BREAKING: Judge allows media access to transcript, audio of hearing involving alleged Charlie Kirk assassin with some redactions

Judge Graf ruled in the hearing in regard to an October 24 hearing that portions of the transcript and corresponding audio of the hearing referencing security measures for the trial should be redacted. Graf said, "The public has a presumptive right to access court records … That right, however, is not absolute. To support and achieve certain interests and objectives, a court may close portions or entire records." He later added, "A court may consider any relevant factor, interest, or policy, both in favor of and opposed to closure and determining whether to redact portions of or close all or part of a court record."

Graf said that around half of the portions that the parties were seeking to redact "address courtroom and courthouse security measures. Safety concerns are well recognized as justification for closure of court records. This undoubtedly includes references in the court record to specific safety measures undertaken as part of the court safety plan in practices in highly publicized cases."

"This case generates extraordinary ongoing national and international attention, some of which is threatening in nature to the parties, the representatives and non-party participants, the safety and well-being of all involved in this matter outweighs the interests of the public that are served by open court records."

In regard to other portions the defense wanted redacted for privacy interest concerns, Graf said that "personal privacy is a recognizable justification for closure of a court record," but that to justify such a closure, the "privacy interest must be more than a desire to avoid annoyance, criticism, or embarrassment." He denied two requests from the defense for redactions, concluding that "the information is not of a highly personal or sensitive nature."

He ruled against redacting these requested portions of the transcript and audio, saying that information in question "is contained in the charging instrument, whether directly or indirectly, as part of the factual allegations made against the defendant and is already part of the public arena."

He said that the redactions amounted to 246 words in the 80-page transcript. The transcript is expected to be released by the end of Monday, however, the audio, Graf said, would take around two weeks for redactions to be made. Robinson was not visible in the virtual hearing, and spoke only briefly at the beginning.

Graf denied two requests to intervene from two groups of media outlets, saying that "only the state and the defendant, however, are actual parties to a criminal action. The press need not be a party to a criminal action to pursue the public’s presumptive right to access public court records. The press has already been provided with a mechanism for Rule 4-202.04 to protect that right, and has already utilized it in this matter."

He reiterated an earlier order that requires all parties to give advance notice of closure or reclassification motions, which states, "the parties are ordered to serve all closure motions on members of the press who have requested notice. The parties must file proof of service with the court. A closure motion is any motion to classify or reclassify a presumptively public court record under Rule 4-202.02 as any other classification."

Graf also said that under this prior order, which he said is standing for the duration of the case, "nonetheless, the parties are not required to serve notice on members of the press of motion to limit electronic media coverage."