In a world where most of the headlines are bad news it's nice to read it good human interest story

[fncceo]

No I'm saying the whole trial was geared to be pro defender which is quite unusual.

Defending the rights of the accused is the basis of our system of jurisprudence. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most fundamental pillars of a fair judicial system.

Are you arguing against that?

 

[Stann]

Defending the rights of the accused is the basis of our system of jurisprudence. Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most fundamental pillars of a fair judicial system.

Are you arguing against that?

No, but at the same time the court is supposed to be indifferent not favoring one party or over the other.

 

[fncceo]

No, but at the same time the court is supposed to be indifferent not favoring one party or over the other.

Au contraire, the court is supposed to uphold the rights of the accused to a fair trial. The court is obligated to allow only relevant facts to be argued.

The prosecution is not allowed, by law, to introduce evidence judged to be irrelevant.

 

[Stann]

Au contraire, the court is supposed to uphold the rights of the accused to a fair trial. The court is obligated to allow only relevant facts to be argued.

The prosecution is not allowed, by law, to introduce evidence judged to be irrelevant.

So the character of the defendant isn't relevant to what he may or may not have done.

 

[fncceo]

So the character of the defendant isn't relevant to what he may or may not have done.

In order for any evidence to be introduced, prosecution must prove relevance. If they failed to do so, they have only themselves to blame.

The prosecution may, although they probably won't, appeal the decision.

 

[Stann]

In order for any evidence to be introduced, prosecution must prove relevance. If they failed to do so, they have only themselves to blame.

The prosecution may, although they probably won't, appeal the decision.

But in this special case the judge blocked much of the information that the prosecutors wanted to bring forward for no good reason.

 

[fncceo]

But in this special case the judge blocked much of the information that the prosecutors wanted to bring forward for no good reason.

Again, I've given evidence in court several times, the judge can only exclude evidence from being presented in court for two reasons... the first is any evidence not legally obtained. The other is evidence judged by the court to be irrelevant to the case.

Defendants are tried based on the facts of the situation. Not on speculation of what they might of done based on unsubstantiated past events.

 

[Stann]

Again, I've given evidence in court several times, the judge can only exclude evidence from being presented in court for two reasons... the first is any evidence not legally obtained. The other is evidence judged by the court to be irrelevant to the case.

Defendants are tried based on the facts of the situation. Not on speculation of what they might of done based on unsubstantiated past events.

He blocked it before it was even presented that's what's incredible.

 

[fncceo]

He blocked it before it was even presented that's what's incredible.

Every piece of evidence the prosecution intends to present is in the brief to court ... available under disclosure law to the defense.

Both sides know, before the court sits, what evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and can file pre-trial motions to exclude evidence. The judge will rule on those motions for the reasons I laid out above.

That happens in EVERY single criminal trial from Article I Courts to Federal District Courts. There is nothing special about the Rittenhouse Trial except the media circus and the zeal that some had to make into a political show trial.

If Mr. Rittenhouse is ever before a court again ... I advise the prosecution to be ready to argue their case IN COURT and not depend on the media to secure a conviction.

 

[Stann]

Every piece of evidence the prosecution intends to present is in the brief to court ... available under disclosure law to the defense.

Both sides know, before the court sits, what evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and can file pre-trial motions to exclude evidence. The judge will rule on those motions for the reasons I laid out above.

That happens in EVERY single criminal trial from Article I Courts to Federal District Courts. There is nothing special about the Rittenhouse Trial except the media circus and the zeal that some had to make into a political show trial.

If Mr. Rittenhouse is ever before a court again ... I advise the prosecution to be ready to argue their case IN COURT and not depend on the media to secure a conviction.

You obviously saw a different trial than I saw. The judge sent the parameters of what could and couldn't be discussed which allowed for only one possible outcome, it was rigged. It's Thanksgiving I'm sorry I'm not going to discuss this all night I made my case, you're just going along with the far right mob that ran this court. Believe whatever you wish, I cannot believe what I saw, not in America this shouldn't be happening.

 

[fncceo]

I made my case

You actually didn't.

 

[Stann]

You actually didn't.

Believe what you wish like I said. I will never believe that this court made its case. Unfortunately throughout our history there are lots of cases of miscarriages of Justice. This is just one more of them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

He blocked it before it was even presented that's what's incredible.

Not true.