Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[Cecilie1200]

Of course they do.

But what's to say that the next jury won't face the same political pressure as this one?

It makes no sense.

Last time I checked, every time the defense has asked for a mistrial, it's been with prejudice, which means Kyle couldn't be tried again.

Even if it was a mistrial without prejudice, there's a good possibility the DA's office wouldn't choose to prosecute again after the debacle this trial has been.

 

[Faun]

BREAKING: Rittenhouse defense team asks for a ‘mistrial with prejudice’ after prosecutors withheld evidence [UPDATED] – The Right Scoop

therightscoop.com

LOL

Yeah, the defense is getting increasingly nervous as deliberations drag on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Last time I checked, every time the defense has asked for a mistrial, it's been with prejudice, which means Kyle couldn't be tried again.

But one of the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial without prejudice in the open courtroom about an hour ago.

I'm flabbergasted.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even if it was a mistrial without prejudice, there's a good possibility the DA's office wouldn't choose to prosecute again after the debacle this trial has been.

I agree, and but this is a gamble on the defense side.

The only thing I can think of is that this was a verbal request, while the 'with prejudice' was a written motion. I'm assuming written motions hold more weight than verbal motions do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But why would the defense alter their stance so late in the game? Are they thinking the jury will convict?

 

[Faun]

Listen. Try to follow along. I’m not trying to convince you that I would do nothing. If you’ve already chased me and thrown and object at me and threatened to kill me and are lunging at me, you bet I’ll react.

but here, by the time Rittenhouse raises the rifle, he cannot be provoking Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum has already taken his nearly final actions on Earth. He is already driving toward Rittenhouse and gets shut IN that process.

once again, the provocation which is prohibited is the kind that elicits a REACTION from the “victim.” The consequence of the reaction can’t be used by the shooter. Rittenhouse can’t say “I shot him in self defense” because of what he was doing — IF what Rosenbaum was doing was provoked by Rittenhouse.

What Rosenbaum was doing was already done, he was chasing and driving or diving at Rittenhouse. It was only then that Rittenhouse leveled the gun and fired.

Rittenhouse couldn’t have “provoked” Rosenbaum to lunge “because” the gun has been raised or pointed. Rosenbaum was already doing the conduct that required Rittenhouse to defend himself.

There's evidence Rosenbaum didn't threaten Rittenhouse earlier. And what Rosenbaum threw at Rittenhouse was a plastic bag with socks, an empty water bottle, toothpaste and discharge papers. And up until Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse with unknown intentions, seemingly provoked by Rittenhouse pointing his gun moments earlier at Ziminski. Then when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was within his right to defend his own life from someone threatening him with a "lethal weapon."

And the provocation occurred before Rosenbaum lunged. The lunge appears to be the result of Rittenhouse when he first pointed his gun at Rosenbaum about 3-4 seconds before the lunge.

 

[Faun]

My opinion is that this motion should succeed on the merits.

View attachment 565345

Why, if the video corroborates Rittenhouse's testimony that he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum?

Shouldn't the jury decide the case, not the judge?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This does speak to the prejudice motion:

 

[TemplarKormac]

Jury has been sent home for today.

On to day 3.

 

[BackAgain]

There's evidence Rosenbaum didn't threaten Rittenhouse earlier. And what Rosenbaum threw at Rittenhouse was a plastic bag with socks, an empty water bottle, toothpaste and discharge papers. And up until Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse with unknown intentions, seemingly provoked by Rittenhouse pointing his gun moments earlier at Ziminski. Then when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was within his right to defend his own life from someone threatening him with a "lethal weapon."

And the provocation occurred before Rosenbaum lunged. The lunge appears to be the result of Rittenhouse when he first pointed his gun at Rosenbaum about 3-4 seconds before the lunge.

The pursuit and the throwing of the object (which was not preserved for evidence and the contents of which we will never know) and the death threats all came at the defendant before he raised the weapon.

The problem you have (whether you see it or not or admit it or not) is simply that: Rosenbaum provoked the Rittenhouse response. Not the other way around.

