Tyler Robinson discovery updates compiled

Here's what we know about what the defense has and hasn't received as reported in the court hearings in the case.

Judge Graf has made it a point to regularly request a discovery update at the beginning of court hearings in the case. Because no motions to compel discovery have been filed at this point - which is also, at least in part, because Utah limits what discovery has to be provided before the preliminary hearing - most of what we know about what the defense has and hasn’t received has come from these discovery updates.

So, I compiled them for you, from the beginning of the case to the most recent hearing.

Overall, what the discovery updates show is that the State has produced a massive quantity of evidence and information to the defense. There may be additional materials the defense wants and has not received, but the defense has not requested an order compelling the disclosure of any discovery at this point in the case.

The laws setting for the State’s discovery obligations are in Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and, for expert testimony specifically, Utah Criminal Procedure Code § 77-17-13.

9/29/25 Status hearing – State acknowledged its duty to produce discovery relied upon for charging decision within 5 days of a defense request. The parties met to discuss process of exchange. Defense acknowledges “massive amounts of digital discovery” to review.

10/24/25 Motion hearing to permit unshackling/civilian clothes (hearing closed, redacted transcript released 12/29/25) - Parties had met to discuss discovery and their paralegals are in constant communication. State has received 4085 files from law enforcement. There is a process of review and redaction required. The State has produced 1442 files to defense so far. There is lots of surveillance footage from UVU, started with 9/10 and working backward. They are working through some kinks with the system being used and size of files. Mr. Novak says there are no discovery disputes and State has accurately represented collaboration.

25

1.01MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

10/27/25 Ruling on motions re shackling/clothing– Judge Graf noted more time was needed to complete discovery, set a status conference on January 16th at 1 p.m.

12/11/25 Hearing on what should remain closed/sealed from 10/14 hearing – State has received 13,900 files, 300 of which are duplicates, and has provided 7951 files to defense. The State had previously disclosed everything but received a large batch last week. State wants preliminary hearing date set. Ms. Nester says they don’t want it set until all discovery received and disqualification motion is decided. There is significant discovery they know is still outstanding. Mr. Grunander says discovery is going to be ongoing until trial. Mr. Grunander says everything supporting charge upon request for discovery as required has been produced.

1/16/26 Defense motion to disqualify – More than 90% of files received have been disclosed. There is still more coming in, and it will be ongoing for the duration of the proceeding. No input from defense.

2/3/26 Motion to disqualify, continued – State has shared 100% of what’s been received from law enforcement. There are several terabytes (“TBs”) of digital evidence from phones and other devices. The State has received defense instructions to produce original format and other specifics. They are downloading onto 20TB hard drives what’s been collected. The State is still working with law enforcement on downloading UVU surveillance video for the prior 30 days, estimated to be 300 TBs. It’s still in process of copying. Ms. Visser says defense is in communication with the State over what they believe is missing and are anticipating large volume of discovery in next few weeks. Mr. Novak says they will need all of the underlying data for DNA and other forensics. They haven’t provided a list of detailed items needed yet but will.

2/24/26 Ruling on disqualification motion – Mr. Grunander says more files received from law enforcement, 88 to 89% of what’s been received has been disseminated. Mr. Novak says no update besides scheduling a meet and confer concerning outstanding discovery.

3/13/26 Closure hearing on defense motion to ban cameras – Mr. Grunander says State has produced 93.9% of what was received. They met with defense yesterday and hand-delivered a 24 TB hard drive containing information about digital devices seized and analyzed by the regional computer forensics lab. They are still waiting for some information with law enforcement partners at FBI and ATF about what they need to produce. They expect ATF file within the next week. They are also reaching out to all local agencies for all bodyworn camera footage from that day. Mr. Novak raises federal forensic files not received from ATF and FBI – he argues underlying data not received as basis to continue preliminary hearing.

4/17/26 Defense motion to remove cameras – State filed (not publicly) a 225-page document listing discovery that’s been produced, identifying over 20,000 files. On March 26th, defense sent a letter requesting specific discovery materials relating to underlying DNA data. Those materials have been requested from ATF and FBI. ATF already provided their file to SBI, have 1700 files from ATF. Mr. Novak says FBI production is slow, they submitted a specific request a few weeks ago. The defense is not blaming the State for data files in possession of law enforcement partners.

5/8/26 Rulings on continuing preliminary hearing and banning cameras – The materials brought up at last hearing, the DNA files from ATF, have been transferred. FBI is still responding to the special discovery request. Ms. Nester clarifies the special discovery matters are DNA files from FBI. Defense received 1600 files today or yesterday.

5/19/26 Motion for OSC re contempt of gag order – State has provided 100% of what’s in its possession. Additional info received from SBI will be transferred this afternoon. Ms. Nester states they had received 2462 more files, 2300 of which are residential surveillance camera footage. They have also received the remaining ATF/FBI info without DNA data, other LEO reports. Ms. Nester emphasizes that while State is turning over what they have, question for defense is what they haven’t gotten yet, no feel yet for how much they haven’t gotten.

6/12/26 Evidentiary hearing on Order to Show Cause why Prosecutor is not in contempt. As of June 9, the State provided an additional 11 items to the defense, 10 of which were notebooks the defense had requested, and 1 of which is an 1102 statement of a witness for the preliminary hearing. Approximately 100% of what the State has received has been produced.