
Could a president’s post affect a jury pool?
Rory Safir told NewsNation the argument makes a lot of sense: everybody is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair and impartial jury, so a statement from an authoritative figure with countrywide reach is something you would expect the defense to raise.
Does the Constitution ban cameras in the courtroom?
No. In Chandler v. Florida (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a state from experimenting with a program of broadcast coverage. A defendant can still try to show that coverage compromised the ability of the particular jury that heard the case to adjudicate fairly.
Why does a death penalty case take so long to get to trial?
As Rory Safir explained on NewsNation, the defense has to review the evidence and also prepare for two possible phases, the trial and, if there is a conviction, sentencing.
What happens if a death penalty case is rushed?
Rory Safir explained that rushing a capital case can create errors that end up prolonging it.
Rory Safir’s Answers From the Segment
The answers are written out here, lightly edited for reading. The questions are summarized, and the whole exchange is in the video at the top of this page.
On whether barring electronic recording is reasonable when the press and public can still attend
It’s a question of whether there are narrower protections that could be established other than, for example, blacking out the trial recordings. Previously, I believe in the September ruling, the judge allowed it. So this is a renewed objection that’s going to be discussed tomorrow. But it’s not unusual to have some kind of camera. It’s more about the broadcasting, and it’s also about protecting, having a future non-prejudiced jury.
On how fair the defense argument is about the president’s post
It makes a lot of sense. Everybody is presumed innocent in this country, and we’re all entitled to a fair and impartial jury. So any kind of, especially an authoritative figure that can have an impact countrywide is something that you would expect the defense to raise.
On how public broadcast might affect the outcome of a case like this
I don’t know how much of an impact necessarily it will have. It’s a capital case. There’s going to be a lot that goes into it. Everybody wants justice without any kind of needless delay, especially Charlie Kirk’s family. I know the defense is asking for, I believe it’s in 2029, the prosecutors are asking for 2028, and then the family wants it sooner. But I think the thing to understand is it’s a death penalty case. And so the defense has to review not just the evidence, but they have to prepare for two possible phases. So there’s the trial itself and then, if there’s a conviction, any kind of sentencing. So they have to look into everything. And then the judge has to keep the case moving, but you don’t want to rush any kind of death penalty case because it can just create errors that really just prolong things.
Keep reading
Further Reading
The sources behind this post, so you can read what I read.
- KSL, Tyler Robinson seeks to keep cameras out of courtroom, citing Trump social media post (Nov. 2, 2026)
- East Idaho News (KSL story), media says banning cameras from Robinson hearing won’t stop social media commentating (Nov. 5, 2026)
- Utah Code of Judicial Administration, Rule 4-401.01
- Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981)
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
- Section 921.141, Florida Statutes
WRITTEN AND REVIEWED BY
Rory Safir, Forensic Lawyer-Scientist
He is the author of The Florida DUI Trial Manual, an NHTSA-qualified instructor in the standardized field sobriety exercises, faculty of the National College for DUI Defense, and a former Assistant Public Defender in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
This post is general information about the law as of this writing, not legal advice about any specific case, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Tyler Robinson is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Facts about the case are attributed to the news reports cited above. The law discussed is Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-401.01, Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981), Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), and section 921.141, Florida Statutes.
