That wouldn't be a legal maneuver, that would just be Democrat political move.
****Kyle Rittenhouse Trial-Day 7****
164,067 Views |
2089 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Texaggie7nine
BadMoonRisin said:
That wouldn't be a legal maneuver, that would just be Democrat political move.
Agreed. I was just saying I don't know much about courtroom proceedings and bull**** that lawyers try to pull.
Quote:
From Branca: "Binger also mocked Kyle's claims of being interested in helping the injured, when he didn't bother to help Rosenbaum, or Huber, or Grosskreutzas if even professional EMT would have stayed on scene to provide care if there were an angry, violent, death-threatening mob running down on them."
Standard procedure, right? Think about the Floyd trial - they had to move & stage elsewhere for treatment because of the bystanders.
That's what a few of the lawyers were saying yesterday during the MST3000 broadcast. Binger has deuced this up so bad that he just keeps going, then after the trial he cries to the press about mean old judge being unfair. It's pretty obvious he plays very fast and loose with court rules.Agthatbuilds said:
That's one theory that's floating around. The defense council said the exact same during an objection as well.
Well, the theory is the prosecution is aiming for a mistrial without prejudice so they can retry the case.
a mistrial with prejudice means Rittenhouse cannot be tried again
I assume the prosecution has brought in some expert witnesses like the entrepreneur and the co-addict in the Floyd case?
if they try to "throw" the trial like that with the real intent of their actions being to get a do-over via mistrial, the judge is well within his authority to find that prosecutors acted in bad faith and to dismiss charges with prejudice - meaning trying him again is a clear double jeopardy violation.Good Poster said:
I have no legal background but could the prosecution want a mistrial? They may know if it goes to the jury he will walk free so a mistrial might help their narrative of "it wasn't fair" and "system is built to help white supremacy" or something like that.
Good insight. Thanks.
I think this thing comes down to how the jury is instructed. No way they find him guilty of murder - but could be hung. Doubt they get reckless endangerment either, but also could be hung.
If the judge makes it clear that the whole "he shouldn't have been there" argument cannot be considered - and only if he acted reasonably once he was chased/attacked (as in "If you the jurist found yourself in that situation should you be able to defend yourself from attack - yes or no?) then I think they can acquit. Might get a negotiated verdict down to reckless endangerment but he was anything BUT reckless in his defense - so who knows.
I think 100 percent no way he gets convicted of murder. There will be jurors on there that won't vote for that no matter what. Very likely a hung jury tbh - unless the judge gives them some very specific directions.
If the judge makes it clear that the whole "he shouldn't have been there" argument cannot be considered - and only if he acted reasonably once he was chased/attacked (as in "If you the jurist found yourself in that situation should you be able to defend yourself from attack - yes or no?) then I think they can acquit. Might get a negotiated verdict down to reckless endangerment but he was anything BUT reckless in his defense - so who knows.
I think 100 percent no way he gets convicted of murder. There will be jurors on there that won't vote for that no matter what. Very likely a hung jury tbh - unless the judge gives them some very specific directions.
That's when the feds step in and figure something out to get him.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:if they try to "throw" the trial like that with the real intent of their actions being to get a do-over via mistrial, the judge is well within his authority to find that prosecutors acted in bad faith and to dismiss charges with prejudice - meaning trying him again is a clear double jeopardy violation.Good Poster said:
I have no legal background but could the prosecution want a mistrial? They may know if it goes to the jury he will walk free so a mistrial might help their narrative of "it wasn't fair" and "system is built to help white supremacy" or something like that.
If I was this judge, given the prosecutorial misconduct, I would love to let the jury decide in Kyle's favor, if possible. The state cannot appeal if the jury acquits him.
I don't know the vagaries of Wisconsin criminal procedure, so I don't know how the judge would maneuver it, but that would be the best possible result.
The question is whether the judge can override a conviction on his own (which would be appealed).
The problem with granting a mistrial with prejudice is that it will be appealed, and this case is a hot political potato. I think the court of appeals would send it back.
