The Kyle Rittenhouse trial starts today…
…and law of self-defense lawyer Andrew Branca will be covering it day by day at Legal Insurrection. In past trial coverage, Branca has been excellent and very thorough, and I expect the same will be true this time.
Here’s yesterday’s post by Branca, and here’s today’s.
From what I know so far of Rittenhouse’s actions that fateful August evening in Kenosha in 2020, he shouldn’t even be on trial because it’s such a clear case of self-defense. However, I’m open to evidence to the contrary, which one would expect to come out in a trial.
Will this trial be a fair one? That remains to be seen, but at least the venue – Kenosha, Wisconsin – is not totally dominated by the left, even if the general political pressure to convict in order to placate said left is great.
Good luck to the young man. I expect he will need it.
I hope he has competent Counsel, because the resources of the State will be arrayed against him. After all of the hype, they badly need a conviction–whether fair or not so fair.
Am I cynical? Yes, I am.
It is indeed a clear case of self-defense, and the so-called “victims” in the shooting were deranged, violent, and of dubious character, yet the climate of intimidation surrounding such a well-publicized case may well influence at least some members of the jury to disregard what seems to be overwhelming evidence in favor of this young man, maligned relentlessly by the mendacious MSM. There may be no racial element in this particular trial, yet the pressure, from the organized left, to convict Rittenhouse will be intense, nor will the coverage in the media be anything other than biased and malign.
According to Branca’s coverage so far, the judge is not permitting the prosecution to refer to the men who were shot as “victims,” since that’s what the trial is about. He will permit them to be referred to as “arsonists” or “looters” or “rioters” if there is specific evidence to support that.
My father always used to say that even in his own day, juries could be wild and unpredictable things, so that even clear cases could go in strange directions. That is even more true here, where there has a been concerted effort by media and activists (and yes, I know I’m repeating myself) to poison the jury pool. Rittenhouse should, and might, receive justice. But we can’t count on it.
FWIW, at least one blogger thinks that the MSM are beginning– gently, as he puts it– for the possibility of an acquittal because “much of the law is on Rittenhouse’s side. The experienced journalists at the eminently credible Associated Press are acknowledging the evidentiary hill prosecutors have to climb.”
Link to the AP article at the link: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-media-prepare-their-readers-for-a-possible-kyle-rittenhouse-acquittal/
Somewhat disturbing news from Robert Barnes, formerly on Rittenhouse defense team, now withdrawn: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/01/rittenhouse-defense-team-implodes-hours-before-jury-selection-n1528505
Apparently a big shakeup in Rittenhouse’s defense team with Robert Barnes and others out. VivaBarnes doing their livestream tonight at 7 PM eastern where I’m sure this will be discussed.
sdferr,
Beat me to it by 2 minutes!
I saw that, too. This poor kid!
A key defense attorney pulling out at the last minute indicates collusion with the left. Robert Barnes and his team being excluded further increases that possibility. I gather from the PJ article that the game plan is to secure a hangman’s jury.
The conviction of Rittenhouse would have grave repercussions, as it would send the message that if it benefits the left’s agenda, the natural right to self-defense no longer exists in America.
The goal is the intimidation of Americans willing to defend themselves against physical attack by agents of the left and physical attacks by the left’s favored minorities.
A similar message, that we on the right haven’t the right to protest is what the Jan. 6th political prisoners is about.
None of these actions by the left are constitutional, none legal. But as they control much of America’s former justice system and, as Biden and Georgia demonstrated, they increasingly control who shall be elected, they assume there will be no meaningful consequences for them.
If McAuliffe ‘wins’ it will be less tenable to imagine that restoration of “consent of the governed” through voting is possible.
If in the 2022 election, the democrats hold on to majority control of Congress… the Constitution and democratic election of our representatives will be over.
We will then be faced with the starkest of choices.
Looks like the plans that Robert Barnes had to support the case have rather spectacularly crashed with infighting within the primary team. Too bad. I hope the kid is able to get a fair trial, but the AG prosecutor seems to be particularly toxic and leftist-minded, and it would seem that the defense team has issues too. Getting an unbiased jury seems to be going in the same direction as the Chauvin trial, thanks to the pre-trial news blitz.
