Now the Rittenhouse defense says it will move for a mistrial with prejudice
Real live court cases don’t usually resemble anything you’d see on Perry Mason or other shows or movies. They’re usually a lot less obviously dramatic, although there are exceptions.
The Rittenhouse case has been an exception.
It also has shown what it’s like when a weak or even nonexistent case is prosecuted for political reasons. When the prosecutor has little to nothing to show for evidence, he or she has to make stuff up and/or engage in offensive antics in order to persuade the jurors of something that isn’t true. And sometimes it works.
The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case has been trying that, particularly Binger, who earlier today earned a tongue-lashing from the judge for some especially egregious violations of the usual well-known standards for the sort of questions and insinuations allowed in court.
Now we have the possibility of another dramatic action, this time by the defense:
BREAKING: Rittenhouse defense requests mistrial with prejudice pic.twitter.com/jMvW2q69Lv
— Kyle Hooten (@KyleHooten2) November 10, 2021
If granted, that would mean that Rittenhouse could not be tried again. But I doubt it would be granted, although justified. That would be extraordinary. Of course, this entire prosecution is extraordinary, but so are many things in the US these days.
The theory is, of course, that the prosecution’s awful behavior is a purposeful attempt to get the judge to declare an ordinary mistrial and thus earn them a do-over and another bite at the Rittenhouse apple.
The theory is, of course, that the prosecution’s awful behavior is a purposeful attempt to get the judge to declare an ordinary mistrial and thus earn them a do-over and another bite at the Rittenhouse apple.
That’s the impression of this layman.
At the very least it would be an instance of the saying, “The process is the punishment.”
So far it seems there is a good judge on this trial.
He seems like a very good judge, not that I know anything about the law. It also seems like Rittenhouse has competent defense.
Neo – This is more riveting than any Perry Mason episode I’ve ever seen!
Trying to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief here and allow myself optimism.
Rittenhouse’s assailants (or whatever we call them) are the usual sterling citizens the left provides for these cases:
_______________________________________
The bottom line: Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender who was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated and was armed with a handgun when shot.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/
_______________________________________
The jury does not have access to this information.
Huxley, nor should it, unless it were clear that Rittenhouse knew they were people with a background of violence. He doesn’t seem to have known them prior to that evening.
The thinking from some of the people in the Ace of Spades HQ comments who are familiar with trials is that the judge is doing everything he can to avoid giving the prosecution grounds for an appeal. This means that he’s being more accommodating than usual with prosecution claims. The fact that he’s still smacking down the prosecutor just shows how bad the case is against Rittenhouse. It’s also noteworthy that the defense is generally letting stuff past that they could probably object to.
My experience on a jury is that jurors – who don’t generally want to be there – tend to get irritable when they perceive that one side or the other is wasting their time. If the prosecutor is acting more and more outrageously, while the defense is acting in a laid back fashion, the jurors will likely be more inclined to be sympathetic to the defendant.
Boss…I’m trying to figure out which is funnier.
That you actually used “Perry Mason” as an example,
OR
that I fully got your point.
😉
Robert Barnes is irate
“Outrageous misconduct by #Rittenhouse prosecutor Binger. Judge should dismiss the case with prejudice, Binger should be fired, and OLR should #DisbarBinger”
https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1458515588716761096
…nor should it.
Kate:
Yes, the link makes that clear. However, I was curious.
It was also mentioned in a blog comment that this material would be accessible in a civil trial should families of the three sue Rittenhouse in a civil case and thus it is unlikely the families would sue. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s an interesting angle to what’s next.
There have also been large suits brought against the Kenosha Police and Sheriff’s for negligence in protecting the civil rights of these Antifa types.
I am a civil litigation attorney, not a criminal lawyer (I know, oxymoron) and I do not practice in Wisconsin. The fine points of criminal law are a mystery to me.
However, it seems that the judge still has the option to grant a directed verdict for the defendant at the close of the defense’s case. Ordinarily, that doesn’t happen, for the simple reason that if the jury acquits the case is over and the judge does not have to deal with the extraordinary responsibility and potential career damage inherent in “taking the matter out of the jury’s hands.” If the verdict is truly wrong, the judge can still issue a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” (A judge needs to have very good reasons to take any case away from a jury).
In this instance we have not only the prosecutions apparent failure to prove guilt; we also have prosecutorial abuse and the circumstances that the jurors are quite likely fearful and intimidated.
Could the judge individually poll (question) the jury members as to whether and to what extent they are personally comfortable with assurances of their safety, and can render a fair verdict? And if the answer is “No” issue a directed verdict, with great reluctance, but an unwillingness to subject the jurors to personal harm-or fear of personal harm–where the correct legal outcome is clear?
It’s only “outrageous misconduct by #Rittenhouse prosecutor Binger…” if we are still operating on the old rules. Think of this as the Left doing a test case to see if they can institute the 1930s Stalin rules for court procedures by prosecutors. We are getting close.
“Oxymoron” is incorrect–I meant “redundancy.”
geoffb is, unfortunately, correct.
Now combine his analysis with the (seeming) fact that The Federal Government is going to use a network of informers to enforce the vaccination mandate.
It appears the Stalinists have won and are preparing their version of the NKVD for implementation.
May God Have Mercy on The People of America.
Because it’s all too clear that the democrats won’t.
I wonder if the defense’s request for a mistrial with prejudice is because they fear that the jury might yet vote for conviction due to bias and/or fear of retaliation against them or those close to them.
