By Matt Ward
Three tries and two judges later, a Pahrump murder suspect was again denied a chance to get out of jail eight months after shooting his daughter’s boyfriend to death.
Daniel Robbins was in court Monday, this time in front of District Court Judge Robert Lane. Robbins’ attorneys pleaded with the judge to set a bail amount for their client.
On Thursday, however, Lane issued a court order denying bail for Robbins, who is charged with first-degree murder among other felony charges.
Robbins is alleged to have shot and killed 21-year-old Chris Mundy during an early-morning confrontation in the front yard of Robbins’ home on Aug. 18. A 14-year-old boy with Mundy that morning was also shot. His injury was not life-threatening.
Robbins’ attorneys have maintained that their client acted in self-defense and deserves some leniency as such.
Lane’s order suggests that any leniency will be for a jury to decide at trial.
“The Court notes that it does not have the responsibility to weigh conflicting evidence, but only to insure the State has met its evidentiary burden for bail denial, and takes no position as to the Defendant’s actual guilt or innocence. The jury will eventually consider the evidence in this case and reach a decision; the Defendant’s self-defense theory will receive a full airing at that time,” the order reads.
The court order noted that while Robbins was denied bail on the murder charge, bail for his remaining felony charges was set.
Bail for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon was set at $25,000 each; bail for a single count of battery causing substantial bodily harm was set at $100,000 and a single count of battery with a deadly weapon drew a $150,000 bail.
Arnold Weinstock, one of Robbins’ Las Vegas criminal defense attorneys, said he could not comment when reached Thursday afternoon since he had not yet seen Lane’s order.
During the Monday hearing, Weinstock argued that Robbins, much like the Florida man now under arrest for the February murder of teenager Trayvon Martin, was simply acting in self-defense as authorized under a new “Stand Your Ground” law.
Nevada’s legislature passed a law that went into effect in October similar to Florida’s. The law simply allows citizens to defend themselves during life-threatening encounters without a requirement that they first attempt to retreat.
“I think this is a very defensible case. I’ve been practicing in Clark County for about 32 years, numerous murder cases, capital cases. Rarely have I ever had a case that I found as defensible as this is, especially in light of the current status, not only in the state of Nevada, but throughout the country, that’s the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws,” Weinstock told the court on Monday.
When the attorney attempted to rehash the facts of the case as so far known, however, Lane cut the attorney off.
“Certainly, as I think the state would agree, this is an instance where at 1:30 in the morning a young man, although he had been warned numerous times to stay away from Mr. Robbins’ house and family … based on that I’ll submit to the court that bail is more than appropriate,” Weinstock concluded quickly.
Lane simply wished to sidestep arguing the facts of the case, particularly since they already had been made during motions filed in his court as well as during two previous hearings in front of Judge Kimberly Wanker as well as during a previous preliminary hearing in the case.
Lane seemed to want to avoid any outbursts in court — more than a dozen Robbins supporters, dressed in purple with yellow ribbons tacked to their shirts crowded one side of the courtroom — and so decided he would make his ruling outside the hearing.
Robbins’ case was originally set to go to trial in Wanker’s court, but that judge was forced to recuse herself a few weeks ago after she and some of her courtroom staff were caught discussing the case by a court recording system.
The recording system was accidentally left on after a February hearing, the second in which Robbins was denied bail.
During a routine follow-up, Robbins’ attorneys were given file copies of the court recording, including the portion which seemed to catch the judge making statements deriding Robbins’ character.
Two trial dates were scheduled Monday for Robbins, both nine days long. The earliest trial date was set in November. A back-up date was scheduled in April 2013.
Robbins will remain in police custody at least until then.
-
- Daniel Robbins
That was a good decision that the new Judge made,givng his de ision out of the court room on a different day.Sounds like he was doing this in order to keep a calm courtroom. Well looks like a new judge or not Facts are Facts and No Bail.
lets see those aren’t the facts. the facts are that you have a good man protecting his home and family from the scum of pahrump and he has to stay there. He has no negative history. Meanwhile all of the child pornographers and the drug abusers and dealers get out. Ok Nye County go ahead and do what you want, come upon peoples property and dont worry about it cause the NCSO will protect you and not the homeowners rights. WOW I can see why Nye County was voted the most corrupt county in the US. Mr Robbins sorry you are going thru this but you will be vindicated!!! Oh by the way why was a 14 yr old out at 130 in the morning? Where was his parents? Oh wait maybe they are illegals and don’t have to answer to curfew laws????
Apparently the judge has not gone to law school. Bail is used to ensure that the defendant will come to court, unless he is a danger to the community, not to punish the defendant.
