Well the current narrative from CNN etc is that the judge is biased for admonishing the prosecution and racist because he made an Asian food joke. The implication being that if the judge declares a mistrial or gives a directed verdict that an outrageous injustice has occurred and we should take to the streets.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Well the current narrative from CNN etc is that the judge is biased for admonishing the prosecution and racist because he made an Asian food joke. The implication being that if the judge declares a mistrial or gives a directed verdict that an outrageous injustice has occurred and we should take to the streets.
Soldato
As eccentric as the old boy is, I actually have respect for the Judge. He seems fair and is a good "referee" just as a judge should be. He's very much a "boomer" but I like his sense of humour. Yes this is a serious trial but it seems he's got enough experience to pull everybody back in line when required, just because you have a serious job dosn't mean you cant make the most of the situation.
I'd feel comfortable with him presiding over my case regardless if I was the defendant or the complainant.
Agreed, he isn't playing loose at all, he is very careful and considered and most of his ramblings do have a point to them.
Associate
thats why they are supposed to bring technical experts to testify. The judge has now warned the state multiple time he feels it’s highly risky to put so much emphasis on the video.
reading between the lines, he doesn’t see the gun argument as it’s blurry as hell and he is trying to get the prosecution to back up their clam.
the whole custody of data is so farcical, that’s why he is ******. The prosecution have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”
I dunno, it's pretty key that the defence attorneys were given a low-resolution version of the video and the prosecutors had a high res version all along, not surprised they've filed for a mistrial there. That video is key to the very shaky argument the prosecution are making (based on some blurry stills) that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at the paedo guy first and that that counted as provocation. The defence are arguing that that's bunk, thrown in some objections re: enhancement etc.. argued that he's right handed and would have had to switch to left hand etc..
But if there has been a higher resolution version in the prosecution's hands all along that the defence wasn't given and so didn't get the opportunity to review, make arguments around and given this is a key bit of evidence the prosecution are reliant on for their argument re: provocation then... FML, no wonder they're using it to file for a mistrial.
This youtuber claims to have a side by side comparison - not sure of the validity of this tho:
I guess IF the judge is considering it warrants it then he'd still rather hear the jury's verdict first.
Not read everything so apologies if this has been posted but some good updates/explanations here:
Also, the jury is taking its time, perhaps related to the number of instructions/number of charges and wanting to be thorough. Some (dubious) rumours of 2 holdouts on social media who feel intimidated etc.. but supposedly coming from a US marshal... yet this is a local (not Federal) case occurring in a county court so unless Feds are there for some special protection for jury then sounds like BS - the notion that some might be intimidated, however, seems quite plausible. Another possibility perhaps is that this is just so polarising so you might have some activist types who are adamant they want to send Rittenhouse down or some Jono types who will believe anything the prosecutors have said regardless of how plausible etc..
Could cause even more of a **** storm if there is a hung jury (mistrial without prejudice) or even a conviction on a lesser charge but then the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice (or indeed that occurs on appeal).
It seems quite likely that Kyle either walks away from this at this trial or only serves a sentence for as long as it takes for an appeal case.
Most of the commentary from lawyers is along the lines of - people objecting to the judge are just ignorant and have no idea what judges are like.
Lots of bluster online and in the media about the jurors being drawn from a hat by Kyle instead of a clerk... but this judge has done that for years, it's not a special thing for this trial and WTF does anyone think it matters - it's a random draw either way..
The victim's thing is a rule he has in his courtroom as standard, again not related to this case yet it's being used to show the judge is supposedly biased or a white supremacist yet he's had this rule in place for plenty of black defendants too.
Then some music on his phone is music tump has used in some of his rallies or something - firstly it shouldn't matter if the judge does vote Republican or support Trump, why shouldn't a Judge support one or other of the two presidential candidates? The notion that all judges should only be Biden supporters is just deranged. However, it's not like it's some music actually written for Trump nor necessarily some totally obscure piece. It's rather ridiculous as the Judge is, in fact, a democrat and was first appointed by a democrat Wisconsin governor.
It's all a cope by the same people who brought you nonsense about state lines or Rittenhouse's mum dropping him off at the riot etc..
Soldato
"Judge Bruce Schroeder said that a new evidentiary hearing may be necessary to get to the bottom of the dispute."
“We can’t resolve this now, because this is going to require expert testimony from people,” the judge said. "
This is about the HD video.
“We can’t resolve this now, because this is going to require expert testimony from people,” the judge said. "
This is about the HD video.
