Because this isn't a question of free speech - threats aren't covered. This is also not, by the usual definition, a hate crime - he didn't pick a victim by race. And there is nothing to suggest that he would have been any less hostile had a white guy been involved.

But among the many things the article doesn't get into, the one I'm curious about is the lawyer. Was there baggage from the earlier case? Was the lawyer going for a precedent? Ongoing conflicts with officials?

This one shouldn't be going to trial. The guy is guilty of a minor offense. If the prosecution and his lawyer do their jobs he will get a minor penalty on the "kick his ass" part of the outburst and forget the rest. The only way this goes any further is if somebody (and it could well be his lawyer) decides to make it a test case. If that happens, based on the article, he's screwed. He's guilty on "kick his ass" and technicaly he could get the 5 years for that alone.