Based on the history of the case, when the victim voluntarily came to the defendants house and refused to leave, it would hard to say that the defendant is a danger to the community as a whole. It is not like he went into a bar and shot someone.
The defendant also has (or maybe had) a house in the community and probably had a job.
And then this: “Lane seemed to want to avoid any outbursts in court — more than a dozen Robbins supporters, dressed in purple with yellow ribbons tacked to their shirts crowded one side of the courtroom — and so decided he would make his ruling outside the hearing.”
Was this the real reason, or the opinion of the reporter? If this was the real reason, then apparently the judge doesn’t believe in open court.
If this was the opinion of the reporter, then I seriously have some questions about the honesty of the article.
Thank you Dan. You always seem to have common sense. I agree with you and I am tired of how this people think they can do whatever they want in this town. Makes me sick
Hey Dan,
You have serious questions about the honesty of the article because the reporter dared to report what happened in court and gave a simple impression — backed up by the judge’s actions — that the ruling was made to avoid outbursts in court? The reporter was there. Were you? If you have questions about this newspaper’s integrity, we invite you take a hike.
Wow, what a mature reply, PVT. Not bad for someone who has to hide behind the newspaper instead of using your name.
Did the judge say he was withholding judgment because of a potential outburst? If so, why didn’t you quote the judge? Journalism 101. (Actually, something you learn in junior high school)
Take a hike, how funny is that? Got anymore one liners? When you visited my blog and wrote some very funny stuff, I didn’t tell you to get lost, I didn’t sensor you etc. I actually thanked you for stopping by.
But then, PVT aka Matt Ward, I do have ways to write about you and your paper, you ought to check out all the lovely things I have written about you.
And I never told you to take a hike.
Take a hike. Hehehe, I’m still giggling like a little kid about that one liner.
@PVT
I am looking for some clarification on you defending the reporters’ assumption on the judges state of mind. Mr. Ward states “Lane seemed to want to avoid any outbursts in court” now if this is an editorial which would mean Mr. Ward is giving his opinion on what the judge was thinking in his head (which in reality no one could ever know what another individual is thinking) than that is great and I believe no one would have an issue with Mr. Ward’s loose interpretation of what transpired in the courtroom. However, if this is meant to be an article reporting facts and what took place in the courtroom for the bail hearing of Daniel Robbins, shouldn’t it just be the plain facts and not what the reporter believed the judge was thinking? Don’t you think by publishing a writers’ editorial constantly about this case would taint the jury pool in NYE County? The readers could in fact think that these are the true facts that took place by stating Mr. Ward is reporting the news as he heard it in the courtroom. Maybe next time Mr. Ward writes an article about any event going on in Pahrump he should think better at his choice of words and decide before publishing whether it should be an editorial piece or a factual news story.
I agree and stand behind what judge lane decided.You do not get bail for 1st degree murder.You don’t invite someone to your house then kill them and shot another kid.Lane was 100% wright the guy is right where he needs to and sould be.
obviously Nevada1 you don’t know the facts of the case. He was not invited over and even the lead detective Eric Murphy said it wasn’t an invitation, it was a warning to stay away from his family. His wife testified, which she didn’t have to, but her message to him was DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN. If that was an invitation then you are just as stupid. Lane is wrong. You cant give bail on some charges and not on others. You are saying that he isn’t a flight risk and not a danger on some but then on another. Doesn ‘t make sense. Come on Mr Robbins take it to the Supreme Court. Love to see some justice for you and all of these gun owners in this town!
Well tammy get your facts straight before you speak.If you were t the court hearing you would know they both invited him.I know alot about this case.But none the less there is a thing called (911) They did not get out of the car they were not near or in the house.Just sitting in the car that does not give anyone the right to walk out pull a gun and kill you.If you think it does your as stupid as the man who killed the boy.You don,t walk outside if someone pulls up up at night unless you know who it is(but they knew)and you sure don’t walk out in front of a car with the headlights on you unless your just plain stupid.They have this thing called a phone or cell phone you just pick it up and dail 911.That is unless you don’t know to use one.And i find that hard to believe
Good job, keep him in jail.
Comment removed. Stay on topic.
PVT
wow people really do show how uneducated they are when they speak in Racist terms,when they have no Idea what they are talking about. If this family is Legal or illegal has nothing to do with this case. That kid was out with someone old enough to be out, and it doesn’t change anything to the case that Someone was Killed and a kid was Shot. Use a phone and call 911 It’s called the POLICE and they could have removed those Kids. It doesn’t give them the right to come out of your house and Harm anyone. Know what your talking about before you say anything. The Judge made a good decision with NO BAIl.
( I don’t understand either why PVT would even let someone put there Racsit Comments on here anyway. )