IndividualFreedom said:
I was listening to Breitbart early this am and one of the callers from Kenosha brought up that this case is fixed or already agreed upon. If they had not arrested Kyle, the city would burn. The caller suggests that the mistrial with prejudice is by design and the drawn out trial showing the world that Kyle was in the right to defend himself so as the hope that Kenosha won't burn.
No. Judges don't like to take cases from juries unless absolutely called for. If a jury finds him not guilty, the appeal becomes
very hard. The appellant prosecution would have to prove that the judge committed an error of law by admitting or excluding evidence or witness testimony that he shouldn't have and it unfairly prejudiced the prosecution. The court of appeals is not going to overturn a jury on a factual determination.
If the trial judge takes the factual determination of the case from the jury, he faces much higher scrutiny at the appellate courts since he is making a judgment not only on law, but on facts.
If the jury returns a verdict that the judge doesn't like, he can still order a new trial or different result. (At least in civil context, Hawg or others will correct me if I'm wrong.) Again, higher scrutiny in the appellate courts, but same result.
So, by letting the jury decide the case, it is less likely that the judge will be overturned. (Which judges hate, BTW.)