Has Tyler Boyer's trial begun or been postponed?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows that Tyler Robinson — the man charged in the killing of Charlie Kirk — has had initial and follow-up court hearings but no jury trial has started as of the most recent sources. Multiple news outlets report virtual appearances, scheduling of a next hearing for October 30, 2025, and discussion over whether to waive a preliminary hearing; prosecutors have said they will share discovery and may seek the death penalty [1] [2] [3].
1. What has happened so far: procedural hearings, not a trial
Reporting documents at least two early court appearances for Tyler Robinson: an initial virtual hearing on Sept. 16, 2025, and a second procedural hearing on Sept. 29, 2025, where defense lawyers described “voluminous” evidence and said they do not intend to waive a preliminary hearing — a procedural step to decide whether the case should proceed to trial [4] [1] [5]. Multiple outlets note the defense is reviewing extensive discovery and that scheduling remains active rather than having moved to an active jury trial [3] [2].
2. The next scheduled step: a hearing set for Oct. 30, 2025
Newsweek and local reporting show Judge Tony Graf scheduled the next court date for October 30, 2025, at which the court anticipated reviewing scheduling and whether a preliminary hearing will be waived or held — not the start of a jury trial [2] [3]. Coverage emphasizes that the October date was for pretrial procedures and evidence review rather than a trial calendar [2].
3. High-profile context: discovery, gag orders and media access battles
Multiple sources describe intense pretrial issues that often delay or shape trial timing. Utah County filings and media coverage highlight disputes over public access, potential gag orders and whether hearings or documents should be closed to protect a fair trial in a case where prosecutors say they may seek the death penalty; those fights tend to prolong pretrial scheduling [6] [1] [7]. Local outlets reported the judge emphasizing protection of constitutional rights as the parties litigate those access and publicity questions [5].
4. What charging and evidence posture looks like
Prosecutors have told defense counsel they will share the evidence used to charge Robinson, and defense counsel has asked for more time to review that “substantial” or “voluminous” discovery. The defense’s stated decision not to waive a preliminary hearing signals they intend the court to vet the evidence before a full trial is set [3] [1] [5].
5. Conflicting or absent details in the record
Available sources do not indicate that a jury trial has begun or that a firm trial start date has been set; they focus on hearings, discovery exchange and scheduling [2] [3] [1]. Sources also do not give a final ruling on whether the preliminary hearing will be held or waived after the Oct. 30 review [3]. If you are asking about any postponement, current reports show active scheduling and procedural hearings rather than an announced postponement of a trial that had already been set — specific claims that a trial was postponed are not found in these sources [2] [1].
6. Why the case may not reach trial quickly
The reporting makes clear why a trial has not started: voluminous discovery, media-access battles, potential motions over publicity and the defense’s decision to seek a preliminary hearing all add time before a jury trial can be scheduled. Prosecutors’ notice requirements for seeking the death penalty can also generate additional pretrial motions and scheduling steps [1] [2] [6].
7. How to follow developments reliably
Local Utah outlets and national press have been covering procedural dockets closely; the most useful next updates will come from court scheduling orders or follow-up reporting after the October 30 hearing referenced by Newsweek and KUER [2] [3]. For confirmation whether a trial date is set or postponed, consult future court filings or those same outlets for direct reports of docket changes [3] [1].
Limitations: my account relies solely on the provided reporting; court documents or briefs not cited in these sources may contain additional scheduling details that the reporting has not published [2] [3].