Rittenhouse hadn’t done shit to Rosenbaum. But at the crucial moment, Rittenhouse showed that by the evidence he had legit & reasonable reason to fear Rosenbaum. Self defense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But one of the defense attorneys asked for a mistrial without prejudice in the open courtroom about an hour ago.

I'm flabbergasted.

Did he? I was not aware of that. Was that about the crappy video?

I'm not a lawyer, obviously, so I don't know the technical ins-and-outs. I would think there are limits on the circumstances under which they can request with prejudice or without, so that may be it. It would be legal malpractice not to demand a mistrial when the prosecution withholds evidence, but it might not be enough to request it with prejudice. It's also possible Kyle himself didn't want to request it with prejudice.

Here's what I have about the defense's statement (from Townhall.com):

Chirafisi said they consulted with Rittenhouse and they want the mistrial without prejudice, "based upon the fact that if we're really trying to get the heart of it, we've watched the video, I can tell you what we think but it doesn't matter what we think because we don't get to present that to the jury anymore."

"We have to ask for this and I'm asking for it. We understand that it's going to be without prejudice...We understand [the state] will do it again. But I think we will all have the same information, the same quality of videos, and I think that is required in a case like this where he's looking at a life sentence, potentially without parole if he's convicted," Chirafisi added.

So that could support either theory I've proposed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I find this reaction puzzling...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree, and but this is a gamble on the defense side.

The only thing I can think of is that this was a verbal request, while the 'with prejudice' was a written motion. I'm assuming written motions hold more weight than verbal motions do.

It has a lot more to do with the reason for the request.

Pretty much everything about a criminal trial is a gamble. If you don't have some gambler in you, you don't become a trial attorney.

 

[Faun]

The pursuit and the throwing of the object (which was not preserved for evidence and the contents of which we will never know) and the death threats all came at the defendant before he raised the weapon.

The problem you have (whether you see it or not or admit it or not) is simply that: Rosenbaum provoked the Rittenhouse response. Not the other way around.

Rittenhouse hadn’t done shit to Rosenbaum. But at the crucial moment, Rittenhouse showed that by the evidence he had legit & reasonable reason to fear Rosenbaum. Self defense.

The death threats were proven false and a witness testified to what was in the bag.

And again, the chase began when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Ziminski. I also don't recall if McGinnis testified about this during the trial but he initially told police he observed Rittenhouse was not handling his firearm very well.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 565423
I find this reaction puzzling...

Why? It means this case isn't the slam dunk you thought it was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did he? I was not aware of that. Was that about the crappy video?

Yep.

The defense is raising an issue with how the state supposedly gave the defense an altered copy of the drone footage. The state had an HD version and gave the defense the SD (the crappy video) version.

And the state's attorney has supposedly been caught with video editing software on his laptop, Handbrake they call it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pretty much everything about a criminal trial is a gamble. If you don't have some gambler in you, you don't become a trial attorney.

Hence why I am an armchair trial lawyer and not an actual one.

 

[jc456]

Last time I checked, every time the defense has asked for a mistrial, it's been with prejudice, which means Kyle couldn't be tried again.

Even if it was a mistrial without prejudice, there's a good possibility the DA's office wouldn't choose to prosecute again after the debacle this trial has been.

Can’t change video recordings

 

[Faun]

Yep.

The defense is raising an issue with how the state supposedly gave the defense an altered copy of the drone footage. The state had an HD version and gave the defense the SD (the crappy video) version.

And the state's attorney has supposedly been caught with video editing software on his laptop, Handbrake they call it.

Stop lying. You have no idea if that software was even used on the video.

 

[j-mac]

Rittenhouse pointed his gun at YellowPants guy, though there no indication Rittenhouse saw that.

Don't know what you're trying to say here, but If you believe that Kyle pointed his gun at some point at yellow pants guy, then produce evidence of such....

But then Rittenhouse did see him point his gun at Ziminski. And then of course, he saw Rittenhouse point his gun at him.

My Goodness, Do you mean Rosenbaum?

1. The defense says he didn't point at Z, and the photo's, or drone photo are to obscured to tell...

2. Again, Kyle only pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum after a shot fired by Z, and a plastic bag thrown at him by Rosenbaum when he was already being chased....