Is it normal for a trial to continue without ruling on a motion for mistrial?
Wouldn't most people, including me, understand that any public statement could be considered self incriminating before a trial or during a trial, other than sworn testimony. Rittenhouse knew early on that he was going to be prosecuted and I'm sure he had legal counsel soon after the incident, even while being interrogated by the police.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.
I'm beginning to think the prosecution is a bunch of no-name attorneys with very little experience, just throwing shit out there to see if anyone is stupid enough to believe it. If I was a juror I would almost be offended by some of their tactics. That could possibly lead me to think the prosecution is rowing with one oar in the water, maybe even a political agenda.
Last edited by Borderland; 11-11-2021 at 02:15 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
These are not the days of Clarence Darrow or Daniel Webster at the podium. For that matter, the rhetorical skills of recent and current presidents suggests a de-evolution of the species. I think Clarence would agree.
Prosecution team performance is on par with the original O.J. trial, except in this instance, they don't even have the benefit of a legitimate case to prosecute.
I'm usually wrong, so take my option for what it's worth. I don't think there are 12 people on that jury that will vote guilty. Acquittal at best hung jury at the worst.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.