Which way do you think the Kyle Rittenhouse jury will go?

[Karl_K]

I don’t understand this rule that if you feel threatened in any away you can shoot someone. @Karl_K do you agree with this? Am I missing something or is there more to this that I’m not aware of? This sounds crazy to me.

It has to be a credible threat of death or severe injury that is happening at the time of defense. The wording varies by state but the idea is the same.
Some states you have to try and retreat first, others you dont.
The states case proved it was self defense and one of the people shot even admitted it on the stand.
All 3 shootings were clearly self defense.
Now the question is should he be there in the first place and did he legally have a gun.
Both of those charges were dismissed because it was legal under Wi law.
Was it right vs legal, in my opinion he was an idiot for being there and it was not right but it was not illegal under that states laws.
So there for the ruling is correct.

 

[Calliecake]

@Karl_K , People knew Rittenhouse shot the first person he shot. At that point wasn’t Kyle an active shooter? That’s how I would have viewed him if I were there. He shot someone. No one else shot anyone. He shot two more people after that. Weren't the other people justified in trying to prevent him from shooting others.

Rittenhouse set off a deadly chain of events. None of this had to happen. How could he not be found guilty with reckless endangerment? He was underage, broke curfew and shot people with a gun he should not have legally had. How does he walk free?

 

[Maja]

@Karl_K Yes! Anyone who watched the videos could see KR was attacked several times by armed assailants in the space of just a few minutes. Self-defense was the right call.

 

[Mreader]

He was underage, broke curfew and shot people with a gun he should not have legally had. How does he walk free?

The judge dismissed the illegal weapon charge

 

[Mreader]

@Karl_K , People knew Rittenhouse shot the first person he shot. At that point wasn’t Kyle an active shooter? That’s how I would have viewed him if I were there. He shot someone. No one else shot anyone. He shot two more people after that. Weren't the other people justified in trying to prevent him from shooting others.

This is where things definitely get complicated. On the one hand these people were trying to take down who they thought was an active shooter; on the other they were attacking someone who defending himself. In the chaos it wasn't clear that the first shooting may have been self-defense. The fact that Rittenhouse was a total dumbass is not illegal. Without that illegal weapon charge there just isn't much more in jury could do imho. And the idea that "he went there to kill" - there is just no way to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA - what sucks about this also is that it is so political; the alt right will hail him as a hero trying to protect his community (eyes rolling). That part really galls me. I wish (but it will never happen) that everyone would see that this kid is a wannabe cop who never should have been there.

 

[Calliecake]

Keep in mind everyone that Rittenhouse is now free to walk around with his AR15 gun that he did not legally obtain and used to kill 2 people.

 

[lala646]

My remaining hope is that his future and that of his family will be utterly destroyed in civil court. May be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm going to hold onto hope until the bitter end.

 

[Mreader]

I think this piece does a good job of explaining why the jury came back with a verdict that they did.

Analysis: Here's why Kyle Rittenhouse is likely to be acquitted — and why the law on self-defense must change

If the jury acquits Kyle Rittenhouse, then they will be doing what the law requires them to do. That should prompt us to ask why the law dictates this result.

madison.com

 

[MollyMalone]

I'd like to offer several FYIs - will break them into 2 posts:
* Here is a link to a webpage where Milwaukee's CBS station has embedded the judge's 35-page pre-deliberations INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY [a/k/a jury charge] in their entirety:

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Read the full jury instructions as deliberations enter day 4

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- Jurors in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial entered day four of deliberations Friday, Nov. 19. Rittenhouse faces five felony charges for his actions during the deadly protest shooting

www.cbs58.com

You'll see on page 2 of the charge that the jury was instructed:

Self-defense is an issue this case. As to each of counts 1 through 5, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense [emphasis mine]. ​

Another way of putting it: the State must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense of justification/self-defense/

Think most states impose this same heavy burden of proof upon the prosecution in justification/self-defense cases, but in some states, the burden is upon the defendant to prove, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that s/he acted in self-defense.

