fjb 24

Things are looking good for Rittenhouse. 555

guilt by media.

what is this?

Anyways, not likely many people are convicted of murder or any crime based on an allegation, not in most western courts. Not sure about courts in other countries.

Key, pay attention to that one word (alleged).

No evidence of that either.

If you refer to the trial testimony from the witness's, it should clear up your misunderstandings and cast your assumptions aside.

You know this how? Did you know Larry Elder is a white supremacist? What does this all have to do with the topic?

This has nothing to do with the criminal trial underway in WI. What is the racial implication you are alluding to?

.

Or maybe a jury acquittal nullifies any/all pending defense motions?

If the jury acquits, does/can the judge make a ruling on a defense's motion for a mistrial "without prejudice", and order a new trial??

And do judges often rule on motions post verdict? Seems odd.

Yes, the video tampering issue is a verbal motion during yesterdays hearing in the courtroom?

Ok, my understanding is that Rittenhouse lawyers have two motions, a written one filed a week ago dealing with the prosecutorial misconduct and the more recent one from yesterday (filed "without prejudice") about the video evidence issue, rulings pending for both. Wow, getting convoluted by the moment.

what is...the "prejudice" part?

I hear he's especially enamored by the defense side.

Either way, this judge and the entire case becomes as popular as a turd in the punch bowl.

So, if the judge rules and declares a mistrial...with "prejudice" the case is over. irrespective of the jury verdict and cannot be retried (need to confirm this).

They have already filed a motion for mistrial?

I see, yes. By waiting for the jury verdict BEFORE ruling on the defense motion for a mistrial, this has to be a huge benefit for the defense. Or, wait...if the jury acquits, AND the judge declares a mistrial...LoL, I'm officially lost now....Wait...."prejudice" has everything to do with EVERYTHING in a post verdict ruling? So, more suspense now.

Yeah, most likely...AND there is an outstanding defense motion to declare a mistrial. Why is the judge not ruling on this motion? Whats he waiting for?

The judges popularity will wane exponentially if he sets aside a jury verdict, but it's possible I spose, but very seldom for judges do so (to be checked). I'm certain the radicals will kick-off if he did. Maybe though, declaring a mistrial could be another looming scenario.

Ah, well, what do you mean?