We are expecting a few things to come up in court today. First, the defense's request to ban cameras and restrict media access. Prosecutors, media outlets, including Fox News. And Charlie's widow, Erica Kirk, has argued that transparency is a public interest. But the defense has already raised the alarm after two violations of the judge's orders on the filming in the courtroom. Now, the defense is also seeking, listen to this, to postpone next month's scheduled preliminary hearing, arguing that they need more time to review evidence. Another issue that could come up, the defense's motion asking to hold prosecutors in contempt for allegedly violating a gag order. With that, let's bring in Josh Ritter, former prosecutor, Fox News contributor.

You know him well, and criminal defense attorney. He is live outside the courthouse in Provo, Utah. Josh, I'm beside myself because a preliminary hearing was supposed to take place next month and they are saying they might need another 6 months is what the defense is asking for. That is more than a year after this crime took place for a simple preliminary hearing that requires a probable cause finding. Now, you're absolutely right. We're we're seven months out from when the assassination took place. They're asking for an additional 6 months from now, which would bring us over a year. And you're right, we're talking about a

preliminary hearing. This is not the trial. This is a probable cause hearing. It's a lower standard of proof and it doesn't require all of the evidence. The other thing to consider here is the defense is trying to make this sound like this case that is incredibly complicated when in actuality it's not. We're not talking about multiple instances, multiple murders, many different days of consideration, many different defendants. We're talking about one event that took place on one day by one defendant. This is something that easily could be handled within the next month. And the prosecution has said as much. They've said, "We have given all of the evidence over and certainly all of the evidence that we need for the

preliminary hearing is already in everyone's hands and we should proceed quickly." Donna, you know, of course, you have the defendant who has all of his constitutional rights, including the Sixth Amendment. Erica Kirk has a right embedded in Utah code to ask for a speedy trial without delay. She's asking for that. But I'm curious if we could be looking at something like this 2010 CBS headline. Elizabeth Smart update trial to begin after 8 years of delay. That was the very same state of Utah. Yeah. It's really ridiculous and remark remarkable about how long this is taking. And I'm hoping that this judge today says enough is enough and we're going to move this along. And I think he

has two opportunities to do that. The one opportunity is he can say I've ruled that this is going to be an open process. I'm going to continue to rule that way. You can make your objection for the record, but enough of these filings, right? I mean, the defense has a right to file objections. They have a right to continue their objections. But to continue to seek evidentiary hearings when the judge has already made a decision, I think that needs to stop. He's put the stop gaps in place. Let's move on. In terms of the preliminary hearing, they're trying to extend again. And I think the judge needs to say enough. You have what you're entitled to. You've had the opportunity to review it. This is a low standard.

It's not like the prosecutor is going to put on 30 witnesses in a preliminary hearing, right? They're going to put on a couple that you have to be ready for and let's go. So, I think it is incumbent upon this judge to take control of this courtroom. We've been saying it and today is his opportunity. So, I hope he does. Emily, and of course, you expect the defense to delay, delay, delay. But the prosecutors can say, "We've given 100% virtually 100% of evidence as of April 1st." And to Donna's point, this is probable cause. This isn't even the actual trial. It's procedural. I know it kills me. He hasn't even entered a plea yet. And look, you expect defense to try. You don't expect them to succeed. That's what I find so reprehensible in this case. The person

who controls that courtroom right now is the defense council. That team and Josh is right about that. This is actually a really basic and simple proceeding obviously, but also at its heart, the battle of media coverage into the courtroom is too. So just there's there's three fundamental state law driven or course law court case law driven uh principles unless there is a compelling state interest then there will be media in the courtroom and you cannot restrict media coverage unless it's absolutely necessary and cameras are allowed if they are non-disruptive. So you take those three sort of basic tenants and then you apply it here and my argument is that the entire defense is arguing essentially about speculative

