The Rittenhouse jury has gone home for the evening
They’re not sequestered, so “going home” for the evening means going home-home.
I can’t predict what juries will do, ever. And in fact, I’m often wrong when I even try. I cannot figure out, however, why any thinking sentient being wouldn’t have returned a verdict of “not guilty” almost instantaneously. There is no credible evidence of guilt, must less guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there’s hardly any evidence of guilt at all, credible or incredible.
But apparently there’s a lack of unanimity which could mean almost anything, but it certainly means that the jury isn’t composed entirely of people who think like me.
As for the fact that the jury has not been sequestered, I was listening to Robert Barnes talk with Frei about that. He said that most lawyers don’t ask for it because it’s been found that being sequestered makes jurors tense and stressed and prone to rushed decisions just to be able to finally go home. As for reading about the case or talking to people about it while they’re home, they’re told not to do it but of course some do. I think that in a case such as this, with so much prejudicial publicity having gone on for well over a year, the damage is pretty much already done and so it hardly matters what might happen now in that regard.
I’ve been extremely tense all day, for obvious reasons.
I wonder if ANTIFA or BLM will show up at a juror’s home? Probably have strict instructions from the DNC or whoever is running them to avoid being seen doing that.
I believe the jurors are frightened by the threats of violence and that they will vote to convict on one of the lesser charges just to satisfy the mob.
They should have acquitted Kyle immediately!
I have a lot of lawyer friends and have used a few of them a time or two and what all of them told me was, “You never know”, especially with a jury trial. I also felt that this was a slam dunk defense case however there are various individuals that were in the 18 jury pool and when they made Kyle pull the numbers out it reminded me of the the Texas Militia vs. Santa Anna in the early 1840’s. Part of our Texas heritage. Santa Anna wanted all of the executed however the leader Huerta decided to kill fewer of them.
“The Mier expedition was an unsuccessful military operation launched in November 1842 by a Texian militia against Mexicanborder settlements; it was related to the Somervell expedition. It included a major battle at Ciudad Mier on December 26 and 27, 1842, which the Mexicans won and took captives .
To help determine who would die, Huerta had 159 white beans and 17 black beans placed in a pot. In what came to be known as the Black Bean Episode or the Bean Lottery, the Texans were blindfolded and ordered to draw beans. Officers and enlisted men, in alphabetical order, were ordered to draw. The seventeen men who drew black beans were allowed to write letters home before being executed by firing squad. The first Texan to draw a black bean was Major James Decatur Cocke. A witness recalled that Cocke held up the bean between his forefinger and thumb, and with a smile of contempt, said, “Boys, I told you so; I never failed in my life to draw a prize.” He later told a fellow Texan, “They only rob me of forty years.” Fearing that the Mexicans would strip his body after he was dead, he removed his pants and gave them to a companion whose clothing was in worse shape. He was shot with the sixteen others who drew black beans on March 25, 1843. His last words were reported to have been, “Tell my friends I die with grace.”
All kids in Texas learn this ‘black bean story’ in school in their Texas history class and they this pledge of allegiance is recited along with the pledge of allegiance to the USA in public schools first hour class. “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.”
I hope Kyle did not pick the ‘black bean’.
Thanks, neo, for your excellent Rittenhouse posts.
A big problem we have that’s related to being on the right or wrong side of a riot pursuant to the perception of a juror who should put prejudice aside (which so many leftists just can’t do), is that many people believe possessing a firearm is an unforgivable crime that should be punished under any and all pretexts.
Years ago, I was part of a hung jury here in L.A. in a case involving a defendant accused of pointing a hand gun at a policeman. The event occurred in a barely lit area at about 3:00 a.m. There was no dispute from the prosecution side that the defendant was lawfully entitled to possess his hand gun, and was lawfully entitled to have it in his right hand at the time the encounter with police occurred. The only witnesses for the prosecution were two police officers, both of whom had shot the defendant when he was standing in his doorway and they were at least 30 feet away from him. When the police officers immediately approached the wounded-in-the-hip defendant, he was crumpled on the floor at the entrance of his home, and his gun was in the hallway 10 feet toward his living room. (As you can figure, and what was left unsaid, is that the police officers’ careers were at risk if it were a bad shooting.) The police officers’ initial report at the scene included their admissions that they could not see defendant’s hands or the nature of any objects that might have been in his hands. Yet they testified in court that they saw a hand gun in defendant’s right hand and that he raised it towards them. To 3 of the 12 of us, this discrepancy clearly precluded a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The other 9 insisted that they believed the officers, and never answered our queries about how they decided to believe the police officers’ second story as opposed to their initial stories, and persisted in their guilty votes. We were stalemated for over 2 full days before we reported to the court that we were a hung jury,
Nicholas Sandman comments on Kyle:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10208119/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-NICHOLAS-SANDMANN-media-defamation.html
Thanks, Eva.