* For those who have been thinking that Rittenhouse should never have been indicted in the first place, take a look at pages 2-3 of the Rittenhouse jury Instructions and you'll see the description given to the jurors of the basic elements of self-defense -- which include the requirement that the defendant must have reasonably believed that his use of force was necessary. And

In determining whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense. The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury now.​

As a former, longtime NYC prosecutor, I can say that it's rare for a defendant to come before the grand jury and testify in an effort to convince the grand jury that it should not indict him because he acted in self-defense. And it's wholly understandable imo that a defense attorney would not advise the client to testify before the grand jury. Why not? Because

• A defendant who wants to testify before the grand jury must waive immunity & surrender the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination (i.e., he cannot answer some of the questions posed by the grand jurors and the presenting prosecutor, but decline to answer others on the ground that his answer might be incriminating).
• If the defense attorney can be present while the client is testifying (NY defense lawyers can be in the grand jury room during that time, but I don't think that's true in all states), his/her role is essentially that of a passive observer. Although the lawyer is permitted to raise certain kinds of narrow objections, the lawyer cannot lead the defendant through his narrative via direct examination-style of questions, as is done at trial, or seek to clarify or "rehabilitate" the defendant's testimony via re-direct examination, like is seen at trial.
• The defendant is, of course, placed under oath before giving testimony to the grand jury. That sworn grand jury testimony can be used to impeach the defendant at trial if his trial testimony differs from what he swore to before the grand jury.
• A defendant who testifies before the grand jury gives the State a "preview" of the defendant's case that the State would not otherwise have. And because the grand jury presentment is such a preliminary stage, before the defense has a good idea of what the State's evidence is.

In short, having a client appear before the grand jury is typically quite "a crap shoot" that a good defense lawyer may very well decide is not worth the risks --even if self-defense (or another defense) may seem viable... and turns out to be ultimately successful.

 

[MollyMalone]

FYIs post #2
* Here's an article from The Verge that jives with other info I've seen and which (a) makes clear that the State was not given the drone recording by a private citizen until after the trial got underway and (b) explains why the recording the defense received was lower in resolution; it was unintentional.

Rittenhouse defense requests a mistrial after iPhone Mail app compresses key video evidence

The difference between AirDrop and Apple Mail

www.theverge.com

The Verge article also reports that the Wisconsin prosecutor's offices use various means to relay recordings to defense attorneys. Let's hope that if the problems inherent in that weren't obvious before, it is now -- and that changes.

* But even if the defense had received the lower quality video before the trial got underway, the discrepancy would not

had to come up in depositions before because they'd have used it.

because there were no pretrial depositions in this case. Pretrial depositions are not a routine part of criminal cases. They are authorized by New York's Criminal Procedure Law only upon court order in limited, uncommon circumstances:

Article 660 | NYS CPL | Examination of Witnesses Testimony

An order directing examination of a witness conditionally must be based upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to believe that such witness | CPL

ypdcrime.com

And I believe that's true in other states as well.

* Re

Plus, it's just not something that is done that a case is dismissed due to a lawyer's misconduct. The lawyer could be sanctioned by the judge, reported to the bar and sanctioned again, etc., but you can't take your venom out on the attorney to the detriment of the party.

Well, criminal defendants have wider constitutional protections than civil litigants. So it is indeed possible that a criminal prosecution will be dismissed with prejudice (or subsequently dismissed before a retrial) owing to prosecutorial misconduct -- if the prosecutor, with an eye to getting a "do-over," purposefully acted to provoke a mistrial. In 1982, in Oregon v. Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that renewed prosecution, after the trial prosecutor acted so egregiously, violates the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause

Oregon v. Kennedy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 US 667 - Supreme Court 1982 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

That's because a prosecutor is not just an attorney for "a party"; he or she represents the State/the Government.

Hope this helps!

 

[elizat]

FYIs post #2
* Here's an article from The Verge that jives with other info I've seen and which (a) makes clear that the State was not given the drone recording by a private citizen until after the trial got underway and (b) explains why the recording the defense received was lower in resolution; it was unintentional.

Rittenhouse defense requests a mistrial after iPhone Mail app compresses key video evidence

The difference between AirDrop and Apple Mail

www.theverge.com

The Verge article also reports that the Wisconsin prosecutor's offices use various means to relay recordings to defense attorneys. Let's hope that if the problems inherent in that weren't obvious before, it is now -- and that changes.

