BREAKING: Utah court weighs media access to Tyler Robinson documents ahead of ruling on proceeding with murder trial

Graf said in an order that he would first weigh the defense’s motion to classify, which would be addressed through a closure hearing, “The hearing shall remain open to the greatest extent possible, and any closure shall be limited to portions the Court finds necessary to protect the information at issue.”

“Following the closure hearing, the Court shall rule on the Motion to Classify under Rule 4-202.04, address the pending EMC requests, and then hear closing arguments on the preliminary examination. The Court shall thereafter make its probable-cause and bindover determinations,” the order continued.

The defense filed its “Motion to Classify his Unredacted Oppositions to Electronic Media Coverage Orders” on August 22. The defense “seeks protected classification of the unredacted filings, which contain certain external online references and identifying information,” the filing from Graf stated.

The defense had filed oppositions to electronic media requests from the Salt Lake Tribune and KUTV for their coverage of Tuesday’s proceedings, with the opposition to Salt Lake Tribune’s request including “new evidence regarding certain active external online content and specific identifying information that references these proceedings.”

“Defendant represented that the volume and frequency of this external activity fluctuated significantly during the evidentiary portion of the preliminary examination in July 2026. Defendant argued that the pervasiveness of this external activity on the internet represents a highly sensitive matter that could impact the integrity of these proceedings, and that continuing to broadcast the legal arguments would exacerbate the dissemination of these external online references,” Graf wrote.

The News Media filed an opposition to the defense’s classification motion, asserting that “court filings are presumptively public and that both the United States and Utah Supreme Courts protect the right of the community to view criminal pretrial filings.” They argued that “Defendant cannot overcome the presumption of openness because he is attempting to make secret information that is already publicly available and created by the public. They characterized Defendant's concerns as generalized and alarmist.”