‘His Thirst for Revenge Led to a First Degree Murder’: Prosecution Presents Closing Argument for Ongoing Murder Trial

By Serene Chang

ALAMEDA, CA — Marius Dante Robinson’s murder trial drew to a close Monday in Alameda County Superior Court with the prosecution pleading to the jury to convict Robinson of first degree murder.

Deputy District Attorney Erin Kingsbury explained various legal definitions including homicide, murder, and malice in order to support his argument. Kingsbury also reminded the jury of key surveillance footage allegedly proving Robinson’s guilt and pointed to inconsistencies in Robinson’s testimony.

“The defendant’s choices that afternoon, his choice to arm himself with a gun, go out and search for vengeance is why we are all gathered here today,” said Kingsbury. “This defendant’s numerous choices, his thirst for revenge, led to a first degree murder.”

Robinson has 25 charges, with use of and assault with a firearm and murder being the most discussed in the prosecution’s closing argument.

According to the prosecution, the victim verbally “disrespected” Robinson’s wife on July 2, 2020. As a result, the defendant grabbed a firearm and went searching for the victim—eventually, finding him and firing in his direction five times.

Kingsbury defined homicide as the lawful or unlawful killing of a human being. However, he believes lawful homicide is “not an issue with this case.”

Murder is an unlawful homicide where someone commits an act causing the death of another person in “malice and forethought.” Malice, in general, does not necessarily require ill-will or premeditation, although “express malice” requires intent to kill even without ill-will, he explained.

Numerous factors in Robinson’s case indicate that the defendant killed the victim with “express malice,” which is a prerequisite for first degree murder, according to Kingsbury.

For one, the defendant was armed with “one of the most lethal weapons readily available,” as he went searching for the victim on foot, said the prosecutor, noting that in various surveillance videos provided to the jury, Robinson clutches an object to his body as he walks.

Robinson claims he was walking in that manner to prevent his pants from falling down. However, as Kingsbury points out, Robinson later stated he was actually adjusting his buckle since it was “cinched so tightly.”

Kingsbury alleged that Robinson was directly lying about not carrying a firearm because it contradicts numerous video exhibits presented throughout the trial.

Additionally, Robinson retrieved his BMW, alleged the prosecutor, after checking every single street in a four block radius to find the victim. Robinson even testified to driving around for 30 minutes searching for the victim without stopping for gas.

“The fact that the defendant went and got in his BMW is another piece of evidence that shows his level of commitment in finding Mr. Coleman,” Kingsbury said. “He couldn’t quickly widen the search on foot so he went and got his car. That behavior shows commitment, effort, and persistence, which all makes clear from the very beginning of this that he was determined to find Mr. Coleman.”

Robinson, on the other hand, claims he was searching for the victim because he was concerned about his wife’s safety.

The prosecution counters that his wife was already safe with her brother, who is at least six feet tall, at the house.

“She was safe at that point,” Kingsbury said. “You didn’t search for the victim because you wanted to find out what happened. The only reason to go back out at that period of time is because you had the intent to kill.”

Most importantly, stated Kingsbury, there is evidence Robinson pulled the trigger five times, firing shots at the victim and also down a busy street in Oakland.

Afterwards, Robinson fled the scene in his car, the prosecution alleges.

DDA Kingsbury reminds the jury a witness testified on hearing Robinson argue with an individual in a store and stating: “Where’s the guy that disrespected my wife?”

Kingsbury reiterated inconsistencies in Robinson’s testimony, claiming he lied about not knowing anything about an argument in the store.

“He lied to his friends and family and lied to the police, but he was very slick with this. He picked and chose where to admit he lied and minimized the lies he told to be consistent with the evidence,” Kingsbury said. “Mr. Robinson is clearly very smart.”

About The Author

Serene Chang is a sophomore at UC Berkeley studying History, Journalism, and Human Rights. She is from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for