U.S. Topic -- Predictions for the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Very few protests encompass burning property and looting statistically.

 

Very few sports riots encompass burning and looting.

 

But in those cases where these types of events do devolve into burning and looting, why do believe the responses should be different?

I haven't suggested that they should be treated differently 

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I haven't suggested that they should be treated differently 

But you only bash the protesters and praise the members of the militia.  I asked before.  Do you think there are nutters on both sides?

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

But you only bash the protesters and praise the members of the militia.  I asked before.  Do you think there are nutters on both sides?

If there are people on the streets intent of causing destruction by burning and looting , I can understand it when people take measures to protect their cities and towns from getting burnt down .

   I dont put the "nutter" label on people .

[metisdead]

An off topic post about the Stanley Cup riot has been removed:

 

Forum Netiquette:

 

7. Please do not post off-topic responses in an attempt to hijack the thread. Such posts will be deleted. 

[fjb 24]

15 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Imagine this: He walks free !

 

The crazy (at times) US legal system allows this.

The jury could find him guilty as charged.

But the Judge can over rule the Jury if he doesnt agree! Absurd but true.

 

Just saying.

 

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZSekPQHaT/

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.

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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.

If the jury votes to convict and then the judge declares a mistrial, that would not be good.

[Danderman123]

Having the defendant pick jurors via lottery is not a good idea.

 

People want to be on the jury after a long trial. If the defendant picks them, that creates an artificial bias on the part of those he picks.

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

If the jury votes to convict and then the judge declares a mistrial, that would not be good.

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?

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the jury votes to convict and then the judge declares a mistrial, that would not be good.

They have decent grounds for claiming a mistrial . 

The prosecution withheld evidence , which is grounds for declaring a mistrial 

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the jury votes to convict and then the judge declares a mistrial, that would not be good.

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.  

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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?

Quite likely that either party involved would have to make an official claim to declare a mistrial and the Judge would investigate those claims and both parties would wait until the verdict is given before making a mistrial claim 

[cmarshall]

13 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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?

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.

[fjb 24]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Quite likely that either party involved would have to make an official claim to declare a mistrial and the Judge would investigate those claims and both parties would wait until the verdict is given before making a mistrial claim 

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.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

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.

It wouldn't make much sense for the defense to claim a mistrial if they are going to get a Not Guilty verdict .

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Quite likely that either party involved would have to make an official claim to declare a mistrial and the Judge would investigate those claims and both parties would wait until the verdict is given before making a mistrial claim 

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.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It wouldn't make much sense for the defense to claim a mistrial if they are going to get a Not Guilty 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.

[fjb 24]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It wouldn't make much sense for the defense to claim a mistrial if they are going to get a Not Guilty verdict .

They have already filed a motion for mistrial?

 

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

They have already filed a motion for mistrial?

 

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

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

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.

The evidence for a mistrial only came to light AFTER the trial was finished and the Judge had handed the case over to the jury to decide .

   The reasons for a possible mistrial is that the  prosecution  withheld evidence and that was only revealed after the trial had finished 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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.

A valid reason would be that the Judge was unaware of the reasons for a possible mistrial verdict when handing over the case to the jury for a verdict and the evidence was only revealed whilst the Jury were deliberating 

 

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The evidence for a mistrial only came to light AFTER the trial was finished and the Judge had handed the case over to the jury to decide .

   The reasons for a possible mistrial is that the  prosecution  withheld evidence and that was only revealed after the trial had finished 

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.

[fjb 24]

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).

[fjb 24]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

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).

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

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

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).

Correct, but such a ruling is rare.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

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

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

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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.  

Those were on the grounds that there wouldn't be a retrial , he could also make further mistrial claims where there could be a retrial .

  And he would wait until the verdict had been given before making a claim of a mistrial where they could be a retrial 

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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

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

[fjb 24]

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Correct, but such a ruling is rare.

what is...the "prejudice" part?

[cmarshall]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

what is...the "prejudice" part?

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. 

[cmarshall]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Those were on the grounds that there wouldn't be a retrial , he could also make further mistrial claims where there could be a retrial .

  And he would wait until the verdict had been given before making a claim of a mistrial where they could be a retrial 

More of your made up jurisprudence.