Mistrial with prejudice means that a mistrial is declared and the charges/case cannot be retried. A general mistrial means the case could be retried.Originally Posted by Bio
A not guilty verdict is the result of jury deliberations. For all intents and purposes the result is basically the same (Rittenhouse goes free and cannot be charged/tried for this again). But a mistrial would give him plenty of ammunition for his civil suit.
My impression of the prosecution's strategy:
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
The state is accurately and deservingly represented.
Ignore Alien Orders
Anyone watch Liar, Liar with Jim Carrey?
At one point during the big case Carrey's character is counsel for, the judge makes a remark about "It is out of sheer morbid curiosity I'm allowing this freakshow to continue".
I wonder if the judge in this case is having similar thoughts...
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Reading the comments on another site, I learned that in the days before his shooting, Rittenhouse was captured on audio saying essentially "he wished he had his AR, he'd start shooting right now" as he watched looters leave a drug store. The judge did not allow the DA to introduce it at trial: https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news...ar/8188781002/
Reasonable people can at least disagree on the merits of the homicide charges (I tend to lean towards self defense, but Rittenhouse did shoot a guy who threw a plastic bag at him), but the prosecutor’s apparently deliberate ignoring of pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the multiple comments on the Defendant’s exercise of his fifth amendment rights (to include continuing after a successful objection the first time) are downright embarrassing.
Well, when the judge talks to you like a child and explains how objections and burden of proof work....
...eek.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I’m always a bit dismayed to watch people who ostensibly make their living as trial attorneys adopt the formula of making a statement that’s what they wish the witness/affiant/deponent would say followed by “, correct?” It’s not like no one teaches you this shit in law school.
I was a expert. I told my attorney not to ask me X. So he did. Another made up a new theory which IMHO was not supported. Asked me that out of the blue. Duh.
Got asked to evaluate a witness memory claim to exonerate a BG. I said it wouldn't fly given the circumstance. I could talk about memory, asked if it was relevant to his case - the answer was NO. He said, well - don't say. I disagreed and guess who didn't get to testify and it was a long time in getting paid.
Actually, they do. Putting words in a witness’s mouth and seeking agreement is precisely what attorneys do on cross examination, because leading questions are allowed. We’re also trained to not allow them to avoid the question? (“So the answer to my previous question was ‘yes?’” Etc.). There are more artful ways to do things, but the ideal cross from an attorney’s perspective is effectively that the attorney “testifies” and the witness agrees with their “testimony.”
