One important question: how many females are on the jury?

Quote:

---

Robinson's lawyer, Richard Novak, just told a courtroom the assassination wasn't political because Kirk "spoke hatefully."

That's the defense. Murder the man. Then prosecute the victim's microphone.

---

Logos Stick said:

---

One important question: how many females are on the jury?

---

Not a jury trial. This is the equivalent of an examining trial to see if there is probable cause to bind him over for trial.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Liberals can kill anyone they disagree with. They have shown their proclivity to do so repeatedly lately.

---

Well yes and remember only republicans are capable of hate speech and/or racism, etc.

And Utah County is paying the attorney fees. These are court appointed but hired and paid as if private.

Watching the judge live right now. WTF is he doing going through this detailed narrative? Just say, yes, this a-hole will stand trial.

His entire defense team is full of clowns who will throw everything against the wall even if it's ridiculous. The female attorney on his case represented Kouri Richins in a highly publicized trial and made herself look like an idiot with her motion practice and general demeanor in court.

She is going to play the victim at every turn, and I guarantee you she will blame the judge for being sexist against her if he rules against her on anything.

Looks like she has co-counsel willing to go even lower. Absolute disgrace to their profession.

Just making a formal record. It's what he has to do.

This topic is very confusing

I was assured here that Robinson was innocent, and was only a Patsy for Israel.

BMX Bandit said:

---

This topic is very confusing

I was assured here that Robinson was innocent, and was only a Patsy for Israel.

---

Was he found guilty? I must have missed that

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Just making a formal record. It's what he has to do.

---

Unless Utah has some weird law, all he has to say is "I find probable cause exists to bind the defendant over for trial. Court adjourned."

BMX Bandit said:

---

This topic is very confusing

I was assured here that Robinson was innocent, and was only a Patsy for Israel.

---

I took a break on here but didn't realize Candice started posting here. The board went off the deep end?

Nm.

I don't know if it's just general practice in Utah or a preference by the judges, but I noticed this in some other Utah trials that have been broadcast over the last few years. The Richins case (different judge and county) also had a lot of lengthy verbal rulings by the court.

Jarrin Jay said:

---

The judge should not even allow this. Charlie Kirk is not on trial. IMHO he never engaged in any form of hate speech (and there is actually no such thing) but even if he did so what. He never met or spoke with the defendant, whatever Kirk said whenever he said it is absolutely immaterial to the trial and the defense, period. I understand how and why the defense is arguing it but it is pure theatrical BS that should not be allowed.

---

Your point about him never even meeting Charlie is a good one.

Prosecutor, "sir, have you ever met Charlie Kirk? , how many times have you talked with him? How many times has his words had any direct impact on your life? Also, zero, please speak up for everyone to hear!"

I have no further questions, your honor."

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Thats a disgusting defense

---

The cringe involved with being the defense attorney in a murder case... it's appalling what comes out of that dude's mouth.

The only people almost as vile as the MSM are defense attorneys. They lie and manipulate the useful idiots just like in the Clancy trial. People are stupid and fall for it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Liberals can kill anyone they disagree with. They have shown their proclivity to do so repeatedly lately.

---

Ah, the old "fighting words" defense becomes "sniper murder words", that's the ticket!

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Got it so it's ok to kill others practicing their right to free speech. Well let's see how that works out for him.

---

That was not the argument being made.

The issue yesterday was whether the murder qualified for an enhanced penalty because it was politically motivated.

If Robinson's lawyers had been successful in their arguments, that would've taken one of the potential factors for the death penalty off the table. But even if it had been successful, the death penalty was still an option here because Robinson "knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor". And unless they can put on evidence that Robinson was an expert marksman, who had no chance of shooting anyone else by mistake, they're not going to get around that.