Kirk family representative urges Judge Graf to show unredacted exhibits

Day three of the preliminary hearing of Tyler Robinson saw extended arguments over whether a video interview with Lance Twiggs, Robinson's transgender lover, could be admitted as evidence, and how much, if anything, could be shown in the courtroom for viewing by the general public through cameras. Jeffrey Neiman, representing the Kirk family, urged open and transparent proceedings for all to see, even those not in the courtroom.

"The Kirk family believes strongly that if the evidence is being admitted in this preliminary hearing, it should be made public for the world to see. No redactions. This court has tools at its disposal to make sure the defendant receives a fair trial," he said.

"To not be transparent here, to not be open, to not let the world see what happened, will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system. And that’s not what anybody wants, that's not what any of us believe should happen here, and we'd ask the court to consider the position of the family in making its ultimate decision."

The video interview with Lance Twiggs was conducted by prosecutors in April. The defense objected to the exhibit, saying that it would violate Robinson's rights, that the video included prosecutors going over exhibits that have not yet been admitted in the hearing, and that portions of the video should be redacted. The defense also sought to go into a closed hearing to discuss their objections.

An attorney representing the news media sided with the prosecution, saying that if a compromise must be made, playing only the audio for the cameras to pick up would be the best option. He said the video "appears likely to be one of those pillars on which the state intends to base its case and on which the court's ultimate decision will likely rest. That council's in favor of access, in favor of publication, in favor of allowing the public to see the work that the court is doing and why it's doing it.

Judge Graf ultimately admitted the video into evidence, that the video's audio could be played in court, but ruled that around 17 minutes must be redacted.