What's new
By:

Rittenhouse

Gameface said:
So hung jury then? Is that good or bad for Rittenhouse? Prosecution has been kind of poor and judge seems pro-defense. So it seems that mistrial is good for prosecution.
Click to expand...
If the judge is pro-defense then a hung jury is good for Rittenhouse, but that is a big ‘if’. So far, despite the sound bites, the judge has not been pro-defense. It only appears that way on the surface.

Prosecution ADA Binger made a reference to Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence in a way that implied guilt. That is a huge no-no. He was ripped by the judge in spectacular fashion but absolutely no sanctions of any kind were issued. Binger also blatantly overran a pretrial decision by introducing evidence the judge had specifically forbid, and was ripped verbally, but again no sanction.

The two biggest issues are that the Prosecution knew the identity of “jump-kick man” but didn’t release it to the Defense, and worst of all was the altered drone footage. The prosecution had high-resolution drone footage and didn’t provide it to the Defense but instead made a version of the drone footage that only had 1/16th of the resolution and only provided their newly generated low resolution file to the Defense. Either one of those issues is a violation of Brady Disclosure laws and should be an automatic mistrial, but the judge allowed this evidence in again without any sanction of the Prosecution.

The Defense has filed a motion for Mistrial with prejudice, meaning it can’t be retried. So far the judge has sat on it. He hasn’t ruled one way or the other. If the judge is really pro-defense, all he has to do is wait for the jury to come back hung and rule on the motion in favor the Defense to free Rittenhouse of all charges. If the judge is not pro-defense, then he’ll rule against the motion and we can count on doing this whole thing again because it will be easy for the Defense to make a claim for an appeal on the ground of all the f-ups by Binger and the Prosecution. At least that is how I understand it.
 
Gameface said:
So hung jury then? Is that good or bad for Rittenhouse? Prosecution has been kind of poor and judge seems pro-defense. So it seems that mistrial is good for prosecution.
Click to expand...
My guess is if it was a hung jury, the judge will ask them to reconsider a couple times to try and reach a consensus. If that doesn't happen, it's a mistrial and the prosecution would likely take it up again to re-try the case assuming the judge would allow it (which is probably a formality).

There's also a lot of counts to consider with some being stronger than others IMO.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
If the judge is pro-defense then a hung jury is good for Rittenhouse, but that is a big ‘if’. So far, despite the sound bites, the judge has not been pro-defense. It only appears that way on the surface.

Prosecution ADA Binger made a reference to Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence in a way that implied guilt. That is a huge no-no. He was ripped by the judge in spectacular fashion but absolutely no sanctions of any kind were issued. Binger also blatantly overran a pretrial decision by introducing evidence the judge had specifically forbid, and was ripped verbally, but again no sanction.

The two biggest issues are that the Prosecution knew the identity of “jump-kick man” but didn’t release it to the Defense, and worst of all was the altered drone footage. The prosecution had high-resolution drone footage and didn’t provide it to the Defense but instead made a version of the drone footage that only had 1/16th of the resolution and only provided their newly generated low resolution file to the Defense. Either one of those issues is a violation of Brady Disclosure laws and should be an automatic mistrial, but the judge allowed this evidence in again without any sanction of the Prosecution.

The Defense has filed a motion for Mistrial with prejudice, meaning it can’t be retried. So far the judge has sat on it. He hasn’t ruled one way or the other. If the judge is really pro-defense, all he has to do is wait for the jury to come back hung and rule on the motion in favor the Defense to free Rittenhouse of all charges. If the judge is not pro-defense, then he’ll rule against the motion and we can count on doing this whole thing again because it will be easy for the Defense to make a claim for an appeal on the ground of all the f-ups by Binger and the Prosecution. At least that is how I understand it.
Click to expand...
If the mistrial is a result of a hung jury than I imagine that it's 90%++ that a new trial will happen. I highly doubt the judge sits on the request for a mistrial with prejudice and then approve it based on a hung jury. That does not make sense to me.

If this trial was okay to send to deliberations than it is okay to try Rittenhouse again.

The prosecution seems to have done a poor job in this trial. A fresh crack at it seems like it would be good for the prosecution to me.

I don't think this judge has been unethically favorable to the defense, but I think on 50/50 calls he has typically ruled in favor of the defense. Things like not being able to call the shooting recipients "victims" but being able to call them rioters and such.
 
Seems like the jury took this case very seriously and deliberated for a pretty extensive amount of time. I think most of us expected an acquittal on the most serious charges and also didn't have strong confidence in convictions on any charges. So this is the expected result and based on current law I think it is the technically correct verdict.
 
Gameface said:
Things like not being able to call the shooting recipients "victims" but being able to call them rioters and such.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a rule for this trial but in every trial he's ever conducted over decades. He believes only things supported by evidence should be allowed. With regards to using the term 'rioter', the Defense was forbidden from using that term in opening arguments precisely because there had not at that point been any evidence to support that they were rioters. Only after people were shown to be rioting could they be called a rioter in his court. The term 'victims' was banned throughout the trial because the trial itself was to determine if they were victims. That rule isn't pro-defense or pro-prosecution but just the way the judge attempts to minimize the use of unsubstantiated statements that could bias the jury.
 
Gameface said:
What a disgusting comment.
Click to expand...
Disgusting or unfortunate reality?

Per MSNBC, 5 schools in the Kenosha area have gone to virtual learning because of fears of what could happen with the verdict (this was reported prior to verdict).

Doesn’t seem like it’s an unwarranted fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top