Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[5pins]

I thought it was time to split off the other thread and have one dedicated to the trial.

The trial starts Monday and can be watched on Court TV.

[5pins]

Judge hopes to seat Kyle Rittenhouse jury within a day


One day sound pretty ambitious to me.

KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse kicks off Monday with the challenging task of seating jurors who haven’t already made up their minds about the man who shot three people, killing two, during a violent night of protests last year.

https://www.courttv.com/news/judge-h...-within-a-day/

[5pins]

[Guerrero]

The whole situation is a total shit-show. It may be, strictly speaking, self-defense, but a whole number of bad decisions happened before that actual shooting.

That being said, the local media are all pretty much anti-Rittenhouse (subtly, of course).

[vcdgrips]

Multiple media reports describe the judge as "old school" and "hands on." He wants to select 20 out of a pool of 150ish.

1 day may be a bit ambitious, particularly if the attys, not the judge, do most of the Voir Dire-asking questions of the jury. In my federal district, we routinely pick 14 out of 44 ish in less than 4 hours but the judge does most of the Voir Dire off their standard list and questions we submit in advance with a LIMITED period of follow up by the attys.

I would also be curious to know if the panel answered a questionnaire prior to reporting which would streamline the process as well.

All that to say, I would expect opening statements sometime tomorrow (maybe after lunch such that it was 1.5 days to pick the jury) as I do think the judge would have said it if he did not think it could be done given his demeanor and experience.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What do you think about the instructions that the prosecution couldn't call the folks who were shot 'victims' but the defense could use the terms 'looters and rioters'?

[RancidSumo]

What do you think about the instructions that the prosecution couldn't call the folks who were shot 'victims' but the defense could use the terms 'looters and rioters'?

I could be wrong as I haven't been following any of this too closely, but I'm pretty sure the defense can only call them "looters and rioters" if they present evidence that they were looting and rioting.

[vcdgrips]

I think it is a fairly nuanced approach that the media has largely missed/ignored

The deceased cannot be deemed victims unless and until the defendant is convicted of harming them in some way

In fairness, I believe the ruling was that the deceased COULD be called looters and/or rioters if admissible evidence is introduced which shows that conduct.
Many of the media reports skipped over that important distinction re proof first-then use of such terminology.

The entire issue could be avoided if we used the term subject/person across the board.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting, thanks.

[OlongJohnson]

The entire issue could be avoided if we used the term subject/person across the board.

Or go straight to "particular individual."