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

[mom2dolls]

Have you been following this case? If so, which way do you think the jury will go?

I am surprised they are still deliberating after three days.

 

[Demon]

My guess is a hung jury.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Hard to say. They really seem to be considering all angles so clearly doesn’t seem to be a consensus. Hung jury could be a definite possibility.

 

[Bonfire]

I think they’ll come to a verdict. Which way it will go? No idea. Yesterday they asked for multiple video footage. I read the jury forewoman took copious notes throughout the trial and the jurists seem to be deliberating well together. It’s obviously not a slam dunk like some thought it would be.

 

[Lookinagain]

I think they’ll come to a verdict. Which way it will go? No idea. Yesterday they asked for multiple video footage. I read the jury forewoman took copious notes throughout the trial and the jurists seem to be deliberating well together. It’s obviously not a slam dunk like some thought it would be.

I think so too. I'd be surprised if they found him not guilty on all counts based on self defense, but who knows. I kind of expect a guilty verdict on one of the lesser charges, not the most serious ones.

 

[Karl_K]

if the judge was doing his job it would be a dismissal with prejudice on all counts due to prosecution misconduct..

 

[kenny]

if the judge was doing his job it would be a dismissal with prejudice on all counts due to prosecution misconduct..

If so wouldn't that have already happened?
I don't think the judge has to, or would, wait for a jury verdict.

 

[whitewave]

I think if they find him guilty of something (as they should), the judge is going to vacate it.

 

[Karl_K]

If so wouldn't that have already happened?
I don't think the judge has to, or would, wait for a jury verdict.

He has not ruled on it yet one way or the other.
He wants it in the hands of the jury, which is good up to a point but the prosecution has stepped over all kinds of lines in the case.
If the judge does not vacate any sort of conviction, there is a near 100% chance it will be overturned on appeal.

 

[Karl_K]

To give those not following it, the prosecution submitted a video to the defense that was both shorter and much lower in resolution than they used in court.
It has came out the prosecutors knew names of people in some videos, then just referred to them by nicknames when presenting the video and in disclosure. That denied the defense the opportunity to call them to testify because they were never disclosed.

There is also a lot of issues with who shot the drone video which was the main thing they used. The defense lawyers blew that one by not objecting in the right way so it might not be appealable/reviewable at this stage on that issue.

 

[elizat]

if the judge was doing his job it would be a dismissal with prejudice on all counts due to prosecution misconduct..

Here's the thing- everyone is watching through the eyes of the media and unless you know the rules of evidence and criminal procedure there, it's impossible to put any stock in the talking head analysis. So much has been made of certain things, like the judge asking the defendant to blind pick the jury. Normally the bailiff or clerk does it there, but the impact is the same. My point is the coverage from all the media is through a lens of wanting clicks and views- and what may seem clear-cut, is not.

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.

 

[elizat]

To give those not following it, the prosecution submitted a video to the defense that was both shorter and much lower in resolution than they used in court.
It has came out the prosecutors knew names of people in some videos, then just referred to them by nicknames when presenting the video and in disclosure. That denied the defense the opportunity to call them to testify because they were never disclosed.

There is also a lot of issues with who shot the drone video which was the main thing they used. The defense lawyers blew that one by not objecting in the right way so it might not be appealable/reviewable at this stage on that issue.

As an attorney myself, I'm sorry, I don't believe that happened. You exchange exhibits- all documents, photos and videos well before trial. You confer. You address the video that will be played. You see it before. I have never not seen a video the other side will play before it is played. I make them send me what they are playing. I'd never trust that video x clip is video x without seeing it before. You compare what you have and each side gets the same thing from one another. It's up to the lawyer and the paralegals to figure this crap out before it gets to a jury. If there are issues, they are raised before it is played.

Maybe they did get a different video. Maybe it was an issue when it was put on a flash drive or however it was shared. But it had to come up in depositions before because they'd have used it. I would not be so quick to judge that it was a bait and switch. My best guess is that the defense didn't review the exhibits closely before and didn't catch it. Plus, they should have immediately approached the bench and stopped the video from playing. I guess it's possible someone would do it, but why? It's grounds for a mistrial after years of work and grounds for an appeal on it's own. Why do that on purpose?

And the name thing- sorry, don't buy that. That's sloppy defense lawyering. If they just listed nicknames, you have remedies before and you need to file exclusionary motions before trial and conduct discovery.

 

[Karl_K]

Here's the thing- everyone is watching through the eyes of the media

I am actually watching a stream hosted each day by between 6 to 8+ attorneys every day in real time, not network talking heads.

 

[elizat]

I am actually watching a stream hosted each day by between 6 to 8+ attorneys every day in real time, not talking heads.

Unless they are licensed in the venue and are current on the rules and procedure of the venue, the coverage is still through an incomplete lens. But, better than the news talking heads as a start.

 

[Karl_K]

As an attorney myself, I'm sorry, I don't believe that happened. You exchange exhibits- all documents, photos and videos well before trial. You confer. You address the video that will be played. You see it before. I have never not seen a video the other side will play before it is played. I make them send me what they are playing. I'd never trust that video x clip is video x without seeing it before. You compare what you have and each side gets the same thing from one another. It's up to the lawyer and the paralegals to figure this crap out before it gets to a jury. If there are issues, they are raised before it is played.