Listening to the Viva Frei broadcast tonight, Barnes is coming across as particularly butt-hurt, not really a great look.
Pretty much the entire first hour of the VivaBarnes livestream was about this. From about the 10:00 minute mark until about the 55:00 minute mark were about the Rittenhouse trial and defense team.
It is a sad state of our nation when a 17-year old who stepped up to help his community and others is on trial for the “crime” of self-defense; and, yet, a convicted felon who died from a drug overdose while in police custody is celebrated as a hero.
It is a sad state of our nation when a 17-year old who stepped up to help his community and others is on trial for the “crime” of self-defense; and, yet, a convicted felon who died from a drug overdose while in police custody is celebrated as a hero.
A thousand times yes.
Getting an unbiased jury seems to be going in the same direction as the Chauvin trial, thanks to the pre-trial news blitz.
Kenosha county is competitive, with a Republican advantage. Hennepin County, Mn is 70% Democratic. A lawyer I correspond with who is experienced in criminal practice says the judge in this case is no-BS. You’ll recall the pseudo-impartiality of Peter Cahill. Different scene.
@Aggie:
“Listening to the Viva Frei broadcast tonight, Barnes is coming across as particularly butt-hurt, not really a great look.”
That Humble Man from East Ridge, TN made it to the Big Leagues shtick ought to be enough warning that you’ve got yerself a J D Vance type character.
When the going gets *really* tough, this sort is not going to stick their necks out too far and risk Losing Caste… not when they have sold their souls to stop being that which they were born into and join the Elect.
Future leaders are more likely to come from elite defectors — Charles Haywood (The Worthy House) types. Revolutions are best led by dissatisfied people who already have social cachet; not social climbers. Lenin being prime case in point, although I’d give Robespierre and buddies second billing.
Speaking of which… All you Dersh Lovers present… Why isn’t he running this show?
Zaphod:
Why isn’t Dershowtiz “running the show” in the Rittenhouse trial?
Are you kidding me?
Let’s see – I’ll take a wild stab at it – Dershowitz is 83 years old and would not be taking on something of that length. Nor are self-defense trials any specialty of his. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to think of one that he ever dealt with. In his prime he did primarily murder trials and some constitutional issues – the latter being why he made a speech at one of Trump’s impeachment trials (on a constitutional issue), which is quite different from being in charge of the defense in something like the Rittenhouse trial in terms of stamina and workload. He’s also done a bit of very limited consulting to advise defense teams on specific issues related to a few other trials.
I can think of no reason on earth that Dershowitz would be wanted in the Rittenhouse trial.
@ sdferr > “Somewhat disturbing news from Robert Barnes, formerly on Rittenhouse defense team, now withdrawn:”
I read the story, haven’t listened to Barnes, but I have some questions:
(1) why did the lead attorney allow Barnes to believe for 8 months that he was going to use the “dream team’s” expertise in jury selection, if he had already decided he was not? Or, did he just recently make that decision for some nefarious, or even possibly rational, reason? Or did Barnes somehow misinterpret things somehow and only think the lead lawyer wanted his help?
(2) doesn’t Kyle get a say in what his lawyers are doing? Did he not want Barnes in the first place; if he did, was he persuaded to change his mind; or is the lawyer over-riding him?
If answered in the podcast, let me know; don’t have 45 minutes just now to listen to the whole thing.
Aesopfan – Barnes said he believes it was to use his name and profile in fundraising. Per Barnes, he wanted confirmation that Rittenhouse was in control of the funds, and he was shortly thereafter shutout.
Here is the VivaBarnes segment from last night pertaining to the Rittenhouse trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7p7xL9IYvk
Sounds like Rittenhouse’s lead attorney is pursuing his own interest contra his client’s.
Schroeder’s recent remarks seem to indicate he’s determined to conduct a fair trial.
He has stated that the media is biased against Rittenhouse.
