PROVO, Utah — Erika Kirk, the widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, filed a new motion this week demanding that all evidence presented during the preliminary hearing for the man accused of killing her husband be made visible to everyone in the courtroom, a request a Utah judge ultimately denied as the proceedings continued into their fourth day Thursday.

Tyler Robinson, 23, is charged with 10 crimes in connection with the September 10, 2025, shooting death of Kirk, who was fatally shot while speaking at a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University in Orem. The charges include aggravated murder, a capital first-degree felony; felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, a first-degree felony; two counts of obstruction of justice, a second-degree felony; two counts of tampering with a witness, a third-degree felony; and committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, a Class A misdemeanor. Robinson has not been convicted, and the charges against him remain allegations that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The preliminary hearing, which began Monday and is scheduled to run through Friday, is intended to determine whether prosecutors have established probable cause for the case to proceed to trial. Judge Tony Graf has presided over several days of testimony and argument, including disputes over how much evidence can be shown publicly in the courtroom given ongoing concerns from Robinson’s defense team about protecting his right to a fair trial.

In a supplemental filing submitted Wednesday evening, attorney Jeffrey Neiman, representing Erika Kirk on behalf of the victim’s family, argued that Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents had traveled to the courthouse specifically to observe the evidence being presented against the man accused of killing their husband and son, only to find themselves unable to view certain exhibits admitted during testimony. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing,” the filing stated, according to multiple outlets that reviewed the document. “They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: the ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.”

The filing went further, characterizing the current process as insufficient to satisfy the family’s rights as crime victims under Utah law. “The right ‘to be present’ is hollow if the victim or his representative is physically in the room but is prevented from seeing the evidence the Court is receiving,” Neiman wrote. “A right to attend that does not include the ability to perceive what is happening is not meaningful presence at all.”

Neiman’s filing specifically requested three things: that all exhibits admitted into evidence during the first three days of the hearing but not shown in the courtroom be published during Thursday’s proceedings; that any exhibit admitted during the remainder of the hearing be displayed openly and in real time for everyone lawfully present; and that no further evidence be received by the court in a manner that conceals it from those in the courtroom. The filing directly criticized the alternative approach taken so far, stating, “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom—as happened today—is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want.”

Judge Graf ruled on the motion Thursday, deciding that the court would continue its existing case-by-case process for determining how evidence is presented rather than adopt a blanket requirement to display all admitted evidence to the courtroom, according to reporting from KUTV. Graf has previously described the task of balancing transparency in judicial proceedings against a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial as a “fine line.”

Much of the dispute over evidence access this week has centered on a recorded interview with Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s former roommate and romantic partner. Prosecutors sought to admit the full recording, including audio that could be captured by courtroom cameras, while Robinson’s defense team pushed for significant redactions, arguing that unrestricted public release of the video could compromise Robinson’s right to a fair trial. Defense attorney Richard Novak told the court that “the number one concern in this proceeding is Mr. Robinson’s right to a fair trial.” Following extended arguments Wednesday, Graf ordered additional redactions to the interview before it could be shown, and prosecutors agreed to prepare the edited version for presentation during Thursday’s session, with the redacted recording distributed to both the defense and the court once the edits were completed.

Neiman had separately argued in court that the Kirk family strongly believes the full Twiggs interview should be made public. “The Kirk family believes strongly it should be made public for the world to see,” Neiman said, according to KSL.com. “To not be transparent here will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system.”

The preliminary hearing has featured testimony from multiple law enforcement witnesses over its first several days, including a University police officer who was present at the scene of the shooting, a Utah State Bureau of Investigation agent who collected footage and other evidence following the shooting, and a forensic examiner called by the defense to testify about a screwdriver and towel recovered from the crime scene. Doorbell and surveillance footage tied to the investigation has also been presented during the proceedings.

Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk’s parents have attended the hearing in person since it began Monday, according to multiple outlets covering the proceedings. The hearing is scheduled to conclude Friday, at which point Judge Graf is expected to rule on whether prosecutors have presented sufficient evidence for the case against Robinson to proceed to trial.

Sebi has cancelled the registration certificates of 12 research analysts after they failed to pay renewal fees required to keep their registrations active. The order, issued on July 9, said every registered research analyst is required to pay renewal fees every five years from the date of registration. The regulator said the 12 entities and individuals had not paid the fees, due to which their certificates had ceased to be in force.

The names include Arjun Lenin, Anita Patnaik, CNI Research, East Bridge Advisors, Kushank Kamal Poddar, Manish Kumar, Praful Nath Purohit, proprietor of Market Future India, R K Global Shares & Securities Ltd, Raghavendra Rajendra, Raghuveer Singh Rathore, Rajesh Jain, proprietor of Jinanand Research Analyst, and S Venkateshwar Rao.

Sebi said these research analysts were registered under the SEBI Act and SEBI Research Analysts Regulations, 2014. Under the rules, a research analyst must pay the renewal fee within three months before the end of the five-year period for which the earlier fee was paid.

The regulator noted that renewal fees had remained unpaid from different dates. For instance, fees for CNI Research Ltd remained unpaid from March 23, 2025, while those for S Venkateshwar Rao remained unpaid from April 7, 2025. For Arjun Lenin and Raghavendra Rajendra, the unpaid period started in July 2025. For Kushank Kamal Poddar and Rajesh Jain, it started in 2026.

Sebi initiated summary proceedings against the noticees under Regulation 30A of the SEBI Intermediaries Regulations, 2008. Notices were issued on May 29 and June 4, asking them to explain why their registration certificates should not be cancelled or suspended.

The regulator said the notices were duly served, but no replies were received from the noticees. Since no written submissions were filed within the prescribed period, Sebi proceeded with the matter based on the available record.
Sebi said the cancellation was necessary because the certificates had already expired and were no longer in force. It added that the main purpose of cancelling the registrations was to prevent misuse of inactive SEBI registration certificates before unaware investors.The order also said that cancellation of registration would not remove the noticees’ liability for anything done or omitted to be done while acting as research analysts.

Sebi directed the noticees to ensure maintenance and preservation of records and documents required under regulations. They must also take steps for redressal of investor grievances, transfer of records, funds or securities of clients, continuity of service to clients and any pending defaults or actions.

The order has come into force with immediate effect. Sebi said a copy of the order will be served on all noticees and BSE, which acts as the Research Analyst Administration and Supervisory Body, for necessary compliance.

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of META, GOOGL either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.