I don't know the vagaries of Wisconsin criminal procedure, so I don't know how the judge would maneuver it, but that would be the best possible result.
The question is whether the judge can override a conviction on his own (which would be appealed).
The problem with granting a mistrial with prejudice is that it will be appealed, and this case is a hot political potato. I think the court of appeals would send it back.
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:
I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
wbt5845 said:
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
Along those lines, I don't get when those who want to hang Rittenhouse say "he didn't have a right to be there!" He had as much right as the rioters to be there. Why did they have the right to be there but he didn't? You can argue the prudence either way of the decision but the that is different.
If Kyle Rittenhouse ended up dead for recklessly "showing up at a protest bordering on riots", people would say he was asking for it and wave it off.wbt5845 said:
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
But nobody applies the "he was asking for it" justification to the other guy who actually ended up dead for "showing up at a protest bordering on riots" with INTENT.
I had a similar experience with a federal judge unloading on opposing counsel for dancing all over the in limine rulings excluding evidence or mention of a previous lawsuit against my client. He was crossing my main witness and kept questioning about up testimony that you gave even before this lawsuit was filed. He was holding a big depo transcript during questioning, then put pages on the Elmo projector for the jury to see. After the second reference to previous testimony, we asked to approach. The lawyer closed the transcript on the Elmo, leaving the cover with the other lawsuit's case style projected for all to see. We scooped it up as quick as we could. The judge saw what happened and dismissed the jury. I doubt they even made it into the jury room when one of the lawyers whined and said, "Like we really did that on purpose".
The judge exploded at the top of his lungs "SHUT UP, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD." Then went on, still yelling, about their tactics for 5 solid minutes and said "You have a case, but you are F'ing it up". He took mistrial under consideration just like here.
We won, so it turned out to not matter. But polling the jury afterward, they all knew about the other lawsuit. One juror wrote down the name of the case she saw on the Elmo in her notes.
The judge exploded at the top of his lungs "SHUT UP, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, DON'T SAY ANOTHER WORD." Then went on, still yelling, about their tactics for 5 solid minutes and said "You have a case, but you are F'ing it up". He took mistrial under consideration just like here.
We won, so it turned out to not matter. But polling the jury afterward, they all knew about the other lawsuit. One juror wrote down the name of the case she saw on the Elmo in her notes.
05AG said:wbt5845 said:
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
Along those lines, I don't get when those who want to hang Rittenhouse say "he didn't have a right to be there!" He had as much right as the rioters to be there. Why did they have the right to be there but he didn't? You can argue the prudence either way of the decision but the that is different.
That's actually not true. According to the facts of the case as presented in the last few days' testimony, he had more right to be there because the property owners had requested their presence for protecting the property.
First and foremost it's clear it was self-defense and Kyle needs to avoid any prison.
Mistrial with prejudice is beyond warranted and results in the above.
That needs to be done today.
No jury verdict is going to sway the media/left anyway. That's not an issue.
Second, the prosecutorial misconduct must be dealt with in the harshest means available. Only when prosecutors really begin paying a price will this behavior be quelled.
Mistrial with prejudice is beyond warranted and results in the above.
That needs to be done today.
No jury verdict is going to sway the media/left anyway. That's not an issue.
Second, the prosecutorial misconduct must be dealt with in the harshest means available. Only when prosecutors really begin paying a price will this behavior be quelled.
BlackGoldAg2011 said:05AG said:wbt5845 said:
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
Along those lines, I don't get when those who want to hang Rittenhouse say "he didn't have a right to be there!" He had as much right as the rioters to be there. Why did they have the right to be there but he didn't? You can argue the prudence either way of the decision but the that is different.
That's actually not true. According to the facts of the case as presented in the last few days' testimony, he had more right to be there because the property owners had requested their presence for protecting the property.
Good point.
Mistrial with prejudice will be appealed. And reversed.
sam callahan said:
First and foremost it's clear it was self-defense and Kyle needs to avoid any prison.
Mistrial with prejudice is beyond warranted and results in the above.
That needs to be done today.
No jury verdict is going to sway the media/left anyway. That's not an issue.
