Tyler Robinson charged with murdering Charlie Kirk

[PrairieWind]

If a person is accused in print, or verbally in public, with maybe even a promised capital punishment by a head of state and possibly cabinet members, then there really is no change of venue conceivable, imo. Trouble is, it will be hidden from the jury, so the disqualfication must take place in lieu of a trial. Before, imo.

I guess I am not following your argument. What will be hidden from the jury? And what "disqualification" are you referring to?

 

[imstilla.grandma]

According to multiple reports, documents filed by the defense in the case claimed the bullet used in the assassination doesn’t match the rifle that has been tied to Robinson.

TMZ reported that Robinson’s defense team is arguing that there is “a discrepancy between the ballistic evidence and the weapon prosecutors say is connected” to him.

Now the ATF’s report has been unsealed, and it shows its findings regarding Robinson, his gun and the bullet used to kill Kirk.

The ATF’s report claimed the bullet that killed Kirk “showed signs” that it could have been fired from Robinson’s gun. Its claim is that the bullet was found to be a .30-caliber “deformed/damaged bullet jacket fragment,” according to the New York Post according to the New York Post.

Charlie Kirk assasination bombshell takes another turn as new information is revealed

Kirk was shot and killed last year.

www.pennlive.com

 

[flowershop]

Why is the image showing Kohberger & Robinson..?

I really don't know what was behind the image choice but I did hear that the lawyers in the TR case will use some experts from the BK case. It was mentioned in the BE interview I posted upthread.

 

[Yellowbelly]

According to multiple reports, documents filed by the defense in the case claimed the bullet used in the assassination doesn’t match the rifle that has been tied to Robinson.

TMZ reported that Robinson’s defense team is arguing that there is “a discrepancy between the ballistic evidence and the weapon prosecutors say is connected” to him.

Now the ATF’s report has been unsealed, and it shows its findings regarding Robinson, his gun and the bullet used to kill Kirk.

The ATF’s report claimed the bullet that killed Kirk “showed signs” that it could have been fired from Robinson’s gun. Its claim is that the bullet was found to be a .30-caliber “deformed/damaged bullet jacket fragment,” according to the New York Post according to the New York Post.

Charlie Kirk assasination bombshell takes another turn as new information is revealed

Kirk was shot and killed last year.

www.pennlive.com

If that's the case, then they're clutching at straws. The truth of the matter is that the fragment of the bullet recovered was too small to be able to conclusively prove that it was fired from TR's firearm. It doesn't logically follow from that, that the bullet wasn't fired from TR's firearm. As the article makes clear, the fragment recovered was of a type of ammunition that could be fired by TR's weapon.

 

[NuttMegg]

I guess I am not following your argument. What will be hidden from the jury? And what "disqualification" are you referring to?

Public declarations of guilt and punishment deserved over said guilt before a trial, by elected/appointed officials will not be allowed before a jury imo. Thus jurors will not be (technically) aware that the nation has been exposed to these public declarations manipulating public opinion before a trial.

The disqualification should be whatever they call dismissed charges if a suspect is named and basically convicted before a trial by elected/appointed office holders supported by public funds.

All imo of course.

 

[ivylambs]

Why is the image showing Kohberger & Robinson..?

I don’t understand the image choice either. They look a little bit similar, but I don’t see what else they have in common…?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Public declarations of guilt and punishment deserved over said guilt before a trial, by elected/appointed officials will not be allowed before a jury imo. Thus jurors will not be (technically) aware that the nation has been exposed to these public declarations manipulating public opinion before a trial.

The disqualification should be whatever they call dismissed charges if a suspect is named and basically convicted before a trial by elected/appointed office holders supported by public funds.

All imo of course.

To better understand your position on this, who are these elected/public officials you're referring to, and what did they actually say that leads you to believe they've somehow manipulated public opinion?

 

[PrairieWind]

Public declarations of guilt and punishment deserved over said guilt before a trial, by elected/appointed officials will not be allowed before a jury imo. Thus jurors will not be (technically) aware that the nation has been exposed to these public declarations manipulating public opinion before a trial.

The disqualification should be whatever they call dismissed charges if a suspect is named and basically convicted before a trial by elected/appointed office holders supported by public funds.

All imo of course.