I saw something interesting from Shipwreckedcrew.
Apparently the Prosecution had a high-quality version of the drone video that was played in their closing arguments. During discovery, they forwarded only a compressed, lower-quality version of this to the Defense team; Rittenhouse’s lawyers never had the use of the high-quality video. Not just a discovery violation apparently, but potentially a Brady violation and due process violation.
Also: The JumpKick man has been identified; the Prosecution knew his identity all along because he was *violating his probation* while enjoying the mostly peaceful protest and associated aerobics exercises. Violating his probation for the third time out of three probation periods. The state kept him in the background although he offered to testify. Presumably the Defense team was also aware.
When the final line is written: light will overcome the darkness; truth will be victorious over lies; joy will overcome sorrow; blindness will give way to sight; laughter will drown out mourning; death will be destroyed by life; and Binger will never point an AR-15 at a jury again.
I’m guessing it will end up a mistrial, due to a hung jury.
I’d bet there are a couple SJWs on that jury (no matter what they said during voir dire) who went in committed to conviction and will not be dissuaded by anything. There are also, likely, a few who are genuinely (and understandably) afraid of the consequences should they acquit. But…there are also a few who take their responsibility to the rule of law very seriously. They have reasonable doubts…indeed, much more than just reasonable doubts. And they will not give in.
As an aside: I’ve tried two cases to a jury (both administrative matters, much less complex than anything criminal). I lost both. In my state, a jury trial on an administrative appeal only requires a 10-2 vote for a verdict. In one of my trials, I had a juror who scowled at me throughout the proceedings. I figured there was no way I would ever convince him, but hopefully I could convince 10 of his peers. In the end, I lost: 10-2. When the jurors came out for post-trial debriefing, that juror led the pack and came over to me to shake my hand and tell me what a good job I did. He was one of the two.
You really just never know.
Among our unalienable Rights, which preceded the formation of our government, are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The reason we sacrificed a measure of freedom to create a government, was to secure those inalienable rights. In order to do that, to be legitimate, it must be the first duty of government to impose order among the citizenry. When the government fails to accomplish that primary duty – as was the case in Kenosha, where riots were allowed to continue – the citizens must, rightfully, take it upon themselves to secure their rights. That is why, in this country, we have a right to bear arms, a right that preceded our Constitution.
For those of you who have not done so, I would advise acquiring a weapon. If you are ever going to shoot, for God’s sake, get some training. But by the simple act of arming yourself, you will establish a degree of solidarity with the men who gave us our freedom.
Plus — you never know anymore when you might need it.
Ackler,
Perhaps the guy that “ scowled” was hard of hearing or seeing, and that was his facial expression from such.
CapnRusty
Please also encourage people to practice, and buy pre-paid legal defense. Even in a clearly legal defensive shooting, an obnoxious prosecutor could cost a person between $250K and $500K, …half-a-million dollars. The salesman at my concealed carry range time told us a story. He sold a policy to a fellow whose father had been in a defensive shooting. The perpetrator had forced entry to the home while armed. The father had disarmed him, and in the process fatally shot him. Just getting to the grand jury was expensive. Were they previously acquainted? Was it a drug deal gone bad? So many questions had to be answered before the DA would let it go.
So as Andrew says—
“REMEMBER
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca”
There is no credible evidence of guilt, must less guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There’s pretty credible evidence of a full-bore media campaign beginning the day after the shootings, which has created pretty credible inferences of a Narrative which simply can’t allow a minor white male with an ‘assault weapon’ to escape his share of mass guilt. That’s what’s driving the jury – there’ll be enough members dependent on that Narrative (and on the fear of the Mob and its photographs) to make incorrigible arguments against its more rational members.
Posobiec publishes the defense motion for Mistrial with Prejudice (screen caps of the document): https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1460816537812668425
@ Eva – some of what Nicholas Sandmann said.
@ sdferr > “Posobiec publishes the defense motion for Mistrial with Prejudice”
Further down from that Tweet (I have no idea what the mechanics are of what gets shown once you click on one of them), Posobiec also Tweeted this: “Two jurors holding decision up, outright citing backlash, per US Marshal in Kenosha”
Jennifer Van Laar jumped on top of that claim at Red State, based on her career experience. Since we are all opposed to spreading misinformation — which is Twitter’s main product, on all sides — her account should be required reading.
