cmarshall

As I understand it, it is not the motion that has or doesn't have "prejudice" but the declaration of a mistrial that is with prejudice or not. So, if the judge were to declare a mistrial only he would decide whether the prosecution would be permitted to retry the case. It's like suing someone for a million dollars. You may call for that award, if you wish, but you don't get to decide the size of the award. Only the jury or the judge in a bench trial actually get to make that determination. It's not really convoluted. The defense is obliged to pursue every available avenue to benefit their client. So, they always file motions to dismiss.

More of your made up jurisprudence.

The "prejudice" is against the prosecution, i.e. that they cannot retry the case which is otherwise normal in a mistrial. The usual cause of a mistrial is a hung jury. The prosecution then always has the right to retry. A judge could declare a mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. In that case the judge may feel that the defendant's rights to a fair trial have been fatally violated to the extent that a fair trial is not possible. In the Rittenhouse trial there have been three bases on which the defense has called for a mistrial, in all of which prosecutorial misconduct as alleged. One was the attempt by the prosecution to introduce a video recording of Rittenhouse's comments at an unrelated event which the judge had disallowed. Then the prosecution attempted to question Rittenhouse on the stand about his remaining silent during his first questioning by the police, i.e. exercising his Fifth Amendment right to silence. That was when the judge, rightly in my opinion, hit the roof in court. The third and last occasion was that the prosecution played in a court a higher resolution version of the infra-red aerial footage of the first shooting than had been provided to the defense. The judge therefore had all the facts available to him on which to rule on each motion to dismiss prior to giving the case to the jury. It is unusual that he did not decide promptly. Defense counsel often makes motions to dismiss routinely during criminal cases, even if they do not expect the motion to succeed, since it preserves a basis for a later appeal.

Maybe not in Wisconsin. Schroeder is the longest serving judge in WI, so he must be popular.

Correct, but such a ruling is rare.

Not true. The defense made an oral motion for mistrial last week, prior to the case being given to the jury. They then followed up with the same motion in writing on Monday, the day the case was given to the jury. In fact, there were three motions for mistrial by the defense, at least two of which occurred much earlier in the trial and are still pending. Schroeder is acting strangely and given his other extraordinary bias toward the defendant, his decision to rule on the motions for mistrial after giving the case to the jury is suspicious.

Of course they have, as is normal. A motion for mistrial is not an appeal of a verdict.

More utter nonsense. Defense motions for mistrial occur in almost every trial. And there is no valid reason for the judge not to rule on such a motion before allowing the jury to deliberate.

Completely untrue. The two motions for a mistrial that have been made are the only kind of "official claim" that can be made. Do you just like to make up jurisprudence? As far as I can tell it is rare for a judge not to rule on a motion for a mistrial before handing the case to the jury, since the jury could be wasting its time.

It seems to be quite unusual for a judge not to rule on a motion for mistrial before handing the case to the jury. I think Schroeder is preserving his option to overrule a guilty verdict, but to do so indirectly.

Judge Schroeder already refused to allow the prosecution to refer to the people shot by Rittenhouse as "victims," but permitted the defense to refer indiscriminately to protesters as "looters" and "arsons." He insisted that the jury applaud a witness for the defense, before hearing his testimony. He has two motions for mistrial from the defense that are still pending even after he has turned the case over to the jury. He permitted his cellphone ringtone to sound out in court playing a theme song for the Trump campaign. And Schroeder is seventy-five years old and doesn't come up for election again until 2026. My guess is he doesn't much care what people think of him at this point.

Beyond the possibilities of guilty, not guilty, or hung jury there is also the possibility that Judge Schroeder will eventually rule on the two pending motions for mistrial filed by the defense. He can even declare a mistrial with prejudice, which would prevent Rittenhouse from being retried as is normal in a mistrial. Since Schroeder has demonstrated truly remarkable bias in favor of Rittenhouse, I think mistrial with prejudice is a real possibility, especially if the jury does convict him on anything. A judge in a criminal case also has the power to "set aside" a guilty verdict, usually on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to meat the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I wouldn't put that past Schroeder either. No court reporter can remember any case where the judge has insisted that the jury applaud a witness about to give testimony. Schroeder should be impeached, but he can do a lot of damage to justice in the meantime.

The fascists always prefer their own armed thugs to the authorities that they always find deficient.

Gun nuts are a lot alike,. Both of these guys were vigilantes who committed assault and killed someone.

The longer the deliberation the more likely that the jury is hung as they try get some holdouts to flip to the majority. I say verdict on day three, otherwise hung.

That's right. My presumption that a seventeen year old, who has illegally obtained an assault weapon and travelled across state lines is already deeply in the wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Then his shooting three people killing two pretty much solidifies my view of him as a dangerous criminal. He found the trouble he went looking for.

All of which happened after he pointed his assault rifle at unarmed people thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon which deprived him of a legitimate basis to claim self-defense.

I thought for a while that there might be merit to the self-defense argument for Rittenhouse, but the summation by the prosecution persuaded me otherwise. If you are the one who initiates violence you no longer have any basis to claim self-defense. Rittenhouse initiated violence when he pointed his gun at one of his victims thereby committing felony assault with a deadly weapon. (Assault means merely menacing. Causing actual physical injury is the separate crime of battery.) It's probably unlikely that the WI jury will see it that way though.

Install the free VirtualBox in the Windows installation on one computer and convert the Windows installation on the other into a virtual machine that runs in its own window all on the one box. As long as you are not editing videos it should work fine. Attach a second monitor and run each os on its own screen.

I understand that since a citizen in WI has a right to carry an assault rifle that means that if his life is threatened then he has the legal right to use lethal force. However, how could a kid who has no legal right to carry the weapon have the right to use it in self-defense? I don't know the law on that, but it would make no sense to me. It would seem logical that there is no legal right to use a weapon that was illegally obtained. Indeed, the law does not allow for the punishment you suggest, although perhaps he could be put on probation for life which is probably not possible either. Since WI does not have a "stand your ground law," Rittenhouse had a duty to withdraw and could be convicted on the basis of his failure to do so. WA ruling not a precedent for a WI court case.

Part of the disgraceful conduct of this case is that Rittenhouse has not been charged for his violations of weapons laws. He obtained his gun illegally since he was below the age for a license. And he carried across state boundaries, which is probably another offense. Rittenhouse has also associated with white supremacists. It is probably fair that that fact could not be introduced into the case, but we the public are fully entitled to consider it. He may be convicted for shooting Huber who only had a skateboard and therefore did not pose a threat to Rittenhouse's life. I hope that Huber and the families of the murder victims sue Rittenhouse and are able to seize whatever income Rittenhouse ever acquires.

Please feel free to ignore any post you wish for any reason whatever.

And there goes the union.

But that's not what he said. What we understand is that Brexit passed, because of the rise of English nationalism, of which the post in question is an example.

That's correct. You did break the law. Doesn't mean that anything will necessarily happen to you, but I wouldn't do it.