"There is no adequate substitute for open proceedings."
minute read
Widow Erika Kirk has filed a legal notice in the trial of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk asking for maximum transparency in the case. The filing states: "There is no adequate substitute for open proceedings. Accordingly, Ms. Kirk respectfully urges the Court to deny any unnecessary requests to limit public or media access and to ensure that courtroom proceedings remain open to the fullest extent consistent with the defendant’s right to a fair trial."
The filing, shared to X by Andrea Burkhart, shows that Kirk is interested in making sure that there are no questions left behind in the case and that the public is aware of every aspect of the hearings and trial as the case progresses through the courts. Kirk made the filing as the victim representative in the case.
The reasoning, as stated in the filing, is that the case "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.”
"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," the filing states.
The filing comes after months of questions surrounding media access to the courtroom of Judge Tony Graf, who is overseeing the case. The issue is one of such intensity that in addition to the prosecutorial and defense legal teams in the court room, the media is also represented by legal counsel and is heard on matters of access for video and still photography.
The question of whether media will be permitted to film the proceedings is still undetermined as Graf has not made his ruling. The defense for Robinson does not want cameras in the courtroom at all while the attorneys for the media have insisted that it is necessary in this case to have full transparency.
Cameras have been permitted in the courtroom for the hearings preceding trial, but at each step of the way, the defense team has sought to limit access. In a recent hearing on Tuesday, during which the defense attempted to have the entire Utah County prosecutorial team disqualified from the case on alleged conflict of interest concerns, the still camera was moved back to prevent the photographer from capturing any images of Robinson's face.
The video photographer was already stationed behind the railing in the courtroom for the same reason. In the fall, at the defense team's urging, Graf had ruled that while cameras could be present, they could not film Robinson in shackles. This prevents him from being photographed either entering or leaving the court room.
Cameras trained on him, however, did capture visual records of Robinson in court and his conversation with his attorneys. Much was made of this by lip readers, who then sought to determine what was being said between client and attorney in court. The defense is seeking to prevent any images such as these from being seen by the public again.
Robinson is expected back in court on Feb 24, by audio on Webex only, during which time Graf will determine if the motion to disqualify the prosecutorial team will be allowed. After that hearing, the next court of business is for the court to determine whether or not cameras will be permitted in the courtroom during the trial.
Kirk and others have already stated their assertion that for full transparency, cameras must be permitted in court so that the public can see the goings on without filter or secrecy.
The filing, shared to X by Andrea Burkhart, shows that Kirk is interested in making sure that there are no questions left behind in the case and that the public is aware of every aspect of the hearings and trial as the case progresses through the courts. Kirk made the filing as the victim representative in the case.
The reasoning, as stated in the filing, is that the case "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.”
"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," the filing states.
The filing comes after months of questions surrounding media access to the courtroom of Judge Tony Graf, who is overseeing the case. The issue is one of such intensity that in addition to the prosecutorial and defense legal teams in the court room, the media is also represented by legal counsel and is heard on matters of access for video and still photography.
The question of whether media will be permitted to film the proceedings is still undetermined as Graf has not made his ruling. The defense for Robinson does not want cameras in the courtroom at all while the attorneys for the media have insisted that it is necessary in this case to have full transparency.
Cameras have been permitted in the courtroom for the hearings preceding trial, but at each step of the way, the defense team has sought to limit access. In a recent hearing on Tuesday, during which the defense attempted to have the entire Utah County prosecutorial team disqualified from the case on alleged conflict of interest concerns, the still camera was moved back to prevent the photographer from capturing any images of Robinson's face.
The video photographer was already stationed behind the railing in the courtroom for the same reason. In the fall, at the defense team's urging, Graf had ruled that while cameras could be present, they could not film Robinson in shackles. This prevents him from being photographed either entering or leaving the court room.
Cameras trained on him, however, did capture visual records of Robinson in court and his conversation with his attorneys. Much was made of this by lip readers, who then sought to determine what was being said between client and attorney in court. The defense is seeking to prevent any images such as these from being seen by the public again.
Robinson is expected back in court on Feb 24, by audio on Webex only, during which time Graf will determine if the motion to disqualify the prosecutorial team will be allowed. After that hearing, the next court of business is for the court to determine whether or not cameras will be permitted in the courtroom during the trial.
Kirk and others have already stated their assertion that for full transparency, cameras must be permitted in court so that the public can see the goings on without filter or secrecy.
2 2 26 Notice Concerning Media Access by The Post Millennial
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments