When is Tyler Robinson's next court date and will plea hearings be open to the public?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tyler Robinson’s next in-person court appearances are scheduled for Jan. 16, 2026 (reported by ABC News) and Feb. 3, 2026 (reported by Fox News and several outlets); a potential preliminary hearing is listed for May 18–21, 2026 by Deseret News [1] [2] [3]. Judges in the case have not yet issued a final, blanket rule on public camera access: Judge Tony Graf has been weighing media access, closed some hearings for security and redaction talks, and postponed a final media-standing decision into late December [4] [5] [6].
1. What court dates reporters and the public can expect
Multiple mainstream outlets say Robinson will appear in court in person on Jan. 16, 2026 (ABC News) and on Feb. 3, 2026 (Fox News, Deseret News and others) [1] [2] [3]. Deseret News also reports the court has identified a potential preliminary hearing window of May 18–21, 2026, which could be a multi‑day evidentiary proceeding if the court sets it [3]. Local timelines compiled earlier in the case noted other scheduling shifts, underscoring that dates could be altered by the court [7].
2. Why dates vary across outlets — and what that means
Discrepancies in published dates reflect real-time scheduling in a high-profile, rapidly evolving docket and different editorial updates at publications. Reuters, AP, Politico and local outlets all covered the Dec. 11, 2025 in‑person hearing where scheduling and media access were discussed; some cited Feb. 3 and Jan. 16 as the next major in‑person appearances [4] [8] [9]. Readers should treat any single published date as provisional until the Fourth District Court posts or confirms a minute entry, because judges routinely reset dates during hearings [4] [3].
3. Will plea hearings be open to the public?
Available reporting shows the court is actively weighing public access but has not closed the courthouse to observers across the board. Judge Tony Graf has balanced transparency with defendant security and fair‑trial concerns, closing an October hearing for over two hours to discuss security and setting rules for redactions before releasing transcripts [5] [10]. Media organizations have intervened, asking for expanded access and transcripts; defense attorneys have pushed limits—including a request to ban cameras—so whether any particular plea or hearing will be open to the public depends on the judge’s rulings for that session [4] [11].
4. Cameras, livestreams and reported limits on coverage
The judge has at times allowed cameras or a live feed but intervened when the feed allegedly captured shackles, private conversations or defense materials, ordering camera repositioning and discussing “standing decorum” sanctions [9] [10]. Media intervenors are arguing that blanket exclusions would amount to an unlawful prior restraint; defense counsel argue that intense publicity could prejudice jurors and jeopardize a fair trial [3] [11]. The court deferred some decisions into late December, indicating hearings could be public but with tailored limits [6].
5. How victims’ representatives and security concerns factor in access
The court designated Erika Kirk as an official victim representative, which gives the victim’s family certain participatory rights while the judge also cited “extraordinary” security concerns in setting restraint and courtroom‑clothing rules for Robinson [10] [9]. Those security rulings have been used as part of the court’s rationale for limited public view at particular moments, such as the closed Oct. 24 security hearing whose transcript media lawyers have sought [5] [10].
6. Competing perspectives and the hidden incentives at play
Media organizations frame broader public access as an accountability issue and a First Amendment interest; defense counsel frame limits as necessary to protect Robinson’s right to a fair trial and safety [11] [4]. Local and national outlets also face commercial incentives to press for live coverage of a politically charged case; conversely, defense teams confront political pressure and intense public sentiment that could sway jury selection. Reporters have documented both: requests for transcripts and livestreams by media, and defense motions and sealed discussions by Robinson’s attorneys [5] [10].
Limitations: court minutes or an official Fourth District Court docket entry are not provided among the available sources; for final confirmation of a specific hearing’s openness or an absolute next‑date, consult the court’s official calendar or filings (not found in current reporting).