* But even if the defense had received the lower quality video before the trial got underway, the discrepancy would not

because there were no pretrial depositions in this case. Pretrial depositions are not a routine part of criminal cases. They are authorized by New York's Criminal Procedure Law only upon court order in limited, uncommon circumstances:

Article 660 | NYS CPL | Examination of Witnesses Testimony

An order directing examination of a witness conditionally must be based upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to believe that such witness | CPL

ypdcrime.com

And I believe that's true in other states as well.

* Re

Well, criminal defendants have wider constitutional protections than civil litigants. So it is indeed possible that a criminal prosecution will be dismissed with prejudice (or subsequently dismissed before a retrial) owing to prosecutorial misconduct -- if the prosecutor, with an eye to getting a "do-over," purposefully acted to provoke a mistrial. In 1982, in Oregon v. Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that renewed prosecution, after the trial prosecutor acted so egregiously, violates the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause

Oregon v. Kennedy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 US 667 - Supreme Court 1982 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

That's because a prosecutor is not just an attorney for "a party"; he or she represents the State/the Government.

Hope this helps!

Where I practice, depositions are common in criminal matters as well. Granted- not in Wisconsin, but in my venue it's normal for a criminal case of any significance. There still would have been an exhibit exchange with the opportunity to verify what was to be used and coordination that each side had the same content. On the remedies, each venue is going to have different standards for error, what is enough for mistrial and unique particulars.

I'm aware of the concept you cited as well re prosecution- (and scope of civil v criminal difference) and had considered it, but thanks for trying to educate me.

 

[Karl_K]

Thank you MM you rock!
The reason some states haves passed stand your ground laws is that self defense cases unless dismissed by the prosecutor generally go to trial.
In states without stand your ground you can defend yourself and get financially destroyed and spent a long time in jail before being found innocent by self defense.
The end result requiring the state to prove it was not self defense is the same, stand your ground just cuts out the middle part.

 

[MollyMalone]

Where I practice, depositions are common in criminal matters as well.

Oh, thanks for this! (I've seen other state statutes re depositions, but like the Federal Rules and NY, depositions in those states are for the purpose of "preserving" testimony in certain circumstances, not as a general discovery tool.) I can certainly appreciate the usefulness of pre-criminal trial depositions, but given the heavy caseloads, I wonder how NY's public defenders and assigned counsel, prosecutors & law enforcement officers could fit routinely conducting/ participating in depositions into their workdays; everyone is already so hard-pressed. So I'm going to try to find where discovery depositions are "par for the course" and learn more about that plays out in practice in those states, what the caseloads are, the additional costs attributable to depositions (which I presume are borne by the state or county), what parameters there are (e.g., must child sex abuse victims be subject to depositions?) -- I'm intrigued!

Thank you MM you rock!
The reason some states haves passed stand your ground laws is that self defense cases unless dismissed by the prosecutor generally go to trial.
In states without stand your ground you can defend yourself and get financially destroyed and spent a long time in jail before being found innocent by self defense.
The end result requiring the state to prove it was not self defense is the same, stand your ground just cuts out the middle part.

Florida, which is a "stand your ground" state, includes "reasonably believed" as an element of self-defense, but it does enable defendants to seek a pre-trial immunity ruling

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I think it's the only state, however, to provide for that?

Much as I abhor, on a personal/philosophical level, all the video surveillance-recording that permeates our lives, I recognize that it can serve a useful purpose. And not just for apprehending criminals or memorializing police brutality. Several years ago, there was a fatal shooting outside a NYC bar. The shooter told the police he had acted in self-defense; people inside and outside the bar gave differing accounts as to what precipitated the fight and how it unfolded. But the bar itself had multiple cameras inside and outside the premises, which provided comprehensive and clear footage -- and backed up the shooter's claim.

 

[Calliecake]

@Karl_K , Thank you for taking the time to answering my questions.

 

[Karl_K]

Florida, which is a "stand your ground" state, includes "reasonably believed" as an element of self-defense, but it does enable defendants to seek a pre-trial immunity ruling

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I think it's the only state, however, to provide for that?

There are others like SC that enable defendants to seek a pre-trial immunity ruling as part of stand your ground.
I dont have a complete list handy but it looks smaller than I thought.
Which is why people need to check their local laws.