When and where did Tyler Robinson's arraignment take place and which judge presided?

1. Where the arraignments and early hearings occurred — courtroom and county

Reporting locates Robinson’s initial court appearances in Utah’s Fourth Judicial/ Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah — the district that serves Utah County and includes the courthouse where prosecutors and defense counsel have argued about media access and security ^{[6] [2] [3]}. Later coverage describes his Dec. 11, 2025, first in-person hearing as taking place in Fourth District Court in Provo and refers to the Utah County courts handling the case ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

2. When the arraignments and early procedural hearings took place — timeline and discrepancies

Multiple outlets report initial virtual appearances in mid‑September 2025: some timelines say Robinson first appeared virtually on Sept. 16, 2025, while other reporting documents a procedural hearing on Sept. 29, 2025, when the defense sought time to review evidence and set future dates ^{[1] [7] [6]}. Media accounts converge that Robinson’s first in‑person court appearance occurred on Dec. 11, 2025 ^{[4] [2] [3]}. The different dates reflect separate appearances — an initial virtual arraignment/appearance in September and a distinct December in‑person hearing ^{[1] [7] [2]}.

3. Who presided — Judge Tony Graf’s visible role

News outlets identify Judge Tony Graf as the judge managing key courtroom matters, including rulings on media access, sealed hearings, and procedural protections for Robinson’s rights. Graf is described as the Fourth District judge who closed a security hearing in October, has vowed to protect Robinson’s constitutional rights, and was appointed to the Fourth District Court in May 2025 ^{[5] [2] [3]}. Multiple reports explicitly name Graf in connection with the hearings in Provo ^{[5] [2] [3]}.

4. What happened at the initial appearances — pleas, motions and media access

At the September procedural appearances, Robinson did not enter a plea while defense counsel requested more time to review “voluminous” evidence and set scheduling, including possible preliminary‑hearing dates; these were routine procedural matters rather than full trials ^{[7] [5] [6]}. By December, hearings focused on in‑person matters such as whether cameras and what level of media access should be allowed, and the judge heard arguments from both sides on sealing and access ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

5. Conflicting details and limits of available reporting

Sources vary on the exact date labeled “initial arraignment”: a timeline counts Sept. 16 as the first virtual hearing while other outlets highlight Sept. 29 as a second appearance where defense counsel sought time — both are supported in reporting and reflect separate events ^{[1] [7]}. Coverage consistently places the courthouse in Provo and identifies Judge Tony Graf as the presiding judge for the district‑level matters cited ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Available sources do not mention any other judge presiding over those specific procedural and media‑access hearings.

6. Why this matters — transparency, security and high‑profile optics

Reporting shows the case has drawn intense media scrutiny and prompted contested courtroom decisions about cameras, sealed security hearings and redactions — issues Judge Graf has handled and vowed to balance transparency with protection of rights ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Observers and media lawyers have flagged concerns when filings are sealed or when livestreams show defense restraints; those practical disputes explain why the court has repeatedly addressed access and decorum ^{[4] [2]}.

Sources cited above describe the location, timing and the judge tied to these proceedings; they present separate but complementary snapshots of procedural appearances in September and the first in‑person session in December, with Judge Tony Graf centrally involved ^{[1] [7] [6] [2] [3] [5]}.