Are there privacy or sealing rules that could block online access to Tyler Robinson’s arraignment records?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The short answer is: yes — state privacy and sealing rules can and have limited online access to portions of Tyler Robinson’s court records, but the presumption in Utah favors public access and the judge has ordered most of a previously closed hearing released with narrow redactions (not a blanket blackout) [1] [2]. Future sealing or electronic broadcast restrictions remain legally available to defense or prosecutors, though the court has imposed notice requirements and pushed back against wholesale secrecy [3] [4].
1. The legal default: presumptive public access, not absolute
Utah’s Fourth District judge has explicitly framed the media’s and public’s right to court records as presumptive — meaning records and transcripts are generally public unless a specific, legally sufficient reason is shown to restrict them — and he ordered the transcript and redacted audio of an October hearing be released after narrowly tailored redactions [1] [2]. The judge explained openness and transparency are foundational but qualified that public access “is not absolute,” signaling that some material can be withheld for safety or security reasons [3] [1].
2. What was actually sealed or redacted in Robinson’s case
A previously sealed Oct. 24 hearing was unsealed with limited redactions totaling roughly 246 words — about one page out of an 80–83 page record — and a redacted audio file was ordered released within weeks, showing the court applied a narrow approach rather than broad secrecy [2] [1]. The redactions were described as tailored to court security concerns, not as an endorsement of full closure [5] [2].
3. How future requests to seal or limit online access can work
Both defense and prosecutors retain the ability to move to seal filings or ask to limit electronic coverage of hearings; the judge has required that parties notify media when they seek to make records or hearings private so outlets can challenge those motions, though the judge stopped short of giving media formal party status in the case [3] [2] [4]. Importantly, the court’s ruling said parties do not have to notify media about requests to limit electronic media coverage or about records that are already presumptively non-public, which creates a pathway for restrictions that can take effect online without the same pre-notice [3].
4. Practical limits already imposed on imagery and livestreaming
The court has already imposed decorum and coverage limits designed to shape online presentation: media were allowed to livestream but under tight restrictions such as barring photographs or video of shackles and limiting filming of Robinson to when he was seated; an inadvertent wide-angle shot of his handcuffs prompted defense counsel to seek suspension of video for the day [6] [7]. Those kinds of granular restrictions don’t erase transcript or audio access but can limit what appears online visually and can be enforced in real time [6] [8].
5. Competing aims, strategies and the likely path forward
Defense attorneys argue that intense publicity could prejudice a jury and have repeatedly sought restrictions, while media coalitions and certain public figures press for full transparency and pre-notification of any sealing moves so closures can be litigated before records disappear — a dynamic that produced today’s compromise of release-with-redactions [9] [10] [5]. Courts balancing safety, fair trial rights and the public’s presumptive access will likely continue to grant narrowly tailored redactions or broadcast limits when grounded in security or juror prejudice, but wholesale blocking of arraignment transcripts or routinely sealing contemporaneous records faces resistance under the court’s recent rulings [2] [3].
Conclusion: conditional access, not absolute blackouts
Thus, while Utah law and the judge’s orders permit sealing or restricting specific materials — and the parties can move to block certain electronic coverage or ask for closures — the present record shows the court prefers narrow redactions and procedural notice to media rather than sweeping online blackout of Robinson’s arraignment and related records; nevertheless, particular categories of records (or requests to curtail live broadcasting) can still legally limit what ultimately appears online [1] [3] [2].