Tyler Robinson defense asks court to bar cameras for next in-person hearing

Accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson filed a Sunday court motion to bar all still cameras, video cameras and microphones from a critical hearing on April 17.

On that day, Robinson is scheduled to be present in court, and the state and defense are expected to make a flurry of motions.

Judge Tony Graf has not made a ruling on whether to ban electronic media throughout the course of the trial.

Fox News Legal Analyst Donna Rotunno, and host of the podcast "Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno," said Graf should "take control" and make a definitive ruling on media in the courtroom throughout the rest of the proceedings.

TYLER ROBINSON PROSECUTORS SAY CHARLIE KIRK SHOOTING TEXTS SHOW CONFUSION, NOT BIAS, TO REBUT CONFLICT CLAIM

She said the defense asking only to ban electronic media for the April 17 hearing could be indicative of a larger strategy, and that they may ask to bar media on a hearing-by-hearing basis. That way, if Graf rules against them, they will only lose the motion for one specific hearing, and not for all of the proceedings moving forward.

Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, has pleaded for cameras to be allowed during the trial.

"There were cameras all over my husband when he was murdered," she told Fox News' Jesse Watters in an exclusive interview in November. "There have been cameras all over my friends and family mourning. There have been cameras all over me, analyzing my every move, analyzing my every smile, my every tear. We deserve to have cameras in there."

WHY POLITICAL ASSASSINATION CASES AREN'T AUTOMATICALLY DEATH PENALTY ELIGIBLE

"Why not be transparent?" Kirk continued. "There's nothing to hide. I know there's not because I've seen what the case is built on."

Prosecutors also filed a response to a motion filed by Robinson's team last week, asking the court a May 18 preliminary hearing back. The defense is asking to push back the preliminary hearing until expert discovery is complete, and prosecutors argue that the hearing should be held on the scheduled date.

The state argues that the defense is trying to confer upon itself rights during the preliminary stage of the trial that it is not entitled to until the actual trial itself, and that discovery is meant to be reserved for the trial, not preliminary proceedings.

Rotunno agrees that the defense has been given enough discovery leeway in the preliminary stage of the court proceedings, and that the hearing should remain scheduled for May 18.