Posted on 10/26/2025 12:51:54 PM PDT by Red Badger
The defense team for Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old accused of assassinating conservative icon Charlie Kirk, has filed a motion requesting that he appear in civilian clothing without restraints during court proceedings and that cameras be banned from the courtroom. Robinson is charged with aggravated murder and other felonies for the September 10 shooting death of Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, during a speech at Utah Valley University.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, citing the presence of children at the event and the political nature of the crime.
In a 20-page filing submitted on Wednesday, defense attorneys, including Kathy Nester, argued that allowing Robinson to wear a jail jumpsuit or be shackled would prejudice potential jurors, violating his right to a presumption of innocence.
The legal team cited a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Deck v. Missouri, which limits visible restraints unless justified by specific security needs.
The motion also calls for a complete ban on cameras, photography, and video in the courtroom, pointing to a “content tornado” of media coverage of the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Let him wear what he was wearing on the roof.
He withdrew the confession. Probably at the behest of his lawyer. Pretty common in homicide cases.
CC
great suggestion!
Thanks for the explanations. Difficult to keep updated given everything that goes on in the world today.
I am so grateful to FreeRepublic!
I imagine even Charlie Manson used it in his defense trial. There is a great book by Vincent Bugliosi - the L. A. prosecutor at that trial - “Helter Skelter”. Manson stared at him during the trial to upset him but I think Bugliosi was unflappable. He has written some great books if you like to read that sort of book. I do...
I read that book and very much liked it :) Manson and his gals were in street clothing and I did not know that was the reason why!
The end of the book mentioned a lot more info on the family where they were, other crimes they were suspected of. Not mentioned in the 1976 movie Helter Skelter (my fav) and it was to say the least, unnerving.
No! Drag him into court like the murdering criminal that he is.
Shave his head , wear orange jumpsuit and flip-flops, handcuffs and leg irons........................
Yeah, that’s the ticket. But then of course he’ll plead humiliation and try to get probation. A liberal judge would probably okay it.
” A liberal judge would probably okay it.”
Probably not many in Utah?...............
Tellthese KILLERS...NO FREAKING WAY.
Not sure, as in TX, UT is full of closeted communists.
Always love meeting a fellow reader at FR.....
Absolutely not, his orange jumpsuit should display a number ending in 666, and he should be shackled so he has to stoop over and short step.
Well, who knows. But his lawyer will come up with all sorts of excuses.
I'm not a trained (via a law school,) lawyer, but I would say I'm a upper class Jail-House Lawyer, been to my state Supreme Court writing legal brief's more than a half dozen times.
In my humble opinion, if a lawyer, who was trained by a legal school, and who has passed a "STATE-BAR-EXAMINATION," would be incompetent.
The very short answer that one and all will help you to understand why a lawyer would do this (Change the plea of Guilty to "NOT-GUILTY,") is I give you the "O. J. Simpson case.".
Although in my humble opinion O. J. Simpson was guilty as HELL, the prosecution "TEAM," FUBAR{ED} that case so bad, is why he walked. The trial spanned eight months, from January 24 to October 3, 1995.
In short, the lawyer(s) are looking for a "PLEA-DEAL," in this case, my thought is a "take the DEATH PENALTY," off the table, go for "Life {time prison,} Without Parole," and maybe a television in his cell, or some other very minor requests. (Examples of minor request{s}) say the prison that their looking to keep him in, only allows say one or two hours a day to be out of his cell, expand that by one hour, etc.
Not to mention, theirs always a chance maybe someone in law enforcement (i.e., the legal system, cops, prosecutors, jail-house guards, etc.,) violated his rights, etc., etc. His lawyers have the right to presume someone did, they just have to find that proof, present this proof to the court(s) and hope the judge / jury etc., agrees. Then don't forget the "AUTOMATIC-APPEALS," that some / most states have in DEATH PENALTY cases. Then theirs the REACH FOR THE SKY, Appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
In my best [actor] Al Pacino voice WERE JUST GETTING STARTED MOTHER "F-ERS."
Same here :)
If he’s innocent, he has nothing to hide ... right?
Full live video coverage of the trial, as all trials should be.
Orange Jumpsuit and Chains ⛓️⛓️⛓️⛓️
Screw the murdering POS. They should put his murdering ass in an old Laurel and Hardy B/W striped jailbird suit. Why does he want to appear to the jury as something he is not. He’s a scumbag murderer. A John Wilkes Booth piggy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.