Defense attorney sparks outrage calling Charlie Kirk ‘hateful’—prosecutor says it helps prove motive

BS BULLETIN:

An attorney for accused assassin Tyler Robinson repeatedly described Charlie Kirk as speaking “hatefully” during a hearing attended by Kirk’s widow and parents.
Prosecutors argued the defense’s language strengthened their allegation that Robinson targeted Kirk because of his political and religious expression.
A Utah judge ordered Robinson to stand trial on all charges, including death penalty-eligible aggravated murder.

An attorney defending the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk drew fierce backlash after repeatedly portraying the slain conservative activist as someone who spoke “hatefully.”

Richard Novak made the remarks Tuesday while arguing that prosecutors had failed to establish a direct connection between Kirk’s political views and Tyler Robinson’s alleged motive for killing him. “Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people,” Novak told the Utah courtroom.

The defense attorney specifically accused Kirk of speaking hatefully about people who reject traditional gender identities, gay people and those who have sexual relationships outside marriage.

Novak acknowledged that Robinson allegedly hated Kirk but argued that prosecutors were speculating about precisely why. “There’s a significant gap between what it is that Mr. Kirk said and stood for and what it is that Mr. Robinson felt about him,” Novak said.

Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, his parents and other relatives were seated in the courtroom as Novak repeatedly characterized the victim’s speech as hateful. Family members reportedly exchanged looks, and some became emotional.

New Jersey criminal defense attorney David Gelman told Fox News Digital that Novak’s comments were unprofessional and completely inappropriate at a preliminary hearing. “That was so out of left field that he honestly—he should be embarrassed by what he said,” Gelman said.

Prosecutors immediately seized on Novak’s argument.

Chief Deputy Utah County Attorney Chad Grunander rejected the suggestion that expressing political and religious opinions amounted to hate—and argued that the defense had inadvertently strengthened the state’s motive allegation. “He had an opinion that he would express on politics and religion. That doesn’t make it hate,” Grunander said. “But the fact that Mr. Novak even considered it as hate makes the case for the state,” he added. “In his client’s own words, he hated what Mr. Kirk stood for.”

Prosecutors have presented alleged text messages in which Robinson purportedly told his romantic partner, Lance Twiggs, that he had killed Kirk because he “had enough of his hatred.” “Some hate can’t be negotiated out,” Robinson allegedly wrote.

Kirk family attorney Jeffrey Neiman told the court that Kirk built his career around engaging people in difficult political conversations. “Charlie was the opposite of hate,” Neiman said. “Firing a bullet into a crowd and assassinating him—that is hate.”

Judge Tony Graf Jr. ultimately found sufficient probable cause to send Robinson to trial on all seven charges, including aggravated murder.

Prosecutors allege Robinson fatally shot Kirk from a rooftop while the Turning Point USA founder spoke before more than 3,000 people at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. Robinson pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

MY QUICK TAKE

The defense attorney did more than insult a murdered man in front of his grieving family. He may have helped articulate the prosecution’s case. The issue is not whether Robinson or his lawyers disliked Charlie Kirk’s views. The issue is whether Robinson allegedly selected Kirk for assassination because of those views. Calling Kirk’s speech “hate” while arguing that the killing was not politically motivated is one spectacular way to make the prosecution’s point for them.