Again I am confused. Many pubic officials comment on criminal cases. The dont' get thrown out. By saying "dismissal" are you saying that the criminal charges will need to be thrown out?
There is no question that jury will be able to be seated in this case. The defense exploded the media recently with the false narrative of the ATF report. That now works against them. A jury will be seated, whether in that county or otherwise, who knows. But this case will proceed to trial. There is NO dismissal of charges because of too much publicity.

 

[NuttMegg]

To better understand your position on this, who are these elected/public officials you're referring to, and what did they actually say that leads you to believe they've somehow manipulated public opinion?

Anyone can google to find out which public officials declared a suspect guilty and deemed a certain punishment due. In at least 2 recent murder cases. If an appointed county prosecutor went on TV or in print was quoted before trial as saying Mr. Smith is guilty and I'm going to give him the death penalty, imo that would work in the defendants favor. Even suspects and charged individuals have rights. So; I go back to my original post, I do think, ie IMO, one or more high profile murder cases will go askew. But I'm not going to try to explain it any further as I haven't had to think about it before because of previous uniformly accepted separation of powers. Looks like I may be the only one who objects to publicly declaring an individual guilty before trial. And I won't change my mind and neither will people who disagree. BTW, I don't consider conspiracy in this case.

 

[PrairieWind]

Anyone can google to find out which public officials declared a suspect guilty and deemed a certain punishment due. In at least 2 recent murder cases. If an appointed county prosecutor went on TV or in print was quoted before trial as saying Mr. Smith is guilty and I'm going to give him the death penalty, imo that would work in the defendants favor. Even suspects and charged individuals have rights. So; I go back to my original post, I do think, ie IMO, one or more high profile murder cases will go askew. But I'm not going to try to explain it any further as I haven't had to think about it before because of previous uniformly accepted separation of powers. Looks like I may be the only one who objects to publicly declaring an individual guilty before trial. And I won't change my mind and neither will people who disagree. BTW, I don't consider conspiracy in this case.

So you can't point to any actual comments that might lead to difficulty in seating a jury? If you can't, I dont think this should even be an element of discussion.

 

[NuttMegg]

Again I am confused. Many pubic officials comment on criminal cases. The dont' get thrown out. By saying "dismissal" are you saying that the criminal charges will need to be thrown out?
There is no question that jury will be able to be seated in this case. The defense exploded the media recently with the false narrative of the ATF report. That now works against them. A jury will be seated, whether in that county or otherwise, who knows. But this case will proceed to trial. There is NO dismissal of charges because of too much publicity.

It's the type of publicity. Anyway, I'm outta here, these situations devolve into circular arguments, it's just a fact that it's my opinion. Also I think that mitigating circumstances could include public denunciations, by an institution of learning, by a public official, etc. of a personal emotional way of life that is completely legal. That could drive me over the ledge in a cognitive manner, whereas in others it could foment violence. Anyway, mitigating circumstances galore here.

 

[NuttMegg]

So you can't point to any actual comments that might lead to difficulty in seating a jury? If you can't, I dont think this should even be an element of discussion.

That would be your choice to not read my opinions. I did not say what you claim I said in your first sentence.

 

[PrairieWind]

It's the type of publicity. Anyway, I'm outta here, these situations devolve into circular arguments, it's just a fact that it's my opinion. Also I think that mitigating circumstances could include public denunciations, by an institution of learning, by a public official, etc. of a personal emotional way of life that is completely legal. That could drive me over the ledge in a cognitive manner, whereas in others it could foment violence. Anyway, mitigating circumstances galore here.

I don't mean to drive you off. But I wanted to discuss what your thoughts were as to what statements might prejudice a jury? I don't see any mentioned. During the Derek Chauvin case, President Biden stated that he believe he should be found guilty. That was not found to be disqualifying. The jury in the case could hear protesters outside the courthouse but even that didn't warrant a change in venue. From the Chauvin case we know that a hostile environment is not reason for change of venue, and statements of the President about the defendant's guilt are not prejudicial.

Biden Ignores Derek Chauvin's Trial Judge, Comments on Verdict While Jury Deliberates

Biden said he was "praying the verdict is the right verdict" — ignoring cautionary words from the judge that politicians should not weigh in on the case.

lawandcrime.com