1 Trending: Democrats Created The Destructive MeToo Standard. They Continue Suffering For It

2 Trending: Judge Who Obstructed ICE Avoids Prison Because She’s A ‘Good Person’ Who Was ‘Upset’ By Enforcing Laws

3 Trending: DHS Withheld Public Deportation Stats From Watchdog Group, Lawsuit Alleges

4 Trending: Docs Suggest Biden DOJ Mishandled Classified Info While Prosecuting Trump For The Same Thing

Here’s What You Need To Know About The Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial, Day 4

Judge Tony Graf will make a determination as to whether this case will go to trial Friday after a review of all evidence entered.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

Lance Twiggs, the roommate and “transgender” lover of alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson, took center stage on day four of the preliminary hearings of Robinson’s murder trial, as Judge Tony Graf allowed a redacted version of Twiggs’ interview with investigators to be played for the public.

The day started with a motion from the Kirk family to play to the courtroom, in full, all exhibits offered by state prosecutors.

“Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, and his grieving parents traveled to this courtroom for one reason: to be present at these proceedings and to bear witness to the evidence concerning the death of their husband and son,” the motion stated. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing. They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.”

That motion was largely denied by Graf, who stated:

This ruling is not intended to diminish the significance of the victim’s representative rights or concerns. Rather, it reflects the court’s responsibility to regulate the presentation of evidence in a manner consistent with the integrity of the proceedings and the fair trial rights implicated in this manner, the manner in which evidence is displayed remains in the court’s discretion. That discretion must be exercised in a manner that is appropriate and appropriately balances Mr. ROBINSON’s constitutional rights, Mrs. KIRK’s rights as a victim representative, and the court’s obligation to conduct the proceedings that are fair, orderly, and appropriately transparent. Transparency is an important principle, but it must be maintained in a manner consistent with the constitutional rights and protections afforded to all parties. The court does not make a blanket ruling as it relates to any exhibit, and as previously stated, each exhibit will be afforded its own due in weighing whether it shall be published to the courtroom, or beyond, or not.

This ruling is not intended to diminish the significance of the victim’s representative rights or concerns. Rather, it reflects the court’s responsibility to regulate the presentation of evidence in a manner consistent with the integrity of the proceedings and the fair trial rights implicated in this manner, the manner in which evidence is displayed remains in the court’s discretion. That discretion must be exercised in a manner that is appropriate and appropriately balances Mr. ROBINSON’s constitutional rights, Mrs. KIRK’s rights as a victim representative, and the court’s obligation to conduct the proceedings that are fair, orderly, and appropriately transparent. Transparency is an important principle, but it must be maintained in a manner consistent with the constitutional rights and protections afforded to all parties. The court does not make a blanket ruling as it relates to any exhibit, and as previously stated, each exhibit will be afforded its own due in weighing whether it shall be published to the courtroom, or beyond, or not.

Like days........

© The Federalist