@ Griffin – thanks, I have listened to it tonight. Agree with LordAzrael (well, on this topic anyway) that there have been shenanigans with the bail funds, and Barnes would blow the whistle really loud if he found out.
A point at 32minutes triggered a thought, and I began to look at Barnes’s statements with that in mind: “Kyle … didn’t know where he was going when he was dropped off and led there by David Hancock.”
I no longer remember any details of the news coverage back at the time, but Barnes mentions Hancock frequently in the video: as a gatekeeper to the family; that he tried to manipulate Barnes’ interactions with media, especially Tim Pool; and that there were indications that Hancock – not Wendy Rittenhouse, as Barnes thought – was managing the funds.
Barnes also said that Hancock asked him to not get involved in any January 6 cases (presumably so as to not draw fire for that onto Kyle’s defense), to which he agreed.
Later, he talked about the FBI having drone footage of the riots, showing Kyle & his assailants, which they kept secret for more than 6 months.
(that was news to me)
IS HANCOCK AN FBI AGENT?
* * * (my notes, very rough and paraphrased rather than totally verbatim quotes, just for the record)
2021-11-02 Sabotage Afoot in the Kyle Rittenhouse Defense? Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT! – YouTube (via Griffin at Neo) in re being dumped by Rittenhouse’s trial team > mom in control of funds and legal team > assurances to Barnes earlier this year but most running the group were incompetent > none of his team or recommendations followed and lined up experienced people who were dismissed > he thought everything had been arranged for all of his team – lawyers, data experts, body language experts serving possibly pro bono > book recommendation at 7minutes > booked time, travel, lodging, expenses etc > Barnes tells who is left on the team > told by lead Mark Richards while people are already present or on their way tells him they are not allowed to participate at all > couldn’t meet with Kyle without security “guard” > sued for his connection to Milo Fund, denied an audit, etc > 10m > David Hancock in re the fund & did some good some bad things > is this deliberate sabotage or ego trip? > Barnes has no idea his only goal to get Kyle best defense > the right has its own echo chamber & most people in Kenosha bombarded by false news narrative and potential jurors misled > the whole family are sweethearts, poor family not getting good legal advice – not taking advantage of our information – don’t think they replaced his people with anyone, and those they have are incompetent – Richards is a liberal Democrat himself and not sure he’s won any of his “hundreds” of trials > borderline legal malpractice > 14m – what would you have done differently in strategizing > questions at jury selection didn’t show any knowledge of data collected by Barnes > would have ensured more filtering of the risk factors so only those who presumed innocence would be in the pool > 16m speculates his ouster is due to the funds control > he thought Mom Wendy was in charge but looks like David Hancock was “managing” it $650K plus > 17m jury selection is a lawyer decision not a client decision – why turn down a (free) dream team unless there is a problem or they want the glory – and they can have all the credit I don’t need any more > talked it up to raise funds for Kyle > doesn’t really buy the big ego thing but good criminal lawyers do have them > has always asked other people for help – should have been more aggressive earlier > 19:50 may have other motivations > they asked ME to go public, but Hancock didn’t like some things he didn’t do > Tim Pool an important ally etc on his show and didn’t want to rock judge’s boat > listeners want to know if family is aware and how they can be reached > healthy for the Richards-Hancock crew to know they are being watched > decided to speak after talking to ethics pros because focus is acquittal > 23m Hancock and possibly family asked him to stay out of J6 cases, but now he’s reaching out to Matt Brainerd to get off the side-lines – maybe that was also an ulterior intention (will his contacts now be “burned” and not helpful again?) > a liberal democrat is not the best to handle this kind of case in view of selection questions but Frei says maybe it works in Kenosha > Barnes never intended or wanted to be the lead, just wanted people who had won any kind of high-profile self-defense cases > 26m great rulings by old-school judge, expected from what we knew, but not normally a self-defense judge but understood what happened that night > about Kyle and family – not authoritarian but helpers > what the rioters did under the disguise of supporting civil rights – burned businesses of blacks, hispanics > Kyle possibly essential in defense of parts of Kenosha targeted for