Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[Tensaw]

I had some similar thoughts. Here's hoping I never have to have a conversation with my attorney about any of this.

Huf - I think that is a big part of what is going on here (beyond the virtue signaling and pandering to the mob) - they want to make an example out of Rittenhouse. That way, the next time the political “leadership” give people room to destroy, ummm, I mean have a demonstration, citizens will think twice before trying to protect themselves or their property. Why else would they charge him for shooting a guy who was charging him with a pistol out?

By the way, isn’t ol’ Lefty a prohibited person himself? Is he facing any charges? Shouldn’t he be charged with assaulting Rittenhouse? Based on the video and evidence, it’s pretty clear that he was the aggressor even if he did end up on the losing side of the fight. And if he isn’t being charged, you see the message here. It’s okay to riot and raise hell, but don’t you dare raise a finger to impede that...

[blues]

Sorry… I think I’m channeling @blues tonight.

@GyroF-16

It's not the kind of thing you want getting around.

[Borderland]

I was in a discussion yesterday with someone who thought Rittenhouse was guilty because, like the prosecution pointed out, Rittenhouse was the only one who shot someone during the riot.

That's a pretty big stretch to convince people that he's guilty. I'm not sure what the point would be by using that in a trial to convince a jury of his guilt. Are they trying to say it was premeditated. Lots of people in that riot had weapons, even one of the people he shot. Two if you count the guy using his skate board.

[vcdgrips]

Someone posted-

"...My guess if [is] the judge will throw out the gun charge and let the rest go to the jury."

It is likely I have watched much less of the trial than you. You may know more than I do in this case.

That gun charge is one that a jury could see their way to relative to the other charges.

I think its outright dismissal prior to going to the jury is unlikely.

On a very cursory look, it appears that a WI judge in a criminal case has the power to grant a JNOV (Judgement notwithstanding the verdict).

IF, that is true and I would defer to somebody who has practiced criminal law in WI on that most readily, I would expect for almost any judge to let the case go to the jury.

If they convict, he can JNOV if he believes there is a legal basis to do so. If they acquit, it is not on the judge at all.

While it seemed that the prosecutor was going in areas he should not have based on the Court's prior rulings, without seeing the pleadings/transcripts on those, the answers may be a bit more nuanced than it appeared yesterday afternoon. It is always better practice to ask the Court for guidance before going down such paths. It is rarely a good thing when a judge's response to someone's statement of "I was acting in good faith" is "I do not believe you."

Regrading reported comments of the prosecutor saying things to the effect to the defendant- Only now Mr R, are you saying this story. You have had the opportunity to watch the the trial and all the witnesses, be prepared by your attys etc. The first part re his "silence" is potentially very problematic because it comes quite close to commenting on a defendant's right to remain silent.


Generally speaking, judges are extremely disinclined to declare mistrials because of all of the time/talent/treasure that has gone into the trial in the first place. A mistrial mid trial means a do-over. Moreover, many feel that a retrial typically favor the prosecution such that issues of fundamental fairness are in play.

Absent a mistrial being declared for a hung jury, I have not had one, nor have I seen one in my Court in 24 years as a prosecutor. Admittedly, my frame of reference is a few hundred cases total and that may be small relative to someone who has done 24 years as a state court prosecutor, particularly in a major metropolitan area.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not watching in real time. Just go the part before the lunch break where the prosecutor spends 20 minutes trying to argue FMJ is so deadly it’s designed to got through multiple people.



Because I’d bet most of here know the reason hollow points aren’t used in the military is because of the Geneva convention. And that FMJ 5.56 will fracture at the cannelure and remain in the persons body.

I’d be concerned that the prosecutor would argue to the jury that we live, breathe and dream guns and that’s why we spend so much time studying them, and we’ve been waiting our whole lives to satiate our bloodlust.

Although if the prosecutor said that to me, I’d ask how I managed to hold off going on a killing spree for so long, having owned an AR15 for over 20 years.

As to be picky in usage, such as the logarithm/algorithm discussion, we in the here should know that the appropriate reference is the Hague Convention:

http://www.weaponslaw.org/instrument...ue-Declaration

http://www.weaponslaw.org/assets/dow...ng_bullets.pdf

Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets

The Hague, 29 July 1899

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace

Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 29
November (11 December) 1868,
Declare as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in
the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced
with incisions.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/W...3?OpenDocument

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Annex to the Convention: Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land - Section II : Hostilities - Chapter I : Means of injuring the enemy, sieges, and bombardments - Regulations: Art. 23.
Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

Here's a picture of a WWI German medal (by a famous medalist) denouncing the use of dum dums:

[Jim Watson]

Divarication Alert

The British argued at Hague that they were capable of keeping separate inventories of expansive bullets for "stopping power" against savage tribesmen and full patch for warfare against "civilized" opponents signatory to the treaty. The French and Germans beat them down on that. The joke was on the Jerries, a few years later the British adopted the Mk VII spitzer, first of the notorious "tumblers."

The Germans didn't like us crude Americans deploying shotguns for trench warfare, either.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, is there a site that has transcripts of the testimony. My limited searching didn't find any. Going through hours of video to find specific comments is a pain. The search engines don't seem to come up with specific clips, just blocks.

Maybe I'm missing that.

[idahojess]

Here is a good piece from Andrew McCarthy:

Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been on the violent streets of Kenosha. He also should not be on trial for murder.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...-self-defense/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While trivial, don't folks find the DA to have a whining, petulant intonation is his speech? It grates on me. Is it because I don't support his analysis but he's like a rule dictator at a match arguing about a millisecond and penalty.

PS - he was all butt hurt today that the Judge subjected him to his 'ire' but let the defense get away with this or that over some trivial use of terms in the video experts testimony. I wonder if he has a supervisor or an AAR team who can tell him to chill out.

One of my beloved relatives who is not sympatico at all to the armed civilian folks, understood the SD issues and the Constitutional issue of self-incrimination. Just shook her head at the prosecution.

Had a discussion of algorithms and logarithms with a computer science prof good friend. We thought is was natural for lawyers not to understand the base of the logarithm usage (EEEE!). Math puns. I know quite few AR-15 toting academics. What a surprise.

[joshs]

That gun charge is one that a jury could see their way to relative to the other charges.

It looks like there is an applicable exception to the statute that should either apply to Rittenhouse or make the statute so vague that it is void for vagueness.

There is an exception for long guns.

"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." Wis. Stat. Ann. § 948.60(3)(c).

941.28 deals with SBRs and SBSs. 29.304 and 29.593 deal with hunting. There is a bit of ambiguity about whether it only applies while hunting. A prior version of the statute was read not to apply to a rifle, but it doesn't look like the current ambiguity has been resolved by case law. Since it is a criminal statute, that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of a criminal defendant.

I did see an analysis somewhere else that considered whether the judge could let the gun charge go the the jury in case they want to get Rittenhouse on something because too many jurors just aren't comfortable with his behavior, even if they think he acted in self-defense. The judge could then rule that the statute either doesn't apply as a matter of law or that it is void for vagueness. Just like the JNOV issue, I don't know enough about Wisconsin criminal procedure to know if that is possible.