Judge Rules Accused Charlie Kirk Shooter Can Wear Civilian Clothes — But Must Remain Restrained in Court
A Utah judge has ruled that the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk may wear civilian clothing in court but must remain restrained during proceedings.
Tyler Robinson, 22, is accused of gunning down Kirk, 31, on September 10 while the Turning Point USA cofounder and close ally of former President Donald Trump was speaking to students at Utah Valley University in Orem. Robinson, who later turned himself in, faces aggravated murder and multiple felony charges, with prosecutors pursuing the death penalty.
At a hearing on October 27, Judge Tony Graf ruled that Robinson “shall be dressed as one who is presumed innocent” during all pretrial appearances but denied the defense’s request to remove restraints entirely. Graf acknowledged that Robinson has no prior criminal history and has behaved appropriately while in custody but said the “extraordinarily serious” nature of the case, coupled with heightened public emotion, justified additional precautions.
“The court must balance the presumption of innocence with the need to maintain order and safety,” Graf said in his decision. He ordered the sheriff’s office to use the least restrictive restraints possible and barred the media from photographing or filming the restraints to prevent potential juror bias.
Robinson’s defense team had argued that appearing in shackles or inmate attire could prejudice potential jurors and violate his right to a fair trial. They cited precedent from the Bryan Kohberger case — the convicted murderer of four University of Idaho students — where the defendant was temporarily allowed to appear in civilian clothes.
Prosecutors, however, opposed Robinson’s motion, citing security details that have not been made public due to the high-profile nature of the case. The matter was discussed in a closed-door hearing on October 24.
The Utah County Sheriff’s Office had suggested Robinson could appear remotely for some noncritical hearings to minimize concerns over public perception. Defense attorneys objected, arguing that virtual appearances would infringe on Robinson’s constitutional rights and limit his ability to communicate with his legal team.
Both the prosecution and defense agreed that media coverage should be limited, particularly photo and video recordings, to avoid further prejudicing the jury pool. Robinson’s attorneys said extensive pretrial coverage had already “relentlessly focused on Mr. Robinson’s demeanor and appearance” and risked undermining his right to an impartial trial.
Judge Graf also ruled in favor of a defense motion challenging a joint filing made by the sheriff’s office and prosecutors, calling it procedurally improper. However, he declined to issue an immediate ruling on broader questions regarding a media ban or remote hearings.
Graf emphasized that the proceedings will remain open to the public, instructing attorneys from both sides to submit separate motions on those issues.