Second, the prosecutorial misconduct must be dealt with in the harshest means available. Only when prosecutors really begin paying a price will this behavior be quelled.
In dealing with the misconduct I thought it would be great if the jury did something along the lines of announcing their verdict of not guilty on all counts and then tacking on at the end a recommendation that the state pay for Kyle's legal fees due to the baseless nature of the charges brought. I realize that's the type of thing that happens in movies and not real life, but would be epic to watch.
Yeah but I still don't think you are going to get all 12 jurors to vote guilt on reckless endangerment. So you may get hung on that charge with acquittal on the homicide charges.wbt5845 said:
I think this jury ends up hung. There are some who just will not listen to reason - Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremist and must be punished.
Now, on murder? I could see even the most hard core leftist backing off that. But they will want to punish him.
For reckless endangerment:I could see hard core haters on the jury saying "yeah showing up at a protest bordering on riots is reckless and he knew he was putting people at risk. I personally don't agree - I think he should walk - but I bet this jury will want to punish him somehow.Quote:
Reckless endangerment is governed by Wisconsin State Statute 941.30. Reckless endangerment charges may be first- or second-degree charges.In order to be charged with recklessly endangering safety, it must be proven that the accused had a "reckless culpable state of mind." Under Wisconsin law, this means that the accused:
- First-degree reckless endangerment requires the person to have done something that endangers someone else with actions that "show utter disregard of human life." This is a Class F felony.
- Second-degree reckless endangerment is less severe and is usually charged when a person acts in a way that puts another person's safety at risk but does not act with utter disregard for human life. This is a Class G felony.
- Engaged in behavior that put someone else at risk of death or great bodily harm, and
- Knew that risk existed.
I think the judge will have to instruct carefully because almost everyone I've talked to about the case almost reflexively says "he shouldn't have been there" without even considering that he was asked by property owners to be there OR that the rioters also had no business there tearing the place up.
Fightin TX Aggie said:
Mistrial with prejudice will be appealed. And reversed.
Nope nope nope. If dismissed WITH prejudice it's over.
This isn't a legal trial, it's just a political trial.BadMoonRisin said:
That wouldn't be a legal maneuver, that would just be Democrat political move.
I don't know Wisconsin procedure, but that sounds highly unlikely.FbgTxAg said:Fightin TX Aggie said:
Mistrial with prejudice will be appealed. And reversed.
Nope nope nope. If dismissed WITH prejudice it's over.
Judicial decisions can be appealed.
Fightin TX Aggie said:I don't know Wisconsin procedure, but that sounds highly unlikely.FbgTxAg said:Fightin TX Aggie said:
Mistrial with prejudice will be appealed. And reversed.
Nope nope nope. If dismissed WITH prejudice it's over.
Judicial decisions can be appealed.
There are several key issues:
-- at what point jeopardy attaches (i.e. no double jeopardy)
-- what caused the dismissal
-- the standard of review for the decision made by the judge on the motion
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:I can't help but get the Colin Robinson vibe from this guy.BadMoonRisin said:
I definitely get a strong Gregory Itzin (President Logan from 24)
Or
Alan Arkin
Binger's mannerisms when cross examining remind me of the head attorney dude in Better Call Saul
:format(jpg)/images.amcnetworks.com/amc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/better-call-saul-season-5-interview-patrick-fabian-howard-hamlin_1200x707.jpg)
7nine
Featured Stories
See All
Blue Bell Park set for highly-anticipated return
by Richard Zane
Reed diligently working to solve his turnover 'problem'
by Olin Buchanan
61:04
2h ago
758
B-Team: Lone Star Showdown trivia, prepping for the weekend & more
by Ryan Brauninger
Spring Football Snippets: Practice No. 10
by Olin Buchanan
30:16
5h ago
1.3k
aggiez03
Luke Rollins - Brooke Rollins' son - named Head Yell Leader
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31
TXAggie4Christ
Bucky McMillan hosting 4-star HS visitor this weekend
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30
DTP02
Luke Rollins - Brooke Rollins' son - named Head Yell Leader
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27