If the judge does not declare a mistrial with prejudice and the jury votes not guilty and some of the jurors are then physically attacked, even killed… I wonder how many on the left would excuse it. Even celebrate it, declaring the juror(s) got what they deserved…
I really don’t think we’re too far away from that occuring, just not sure how close the left is to descending to it.
One thing I am sure of, ideological fanatics will employ any and all means to achieve their goals. There is nothing they can’t and won’t excuse in pursuit of their agenda. The lives of others means nothing to them, as 60+ MILLION murdered babies testify.
@Boatbuilder:
Tautology, even.
I often have to catch myself in mid flight of nonsense-spewing and double-check that I’ve used the correct one of these two terms.
“It appears the Stalinists have won and are preparing their version of the NKVD for implementation.” Tuvea
It’s not going to work out for the Stalinists.
If I were on that jury I would be spending my free time at the range. It pays to be tuned up.
Snitches get stitches.
Re: Oxymoron, redundant…
Boatbuilder, Zaphod:
During the 70s Robin Williams conspicuously used those terms in his stand-up. I’ve wondered if he pressed those words into more common usage.
Firesign Theatre had its wonderful “Dept. of Redundancy Dept.”
Owen said: “If I were on that jury I would be spending my free time at the range. It pays to be tuned up.”
Which would keep you from being on this jury. Several jurors have, if I understand correctly, stated during voir dire, that they believed Rittenhouse was guilty, but this did not cause them to be rejected.
I’m sure that your wildly racist desire to be able to defend yourself would get you rejected out of hand. Probably with a scolding.
“And so we heard from Comrade Krylenko that a tribunal was not that kind of court! [i.e. one concerned with the guilt or innocence of a particular defendant] On another occasion we would hear from him that a tribunal was not a court at all: “A tribunal is an organ of the class struggle of the workers directed against their enemies” and must act “from the point of view of the interests of the revolution … having in mind the most desirable results for the masses of workers and peasants. “No matter what the individual qualities [of the defendant], only one method of evaluating him is to be applied: evaluation from the point of view of class expediency“
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago [emphasis mine]
Clearly from the view of class expediency, Rittenhouse is guilty. Antifa and BLM are oppressed people. Therefore, they have virtue. Rittenhouse, by opposing them, is an oppressor. I doubt that the judge will grant a mistrial. I have no doubt that the jurors will be coerced into a guilty verdict: the Law and the facts don’t matter. Class expediency.
All the women in my family have been called to be jurors. Some more than once. My mother, served three times.
None of the males in my extended family have ever been called, apart from me.
I was in the jury pool, but never even made it to an interview.
We were gathered in a large room late morning, roll was called, and then told that it would be a couple of hours before any further proceedings took place sometime after lunch; and, that we could even leave the court house if we got back on time.
I went to the administration desk and inquired regarding the exact time for reconvening, as I had a proposal package I wanted to drop off at a Ford engineering building; but saying I was sure I could be back in time. But also that I could wait if desired; I owned the business and was in control of my own time and schedule.
The ladies smiled nicely at me, and one said that they would take care of it. She left, and then a moment later she came back with a slip of paper and said I was dismissed. No need to return … at all.
I was waiting to serve, wanting to serve, and more than willing to convict any son of a bitch who crossed my path. I was looking forward to it.
But I never got the chance.
“The progressive bubble”…burst (at least in some cases)….
Greenwald—on how SOME of the beautiful people had their eyes opened by the Rittenhouse trial:
“This is such an important thread — not just the original tweet but so many that follow in replies — of liberals, genuine liberals, expressing shock and horror upon realizing, after watching the trial, that so much of what the media told them about the Rittenhouse case is false:”
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1458790332636749824
For example, one, Sarah Beth Burwick (who describes herself as “highly educated and reasonably perceptive”), tweets that until the trial she thought that the three guys who were shot were NOT white:
“I am highly educated and reasonably perceptive, and it was only today that I learned the Kyle Rittenhouse victims were white.
“My progressive bubble made this seem like a very different case than it is.”
https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825
Indeed, “highly educated and reasonably perceptive”….
So how many more like her are out there…?
Remedial reading student LeBron James has weighed in on Rittenhouse’s tearfulness.
James is the exemplar par excellence of Black America. When LeBron was playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers, his mother was “dating” one of his team mates ( a “brother” of equivalent age to James). During the past year James was photographed “reading” (actually looking at) the pages of Alex Haley’s “Roots”. James noted with astonishment that the word “negro” was used repeatedly in the book. Lest anyone thinks that the black population respects Frederick Douglass or, say, Glenn Loury more than LeBron or Snoop Dog – well, think again.
Related to my post of 10:29 am:
A leopard cannot change its spots—
Facebook (or its current incarnation) continues its corrosive censorship policy—
“Facebook Users Unable To Find Results When Searching For “Kyle Rittenhouse” Amid Teen’s Homicide Trial”
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/facebook-users-unable-find-results-when-searching-kyle-rittenhouse-amid-teens-homicide
junior said,
“The thinking from some of the people in the Ace of Spades HQ comments who are familiar with trials is that the judge is doing everything he can to avoid giving the prosecution grounds for an appeal.”
What?! I was unaware the prosecution could appeal a case that went against them (acquittal). Is there a case where this can happen? IANAL (though I work in the court system) but I’ve never heard of such a thing happening, because of protection against Double Jeopardy.