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

[Mac Mickmanus]

7 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

what is...the "prejudice" part?

The defence claims that the prosecution bought up a previous unrelated  occurrence , that the Judge stated shouldn't be bought up .

   The prosecution also violated Kyles connotational rights to remain silent whilst being questioned .

   Also that some of the drone footage evidence had been tampered with 

[fjb 24]

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The "prejudice" is against the prosecution, i.e. that they cannot retry the case which is otherwise normal in a mistrial. 

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.

[fjb 24]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The defence claims that the prosecution bought up a previous unrelated  occurrence , that the Judge stated shouldn't be bought up .

   The prosecution also violated Kyles connotational rights to remain silent whilst being questioned .

   Also that some of the drone footage evidence had been tampered with 

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

[cmarshall]

5 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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.

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.

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

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.

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

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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

Tampering might be a bit strong. One story here alleges that it was the result of common video enhancement techniques and the other says it was the fault of the defendants computers that the video became decompressed. This normally happens in large image files when uploaded to the internet. I'm not suggesting which one is right, just presenting the arguments that I am seeing.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22788080/kyle-rittenhouse-drone-video-compressed-iphone-android

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2021-11-11/blow-up-at-rittenhouse-trial-over-enlarging-photos-and-video

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-lawyers-ask-judge-to-declare-mistrial-over-video

 

 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

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

Very odd.  If Schroeder is going to cancel the whole proceeding, why allow the jury to deliberate?  Suggests to me that he is preserving a way to overturn a guilty verdict that might look marginally less egregious than actually setting aside the verdict.  That's just speculation, of course, but it's based on Schroeder's display of extraordinary bias to date in favor of Rittenhouse.

[xylophone]

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

but it's based on Schroeder's display of extraordinary bias to date in favor of Rittenhouse.

And that is very sad IMO, and has no place in "normal" criminal proceedings. 

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And that is very sad IMO, and has no place in "normal" criminal proceedings. 

If Schroeder makes you sad, don't look over at the Supreme Court justices.

[fjb 24]

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?? 

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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?? 

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

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by fjb 24

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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?? 

Well, technically he might be able to do that, since his decision on the motion for a mistrial is pending, but that would be just too extraordinary even for a judicial miscreant like Schroeder.  A judge cannot set aside an acquittal, only a guilty verdict.  If he were effectively to use the motion for a mistrial to overrule an acquittal I think he would be disciplined by the judicial hierarchy.

 

It's also possible that the defense could simply withdraw their motion for a mistrial in the event of an acquittal.

Edited November 18, 2021 by cmarshall

[lannarebirth]

My concern now is that because the deliberation has gone on longer then some might have expected it will create an expectation of a guilty verdict to one charge or another. If that doesn't occur then yeah, there might be violence. I was expecting a quicker verdict and no violence previously. 

[cdemundo]

He had to travel to a different state to defend himself?

He shot 3 people ( is that right?) but no one else needed to shoot to defend themselves that night.

Evil.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 11/16/2021 at 4:50 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I haven't seen all the ins and outs but as an Australian it is just crazy that you guys can just decide to play out your hero fantasies by taking an AR15 out to the streets to protect the 'good' people. I think it was a good step that the judge allowed lesser charges as murder was unlikely. The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help. I think his crying was desirable for the defence but not fully staged. He is a little kid with a big gun. 

I think the racial point is relevant. Imagine if a black man turned up at a January 6 type thing and started shooting. 

Hopefully law changes about weapons come out of this. But not likely. I think he should get minimum 10 years. I'll think he'll get minimum 5. 

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

[fjb 24]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I think the racial point is relevant. Imagine if a black man turned up at a January 6 type thing and started shooting.

.

Edited November 18, 2021 by fjb 24

[fjb 24]

On 11/15/2021 at 9:50 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think the racial point is relevant. Imagine if a black man turned up at a January 6 type thing and started shooting.

This has nothing to do with the criminal trial underway in WI.

What is the racial implication you are alluding to?

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

The people who were shot were looters?

 

12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

It was BLM protest against a police shooting of a black man.

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:18 AM, cmarshall said:

how could a kid who has no legal right to carry the weapon have the right to use it in self-defense? 

There is no law in that state that stipulates that he had no legal right to carry that gun; the law in question does not allow him to carry the weapon only if it is short-barreled, it wasn't.   

[Liverpool Lou]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:16 AM, bbko said:

Who openly bring a loaded AR15 to a mob-likedemonstration, patrolling the streets then claims self-defense when it's used?  He went looking for attention and he got it...

The three people who tried to kill him got it better!

[Liverpool Lou]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:27 AM, Jeffr2 said:

On 11/17/2021 at 7:22 AM, EVENKEEL said:

I sincerely hope you don't believe that, but the sad truth is many do. 

You are aware of how this started, right?  The sad truth is many get their info from right wing media sites which distort what really was going on.  Hmm....

You are aware of how this started, right?  The sad truth is many get their info from left wing media sites which distort what really was going on.  Hmm....

 

Left wing media are known for not distorting the truth?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 11/17/2021 at 7:46 AM, The Cipher said:

On 11/17/2021 at 7:27 AM, Jeffr2 said:

You are aware of how this started, right?  The sad truth is many get their info from right wing media sites which distort what really was going on.  Hmm....

Out of curiosity, where do u get ur news?

It's dark and musty!

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There is no law in that state that stipulates that he had no legal right to carry that gun; the law in question does not allow him to carry the weapon only if it is short-barreled, it wasn't.   

He wasn't legally allowed to own any gun.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There is no law in that state that stipulates that he had no legal right to carry that gun; the law in question does not allow him to carry the weapon only if it is short-barreled, it wasn't.   

He wasn't legally allowed to own any gun.

Read the law in question in this case.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You are aware of how this started, right?  The sad truth is many get their info from left wing media sites which distort what really was going on.  Hmm....

 

Left wing media are known for not distorting the truth?

True, but to be fair, right wing media distorts the truth as well.

[Liverpool Lou]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Quote

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

It was BLM protest against a police shooting of a black man.

The BLM protest is not on trial!    There was no BLM or racial aspect to the case brought against the white Rittenhouse for shooting three white men!

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Read the law in question in this case.

possess is not the same as own

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The BLM protest is not on trial!    There was no BLM or racial aspect to the case brought against the white Rittenhouse for shooting three white men!

Rittenhouse was there because it was a BLM protest.

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse was there because it was a BLM protest

You know this how?

Did you know Larry Elder is a white supremacist?

What does this all have to do with the topic?

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The BLM protest is not on trial!    There was no BLM or racial aspect to the case brought against the white Rittenhouse for shooting three white men!

Rittenhouse was there because it was a BLM protest.

He was not charged with anything to do with the BLM protest specifically and he was there to try to protect property.    He was charged with shooting three people who were trying to kill him because he shot a white man who was trying to kill him!