Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[5pins]

Is a judgement notwithstanding the verdict an option here?

It would seem to me that a mistrial with prejudice is warranted, but the optics of letting a defendant off on a technicality might lead to riots. Could a judge roll the dice and let the jury decide (and then overrule the jury if they find KR guilty)?

Yes he could set aside the jury verdict if it came back with guilty. I don't think guilty verdict is going to happen. At best, for the prosecution, would be a hung jury. In that case he could dismiss the throw out the charges.

My guess if the judge will throw out the gun charge and let the rest go to the jury. I think there is a very good chance of a not guilty verdict and if there isn't then the judge will dismiss with prejudice.

[RJ]

For the lawyers here: suppose one of us was in Kyle’s position and the prosecutor started asking for details about ammo selection. How should we answer?

Great question.

Not a lawyer. But I do recall listening to a podcast by @Mas. IIRC, he suggested responding that you chose hollow points, for the same reason that Law Enforcement uses them: It is the best ammunition type that is effective in stopping the threat. Or something to that effect. I would absolutely defer to him or all ya'll much more knowledgeable legal guys here.

[Mas]

ADA Binger apparently knows just enough about ballistics to be dangerous. He was trying to establish "reckless wanton disregard for human life" with the use of FMJ on the theory that while JHP is designed to stay in the body of the offender, FMJ is likely to pass through and endanger innocent bystanders behind the intended target.

Had the rifle been loaded with Gold Dots or whatever, I can about guarantee he would have invoked the old BS about "bullets designed to rend and tear and cause undue pain and suffering."

Kyle's best answer would have been, "It was the only ammunition I had, the ammunition that was in the rifle when I came into possession of it."

[bedellrt]

ADA Binger apparently knows just enough about ballistics to be dangerous. He was trying to establish "reckless wanton disregard for human life" with the use of FMJ on the theory that while JHP is designed to stay in the body of the offender, FMJ is likely to pass through and endanger innocent bystanders behind the intended target.

Had the rifle been loaded with Gold Dots or whatever, I can about guarantee he would have invoked the old BS about "bullets designed to rend and tear and cause undue pain and suffering."

Kyle's best answer would have been, "It was the only ammunition I had, the ammunition that was in the rifle when I came into possession of it."

Binger actually said JHP is designed to explode inside whatever animal or person it hits. He and Kraus seems to have thought this case was a slam dunk and skipped the preparation portion. An alternate theory is the DA's Office knew this was a BS case and only charged him to quell the unrest, put distance between he events and the trial, and are now going through the motions.

Having said that, I am truly impressed with the Defense Attorneys preparations and court room conduct, which seems to have a positive effect on their interactions with the Judge. Hopefully, the Jury sees the shenanigans Binger and Kraus are attempting and the repetitive attempts to put words in witnesses mouths, which one State's Witness testified happened, when he met with them.

Their delaying the Dominic Black trial may come back to bite them in to, because the plain language in the Wisconsin law on the under 17 year old with a gun charge has two criteria, which both have to be met. One is the hunter training, which Kyle did not have. The other is, actually, under 16 y.o., which Kyle wasn't. If the Judge tosses this charge in Kyle's case, Black will most likely get his two charges tossed too.

[Ed L]

What's that have to do with the shooting? None of this was known to Rittenhouse at the time the time he shot Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse testified to his fear of being disarmed.

I was responding to the statement:

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),

Rittenhouse didn't just shoot a guy who threw a plastic bag at him. He someone who was violently pursuing him who was trying to grab his gun; someone who had previously told him that he would kill him of any of his group if he caught them alone. Rittenhouse also witnessed Rosenbaum menacing his group of friend being restrained while shouting "Shoot me, N!gg@!" So Rosenbaum appeared hyperviolent to Rittenhouse who had had plenty of reason to fear him and justification to shoot him.

As for the things about Rosenbaum's violent past, it may be off limits for Rittenhouse's lawyers to introduce in the trial but it's not off-limits for us to discuss here.

[ssb]

I was responding to the statement:



Rittenhouse didn't just shoot a guy who threw a plastic bag at him. He someone who was violently pursuing him who was trying to grab his gun; someone who had previously told him that he would kill him of any of his group if he caught them alone. Rittenhouse also witnessed Rosenbaum menacing his group of friend being restrained while shouting "Shoot me, N!gg@!" So Rosenbaum appeared hyperviolent to Rittenhouse who had had plenty of reason to fear him and justification to shoot him.

As for the things about Rosenbaum's violent past, it may be off limits for Rittenhouse's lawyers to introduce in the trial but it's not off-limits for us to discuss here.

All of that may be so. However, it’s been borne out time and time again that shooting somebody who is not armed is a pretty certain way to end up explaining one’s actions in front of a jury. In Rittenhouse’s case, he now needs to hope that at least one of the jurors buys his explanation that he believed the bag was a chain given the context of the evening and finds that belief reasonable, and ideally that all twelve do so he cannot be retried.

[hufnagel]

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.

And the judge cuts him off and says “hollow points can go through people too”

The prosecutor retorts, “your honor there’s no testimony to that effect”

Judge: “so what, you’ve been testifying yourself this whole time”

What fucking clown shoes circus this trial is.

For the lawyers here: suppose one of us was in Kyle’s position and the prosecutor started asking for details about ammo selection. How should we answer? My assumption is the lawyers here are better versed on law and guns than whatever lawyer we might hire.

On one hand, if we spend an hour explaining the details of our ballistic knowledge, we might look like a lunatic. But we might also look like a well-prepared, well-researched person. And would the judge even allow it? Wouldn’t we as the defendant need to establish ourself as an expert witness to enter that kind of testimony? Or because the prosecutor brought it up then it opens the door to be allowed?

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.

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

[BehindBlueI's]

For the lawyers here: suppose one of us was in Kyle’s position and the prosecutor started asking for details about ammo selection. How should we answer? My assumption is the lawyers here are better versed on law and guns than whatever lawyer we might hire.

On one hand, if we spend an hour explaining the details of our ballistic knowledge, we might look like a lunatic.

You'd be prepped by your attorney, but as a general rule: Only answer the question that was asked. Do not volunteer information. Do not talk to fill dead air. If you do not understand the question, ask for clarification, do not spitball.

"Why did you choose to use hollowpoints" does not ask what you know about terminal ballistics or if you are an expert. They did not ask if I know how they respond when they hit a body, etc. It asks why you chose them.

[Duelist]

You'd be prepped by your attorney, but as a general rule: Only answer the question that was asked. Do not volunteer information. Do not talk to fill dead air. If you do not understand the question, ask for clarification, do not spitball.

"Why did you choose to use hollowpoints" does not ask what you know about terminal ballistics or if you are an expert. They did not ask if I know how they respond when they hit a body, etc. It asks why you chose them.

It seemed that Kyle was well-prepped by his attorneys to deal with the prosecutor: when the prosecutor started his cross, he harped on “you meant to kill them, you deliberately used deadly force” line over and over, and Kyle repeated variations on “I used force to stop people who were attacking me,.”

Seemed like they (wisely) practiced that.

[blues]

LOL!! I snoozed *one* today. That doesn’t mean there is only one. Or that I haven’t snoozed more of them.

That's the spirit!