Doesn’t mean Posobiec is wrong; just that it’s unlikely he is right.
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/11/17/about-those-claims-that-a-u-s-marshal-said-two-rittenhouse-jurors-are-holding-up-verdict-due-to-backlash-doxxing-fears-n477072
The Uncouth Gab Commentariat’s take on the Jury Room gossip story is that Posobiec has a track record of being a bit of an opportunistic bullshitter and that this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posobiec lost a lot of credibility with me last year with many (most) of his claims regarding Sydney Powell and the 2020 election.
Having said that, I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to think that at least two jurors fear for their lives. I’m almost certain that Antifa and BLM and maybe even more official arms of the state have made quiet, threatening contact with them. Too much has been invested- by all powers involved- in this travesty for it to be allowed to end quietly and fairly.
Now, are US Marshals feeding him that info? That I have a hard time believing but stranger things have happened. Not sure about Wisconsin law, but if they were doing that in NYS, they would be leaking info *and* tacitly admitting they’re eavesdropping on juror deliberations and/or privy to communications meant for the judge and clerk alone. Yikes. Big, big, big trouble there.
Anyway, are the US Marshals there as back-up for the Kenosha County deputies? Why are they feeding the info rather than the KC deputies who are most likely handling the jurors? This isn’t Federal court, is it?
As for sequestration, I get why it isn’t used much anymore but if ever there was a case for it, we’re looking at it. But it’s definitely not fun.
I saw that Posobiec tweet last night, and decided not to post it here for the reasons Van Laar cites at RedState — although she knows a lot more about court procedures than I do. Why would US Marshals know anything about what’s going on in the jury room?
This trial isn’t only about Kyle Rittenhouse. Self-defense is on trial. Say you’re 17 years old and this male human chases you. He says “f*** you and grabs the barrel of your rifle. In the few seconds you have to make the decision to defend yourself or let this human take your gun and use it for less than benign purposes, what do you do? According to the prosecution, you should take a beating and possibly be killed yourself.
The media, as usual, is responsible for this fiasco. As is Brandon with his statement that Kyle is a “white supremacist.”
We/ve heard, of late, that punctuality, logic, math, and other items of such obvious value are tools of oppression.
There’s no reason to think an SJW juror wouldn’t think that, of course he’s not guilty in a legal sense but the situation requires he be punished because of who he is and because of who support him. And because of SJW resentment. And “in a legal sense” is not only a tool of oppression but a brutally imposed handicap on marginalized people.
I think I’m exaggerating, but I’m not sure. And it wouldn’t take the giant, economy-size dose of what I suggest to promote a guilty vote.
While we have no idea as yet whether Posobiec’s tweet is accurate, it is beyond any cavil that at least one juror will have become “sensitized” to the possibility that a not guilty verdict will result in rioting in general and death threats, as well as actual violence against some or all of the jurors. Lack of sequestration throughout the trial, although understandable under “normal” circumstances, would probably have been preferable. The Derek Chauvin jury was at least partially sequestered throughout. Why not this one?
Jennifer Van Laar jumped on top of that claim at Red State, based on her career experience. Since we are all opposed to spreading misinformation — which is Twitter’s main product, on all sides — her account should be required reading.
Donald McClarey posted this morning on this subject. He said in his experience of trial practice, courts leak like a sieve, and bailiffs had tipped him off in in past years in re conversations they’d overheard among jurors. Not sure why U.S. Marshall’s would be present in Kenosha, but it would not surprise me if county bailiffs knew things. Now, who the intermediaries between the bailiffs in Kenosha County and JP might be (if there be any) is a mystery.
Posobiec has a track record of being a bit of an opportunistic bullshitter and that this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Ya know, Zaphod, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.
@ Art Deco > “Donald McClarey posted this morning on this subject.”
Thanks for the link. I read several more posts, and enjoyed his short, pithy commentary – plus the memes and other links from there.
This graphic is especially apropos – from The Perry Mason Show.
https://i1.wp.com/the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Burgers-favorite-objection.jpg?fit=210%2C240&ssl=1
(There’s also a montage clip of our favorite prosecutor in the same post.)
https://the-american-catholic.com/2021/11/15/objection/
A guilty verdict declares that we haven’t a right to life. Tyranny writ large.
What the left is clearly incapable of recognizing is a guilty verdict also removes their right to life. Of course they will deny it but denial changes the new reality they’ve created… not in the least.
If my choice is death by the mob or becoming a “dead man walking” in prison… what do I have to lose by fighting? What do I have to lose in taking as many of them with me as possible?