Well, they've already filed for a mistrial and the judge has delayed his decision so it becomes moot if there are acquittals on all charges, it could come into play (AFAIK) if he gets found guilty of one or more of the charges.
Unless the judge changes his mind and makes a ruling before the jury decides I guess.
Mentioned here too:
I mean LOL @ fox news having access to the high res footage but the defence team was sent the low res version... because they have an android phone and the prosecutors used airdrop??? and/or didn't realise that when e-mailing they'd compressed it or something????
I mean LOL @ fox news having access to the high res footage but the defence team was sent the low res version... because they have an android phone and the prosecutors used airdrop??? and/or didn't realise that when e-mailing they'd compressed it or something????
I can see it being grounds for a mistrial if evidence has been withheld from the defence but do we really want a mistrial without prejudice?
Soldato
They caught the prosecution playing dirty tricks,...again.
That's there all there is to it.
They probably don't when there is a reasonable possibility that he gets not guilty on all charges but... IF he's found guilty of some of the charges then sure.
I'm not sure what happens if he's found not guilty on some and guilty on others and then a mistrial occurs - does double jeopardy apply to some of those or are all the charges still open for a new trial?
That clearly isn't the case. Its quite obviously a genuine mistake/oversight somewhere along the line because they are all obviously technologically inept.
Do bear in mind that any defense team will likely go for a mistrial at any opportunity and i've read that in almost all cases like this, there will be mistrial motions from the defense.
Man of Honour
So the reason they didn't want the jury to see the HD video up there by themselves but instead see it if they mus down in the courtroom on smaller screens and no ability to zoom in as they wish is because the video shows Kyle pointing the gun which he testified earlier in the trial that he did not - If I watched and understood the earlier broadcast correctly.
Their reasoning is that by allowing the jury to watch it "unfiltered" as they wish, it draws further attention to the gun pointing and could sway the jury's decision.
On the flipside the argument is that well why should not the jury see number 5 (the drone footage)? Earlier in the trial they all saw that footage (the non HD version) in the courtroom anyway, the jury want to see everything, it's all part of what they have seen before anyway and you guys were satisfied then so why are you not satisfied now?
There's a strong chance he could be found guilty based on that 5th video which is why his defence doesn't want it shown to the jury and their excuse is that they had no knowledge of the HD version being HD until Friday when it transpired the whole compressed video thing happened and by that point the video was submitted to the case already.
If the HD version that Fox News bought does show a clearer picture of Kyle's actions then that's the truth isn't it, so why should it be hidden from the jury during the deliberations. Seems the defence are wanting the mistrial based on this because they have a spider sense that things will go downhill but the judge said it isn't a fair trial if suddenly the judge is selective about what the jury can and can't see, especially since the video has previously been shown in court.
The prosecution lawyer made a sound legal argument on that front so will be very interesting to see what happens now.
Their reasoning is that by allowing the jury to watch it "unfiltered" as they wish, it draws further attention to the gun pointing and could sway the jury's decision.
On the flipside the argument is that well why should not the jury see number 5 (the drone footage)? Earlier in the trial they all saw that footage (the non HD version) in the courtroom anyway, the jury want to see everything, it's all part of what they have seen before anyway and you guys were satisfied then so why are you not satisfied now?
There's a strong chance he could be found guilty based on that 5th video which is why his defence doesn't want it shown to the jury and their excuse is that they had no knowledge of the HD version being HD until Friday when it transpired the whole compressed video thing happened and by that point the video was submitted to the case already.
If the HD version that Fox News bought does show a clearer picture of Kyle's actions then that's the truth isn't it, so why should it be hidden from the jury during the deliberations. Seems the defence are wanting the mistrial based on this because they have a spider sense that things will go downhill but the judge said it isn't a fair trial if suddenly the judge is selective about what the jury can and can't see, especially since the video has previously been shown in court.
The prosecution lawyer made a sound legal argument on that front so will be very interesting to see what happens now.
I wonder if the evidence not being sent to the defence could be enough to tip the scales on the existing motion for a mistrial with prejudice?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Does it show him pointing his gun? The position the video is paused in was generated by AI enhancement and would appear to show Rittenhouse holding the gun left handed, in reality I think it's just the shoulder strap, from the position the shoulder strap is and how it holds the weapon accross his body I dont think it's even possible to hold it left handed.
That's a bold statement you're making when in reality you cant make out anything conclusive from the video.
Man of Honour
I don't know about the AI stuff, only been watching for a couple days now. As for the rest, it's based on what I watched this evening on the livestream based on what they were talking about - At least what I understood from what they were saying.