Maybe they did get a different video. Maybe it was an issue when it was put on a flash drive or however it was shared. But it had to come up in depositions before because they'd have used it. I would not be so quick to judge that it was a bait and switch. My best guess is that the defense didn't review the exhibits closely before and didn't catch it. Plus, they should have immediately approached the bench and stopped the video from playing. I guess it's possible someone would do it, but why? It's grounds for a mistrial after years of work and grounds for an appeal on it's own. Why do that on purpose?

And the name thing- sorry, don't buy that. That's sloppy defense lawyering. If they just listed nicknames, you have remedies before and you need to file exclusionary motions before trial and conduct discovery.

Defense attorney in open court: This is not the same video we have.
Compare meta-data they are not the same video. The one the prosecutors sent the defense was shorter and lower resolution.

 

[Karl_K]

Unless they are licensed in the venue and are current on the rules and procedure of the venue, the coverage is still through an incomplete lens. But, better than the news talking heads as a start.

At least one of them is licensed in Wisconsin and has tried cases there.

 

[elizat]

Defense attorney in open court: This is not the same video we have.
Compare meta-data they are not the same video. The one the prosecutors sent the defense was shorter and lower resolution.

Mistakes happen. I really just don't see it as possible unless the defense attorney and their team made a mistake. Using an entirely different video is beyond brazen and would get you in severe trouble where I practice and put your license at risk. I don't understand why they'd risk that, knowing it would be caught. That's why I am leaning to the side of someone on the defense team screwed up. Nobody wants to admit a mistake.

 

[Karl_K]

Found an ap article that describes the basic but not complete grounds for the request:

EXPLAINER: What's behind Rittenhouse mistrial requests?

Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse have requested a mistrial based on several issues, including claims that prosecutors acted in bad faith and that the state gave them an inferior copy of video that may be a key piece of evidence in the case.

apnews.com

 

[pearlsngems]

Verdict is in: Not Guilty on all charges.

 

[AprilBaby]

Sad, he should be held accountable for something for killing two people even if it’s involuntary manslaughter.

 

[doberman]

And there goes the Republicans' new poster boy, free as a bird after bringing guns across a state line with the express intent to shoot protestors.

This country is crumbling before my very eyes.

 

[Maja]

Verdict is in. Not guilty on all charges. I think the jury was courageous, considering the attempts to doxx them, and the knowledge that they would be blamed for any riots.

 

[Calliecake]

@doberman, I hope you don’t mind me starting a thread titled “Do you feel the country is crumbling?” I feel exactly like you do. I’m hoping we can keep a discussion going without bringing politics into it so it doesn’t get shut down by the mods.

 

[doberman]

@doberman, I hope you don’t mind me starting a thread titled “Do you feel the country is crumbling?” I feel exactly like you do. I’m hoping we can keep a discussion going without bringing politics into it so it doesn’t get shut down by the mods.

By all means, do! I'll post on it. What's going on in the country transcends politics.

 

[Bonfire]

What a travesty of justice. Shame on you Wisconsin.

What is innocent about a 17 year old with an illegally acquired assault rife, crossing state lines as a self deputized vigilante acting as wannabe law enforcement, shooting and killing 2 people? This defies common sense!

 

[Calliecake]

I’ve known paramedics. None of the have ever walked around with an AR15 while out trying to help people. Rittenhouse went out looking to use his gun and shoot people and he did so.

In my opinion this ruling opens the door for other people to do the same.

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.

 

[stracci2000]

Will he get sued by the victims families?
I sure hope so.

 

[Calliecake]

First let me say I am in no way in support of rioting and looting.

Trevor Noah said something that says it all to me.

”Nobody drives into a city with guns because they love someone else’s business that much. That’s some bulls$&t. No one has ever thought, Oh, it’s my solemn duty to pick up a rifle and protect that TJ Maxx. They do it because they’re hoping to shoot someone.”

 

[Mreader]

I felt the way most of you did at first but my husband and I listened to a lot of the trial on NPR, and I can see why the most serious charges didn't stick. Of the people shot and killed, one of them was someone recently discharged from a mental institution that came at him more than once. The second person shot attacked him with a skateboard. The third person (wounded) was armed himself and chased Rittenhouse down and pointed a gun at him. I can see why it's not cut and dry. And by the way I am not saying this because I think Rittenhouse is some great person; far from it. That kid had no business being there and no business carrying a weapon like that (or firearm) to a protest. Of course something like that could happen if you do that. He seems to be a total d-bag too with the "Free as Fu*k" tee-shirt and the Proud Boys surrounding him the night be posted bail. His weird obsession with the policy probably drove him to go to the protest. The only charge that could have really stuck was the illegal weapon charge and unfortunately the judge threw that out. It's a shitty situation and the absurd gun laws in this country is one of the reasons why he can walk free.

ETA - curious to know if @elizat thinks the jury got it right, just based on the law alone.

 

[Bonfire]

There are civil suits filed so he has that to face, however he got off from serving prison time.