destruction > these were professional criminals > “opening statements” hope someone is taking notes > prosecutor wanted to put the fake narrative on trial 30m including lies for a year, abusing proceedings, knew it wouldn’t impact judge but would the jury pool in his comments at selection – knows a random jury more likely to convict because of his contamination > judge pushed back all the way through > no connection to militias, proud boys, etc – dropped off by David Hancock (MY LIGHTBULB: what IS his agenda – is he an FBI provocateur who wants a conviction??) > shot only white people so how is he a racist white supremacist just on basis of long-debunked OK sign > projected traits of the attackers onto Kyle – the perfect symbol of Kenosha > reporter’s witness that Kyle was not aggressor > if you grab a gun you are now armed & the third guy had a pistol – skateboard is not unarmed > 35m these are obviously weapons and even the NYT knew it > since it was a BLM protest anyone on the other side must have been of color > judge’s ruling on naming them victims – no – or rioters – if there is evidence > 36m prosecutor wants to call them victims because they were unsuccessful in their attack > wants no evidence of what they were doing that night, criminal record already disallowed > has to lie in order to win > context of self-defense cases is that any action of the injured relevant if they were alive is relevant if they are dead > 38:50m why did the FBI hide the drone footage for almost 6 months why haven’t we all seen it and hiding it even from discovery requests > prosecutor lying about that too > shows Kyle getting ambushed > Frei – using the Goebbel’s propaganda tactic of projection > Barnes – even pro-BLM people are critical and admit self-defense > can’t call them victims when that is what’s at controversy > defense can point out their rioting, but prosecutor has to do justice but this one is not > Frei – when do you have enough evidence to call them rioters > Barnes – in opening statements > the prosecutor’s job is NOT to zealously advocate for conviction – most get this wrong > 43:52 difference between subjectively and objectively reasonable > just because you died doesn’t mean what you did is wiped out > expert ruling – prosecution’s experts stunk – defense expert top-notch > 44:30m testifying about the actuality of arms > 45m blue-collar labor Democrat county did not vote for Trump but not really Blue > restricted his testimony more than Barnes would have but maybe they know something I don’t > 46m judge didn’t understand how bad the pre-trial publicity was > 47m hope the trial goes better than the jury selection, at least a mistrial, did all I could do, happy to step in again and help any way I can > Frei – easy to find fault when you aren’t the one doing it – would not have ventured into sabotage etc except for having been red-pilled by you > 48m what’s coming up, Chauvin’s trial did not inspire confidence in the jury process, even jurors warned of problems, Richards should have allowed more time before trial > prosecutor will be a good (effective) narrator but he will continue to lie, better presentation than Richards > listened asks if judge can issue a directed verdict of not guilty but unlikely even though he thinks this is a politically motivated prosecution > but he does control sentencing here, no discretion if found guilty of murder, but may have some leniency in this case > predicts he will dismiss the gun charge as void for vagueness > meant for violence in the city not farm kids > 52m how is a 17yo kid supposed to know what the law is if a bunch of lawyers can’t agree?
@Neo because it’s the Dreyfus Affair of 2021. That’s why. When the rubber hits the road.
I don’t expect him to be out front in court every day as he was in his prime getting an obviously guilty as the day is long Magic American acquitted of double homicide. However, given his stature, his silence and non-participation pro-bono is as deafening as that of Thomas More.
Sorry that was so long – I thought it might be useful finding things in the Frei-Barnes podcast.
This just in, directly relevant to the question in my comment:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-1-defense-dominates-opening-statements-first-witness-testimony/
I’m sure we are all aghast as well, but is anyone surprised?
More on the FBI video, with link to the footage.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/02/fbi-spy-video-shows-kyle-rittenhouse-being-chased-down-at-kenosha-riot-which-explains-why-youve-never-seen-it-n1529169
Branca’s LI posts on the opening statements & testimony from Monday and today gave me the impression that Kyle’s legal team is not quite so incompetent as Barnes claims.
However, this is only the beginning.
Kind of like the first couple of games of the World Series – you don’t know what’s coming in the rest of them.