Branca on today’s developments in the Rittenhouse trial: the judge’s jury instructions
A very important part of a trial is the judge’s instructions to the jury about the law. Such instructions can really help to shape the verdict – if jurors are paying attention – because they limit or expand the scope of what can be considered and what it might mean.
So today the judge has decided those issues, and Andrew Branca goes into them here. Some of the highlights (although I suggest you read the whole thing; it’s not long):
One win was the dismissal of the gun possession charge—finally!…
A second win, with respect to the State’s argument of provocation, the State will not be permitted to claim as fact that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminski’s. This is important for the defense, because the purported provocation of pointing the rifle at the Ziminski’s, which if believed would strip Kyle of self-defense completely, requires an unlawful act on his part that provoked the Rosenbaum attack.
The State wants to claim that unlawful act was Kyle pointing the gun at the Ziminski’s—but there’s no actual evidence of this. There’s no photo or testimony that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminski’s. Even the “enhanced” drone video left for the prosecution by the evidence fairy does not have the Ziminski’s in frame when Kyle is supposedly pointing his rifle.
So, the State will only be permitted to argue that Kyle pointed his rifle in some general direction, that different video shows the Ziminski’s in that general area, and therefore the jury should infer that Kyle was pointing his rifle at the Ziminski’s.
If the jury disbelieves any part of that, there was no unlawful act that provoked the Rosenbaum charge, and therefore no provocation that strips Kyle of self-defense.
A third win, with respect to Count 2, the reckless endangerment of McGinnis, the judge agreed to the suggestion by defense attorney Chirafisi that he would instruct the jury that if Kyle’s use of force with respect to Rosenbaum was lawful self-defense, then it was not conduct that was reckless with respect to McGinnis…
These discussions were followed by the actual instruction of the jury in the courtroom, and this was among the most confusing and disjointed instructions of a jury I’ve ever seen…
Ultimately, Judge Schroeder decided that he would essentially just tell the jury that if they believed the defendant’s conduct was self-defense, they were done—that was a not guilty verdict on that charge, and they need not consider either the primary charge nor any lesser included charges in that count.
That last bit sheds interesting light on the lesser included charges and why they may have been allowed to be inserted so late in the game.
this was among the most confusing and disjointed instructions of a jury I’ve ever seen… Andrew Branca
“Confusing and disjointed instructions” indicate either a confused and disjointed mind or a man desperately torn between truth and fear.
“[A] man desperately torn between truth and fear.”
Sorta like Andrew Sullivan as seen on the thread above.
LI subhead: “Worth remembering ADA Binger mentioned provocation zero times in opening statement.”
It’s hard to believe provocation was so important when he only brings it up at the very end, as Defense attorney Richards pointed out.
This was my favorite comment (all of Branca’s posts have drawn thoughtful contributions from the LI regulars).
“I caught a bit of the prostitution’s closing argument while waiting in preop earlier today. That guy really is a putz, isn’t he!”