Hal Turner's Lawyer, Michael Orozco, admits Hal was a "Agent Provocateur" for the FBI
One more point on this.
What does an “agent provocateur” claim have to do with a First Amendment defense? Nothing that I can see. It’s either protected speech or it’s not, regardless of the motive. So then why raise the agent provocateur issue at all? The only reason I can think of would be to muddy the prosecution’s case and place additional doubt in the judges’/ juries’ mind when you think your First Amendment defense could be weak. (i.e. “If
my client over stepped the free speech line, it was only because he was paid to do so.”)