prejudice. They are saying, "Well, maybe this will have this unfair or unduly prejuditial effect. What about OJ Simpson? What about Amber Heard? What about Alex Verda?" We have been privy to and front row seats to many high-profile court cases where the public figure nature of them was part of the uh deliberation process. Now, the public figure in this case isn't alive anymore to testify on his behalf. He's the victim and his widow is trying all she can to maximize court proceedings. and that Utah specific law to say not anymore. So, you're right. I hope that we are treated today to the judge finally taking the reigns, but the argument that defense council is basing everything on to me is absolutely irrational because there is no such

thing as seeing him walking that's going to prejudice the jury. And he already ruled on that, by the way, in defendant's favor. Yeah. And Erica has said, "I want cameras in the courtroom, Harris." And one thing that prosecutors have argued, and I think this is so spot on, in addition to everything Emily said, public access, restricting it, will only fuel the misinformation the defense seeks to prevent. Did we lose Josh Ritter? Is he still with us? Josh, I want to ask you as a followup to what Emily and what Kayleie's asking about right now. So, if the person who is on trial is not as famous as the person who was killed, they want

to argue that they want to preserve some sort of privacy for him in the courtroom. Um, and what would the workaround be? Because what are you going to do with all the media that's on the steps of the courthouse at all times, every day, 24/7 once this trial begins? I mean, you can't just make us go away because the defendant is less well known and he won't be by that time, right? Less wellknown than the victim. No, no, you're absolutely right. And to Emily's point, this is not the first time we've handled a situation like this. The courts are well equipped to handle the type of bias that might arise from a case that has a lot of media

coverage. to the point too that we talked about earlier that they're trying to ask for sanctions against the prosecution for their uh what they're calling a violation of the gag order. That was in relation to that bullet fragment and whether or not the ATF could match that to the rifle. That was ironically had nothing to do with cameras in the courtroom. That was just media coverage of filings made in court. This case is going to be covered regardless if there's cameras in the courtroom or not. Wouldn't it be nice if we had some transparency and understood exactly what was taking place in court and instead of allowing for this misinformation to get out,

you know, and Dakota, you and I were talking in the green room about how there's families involved here. Erica Kirk's family, she has kids and she has asked for there not to be delay after delay, and of course, she respects the constitutional rights of the defendant. But I just want to quote Elizabeth Smart, who after that long trial said, "It felt like the system was rigged against me." Erica Kirk has rights too under Utah law and she's a person. She has kids. Her rights should be considered as well. No, 100%. And you know, I look at this, look, I don't have a law degree by no means, but I do understand common sense. And, you know, I think us as the American people watching this from the humanization side of this. You know,

I blame the judge, right? The judge isn't just a referee to watch this go back and forth. The judge has the power. He has the ability. and at some point if he doesn't do it today, you have to start calling into question him being he wants to avoid uh the media speculation and the and it the scope turned on him as far as you know as to what he's causing or all this misinformation. And look what we do see, you're right, we don't know that the camera is going to cause bias. Like these are a bunch of hypotheticals and the law is built to be on facts and proof. What we do have proof of is that the longer this goes on, it plays in the defensive side. It allows more opportunity for sewing seeds of doubt.

It makes a higher burden of proof that we're going to have to prove in order to get a jury to be full in on this. And so, look, I think it's a tactic that the judge has got to step up and has got to say no more of this. No doubt. And, you know, to your point, Emily, it feels like the defense is in control of the courtroom and the judge has the ability to change that. Yeah. All right, we'll follow it. Um, new episodes of Crime and Justice with Donna Ratuno. They drop twice weekly on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, wherever podcasts are found. And yesterday, Donna previewed what's to come in today's

Tyler Robinson hearing. Next week, she'll be joined by a psychologist to discuss the Gilgo Beach Killer cooperation with the FBI. She'll also take a deep dive into the ongoing legal feud between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively. So, don't miss that with Donna Ratuno. Hey everyone, I'm Emily Kano. Catch me and my co-hosts Harris Faulner and Kaylee Mcannini on Outnumbered every weekday at 12:00 p.m. Eastern or set your DVR. Also, don't forget to subscribe to the Fox News YouTube page for daily highlights.