AggieUSMC said:

---

If the "everyone takes a beating once in a while" argument doesn't lose the fence sitters I'd be shocked.

---

BuddysBud said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Was there a motion for directed verdict? If there was, this judge is a fool for not granting it.

---

Yes there was. But when the judge made the mistake of adding provocation to the jury charge, that question of fact for the jury screwed everything up. Judge has kept it under advisement.

He also has kept the defense motion for dismissal with prejudice due to prosecutorial abuse under advisement.

---

What does "kept under advisement" mean?
It looks like he is going through with deliberations. Once the jury reaches a verdict, can the judge change it?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

Was there a motion for directed verdict? If there was, this judge is a fool for not granting it.

---

Yes there was. But when the judge made the mistake of adding provocation to the jury charge, that question of fact for the jury screwed everything up. Judge has kept it under advisement.

He also has kept the defense motion for dismissal with prejudice due to prosecutorial abuse under advisement.

---

What does "kept under advisement" mean?
It looks like he is going through with deliberations. Once the jury reaches a verdict, can the judge change it?

---

Judge is being a p**** and won't rule.

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

So when does it go to the jury?

---

They draw for the primary 12 member Jury and elect the foreman tonight. Will start deliberations tomorrow.

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

The prosecution has showed their ass today. Their entire narrative is on display and it shows a particular brand of evil.

These narcissistic buffoons are betting on their ability to spin a story complete independent of the facts and one entire made of hearsay

It's evil

---

Can you imagine knowingly putting an innocent kid in jail like this? How TF do you live with yourself?

We as a society really need to start taking out the trash.

---

aTmAg said:

---

Is the jury deliberating now? Or are they in their hotel or whatever? Is there chance of a verdict tonight?

---

Quote:

---

The morning began without the jury in the courtroom, with a meeting to finalize the instructions to be given to the jury.

The defense came away with three big wins as a result of these discussions, and one that did not go their way.

One win was the dismissal of the gun possession chargefinally! My first analysis of this gun possession charge that concluded it ought to be dismissed as a matter of law, and never be considered by a jury, was posted way back on September 7, 2020, more than 14 months ago. It was nice to see Judge Schroeder finally see the wisdom of my position. So, Count 6, the gun possession charge, has been discarded.

A second win, with respect to the State's argument of provocation, the State will not be permitted to claim as fact that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminski's. This is important for the defense, because the purported provocation of pointing the rifle at the Ziminski's, which if believed would strip Kyle of self-defense completely, requires an unlawful act on his part that provoked the Rosenbaum attack.

The State wants to claim that unlawful act was Kyle pointing the gun at the Ziminski'sbut there's no actual evidence of this. There's no photo or testimony that Kyle pointed his rifle at the Ziminski's. Even the "enhanced" drone video left for the prosecution by the evidence fairy does not have the Ziminski's in frame when Kyle is supposedly pointing his rifle.

So, the State will only be permitted to argue that Kyle pointed his rifle in some general direction, that different video shows the Ziminski's in that general area, and therefore the jury should infer that Kyle was pointing his rifle at the Ziminski's.

If the jury disbelieves any part of that, there was no unlawful act that provoked the Rosenbaum charge, and therefore no provocation that strips Kyle of self-defense.

A third win, with respect to Count 2, the reckless endangerment of McGinnis, the judge agreed to the suggestion by defense attorney Chirafisi that he would instruct the jury that if Kyle's use of force with respect to Rosenbaum was lawful self-defense, then it was not conduct that was reckless with respect to McGinnisso, if shooting Rosenbaum was lawful self-defense, there also was no reckless endangerment of McGinnis. Self-defense on Count 1 would also clear away Count 2.

---

Quote:

---

One point that did not go the way of the defense was their request for a jury instruction that the jury ought not convict Kyle solely on the drone video footage. The judge declined that instruction, saying it's up to the jury to weigh the evidence.

These discussions were followed by the actual instruction of the jury in the courtroom, and this was among the most confusing and disjointed instructions of a jury I've ever seen. At one point, in fact, the judge sent the jury out of the courtroom, as he recognized just what a mess the process had become.

---

Quote:

---

Here the defense actually acquired a fourth big win on the jury instructions.

The issue had been that the instructions as provided in standardized form might have misled the jury into believing that even if they found the defendant not guilty of a primary criminal charge on the grounds of self-defense, that they then should nevertheless go on to consider if he's guilty of one of the lesser included charges.

This is not how it works. If the defendant is clear of the primary charge on the basis of self-defense, his conduct was legally justified, and cannot be the basis for a conviction on a lesser included charge.

---

Quote:

---

Ultimately, Judge Schroeder decided that he would essentially just tell the jury that if they believed the defendant's conduct was self-defense, they were donethat was a not guilty verdict on that charge, and they need not consider either the primary charge nor any lesser included charges in that count.

That's what the jury SHOULD have been instructed to do-consider self-defense first. If they do that, and find self-defense, they've made their deliberations a heck of a lot more efficient, because they'll never have to consider the corresponding criminal charge of its lesser includeds at all.

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Full acquittal! Since there is no gun charge, I don't see how he could possibly be guilty of anything.

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Can a jury be unanimous on some counts but not on others? As in, if he is found not guilty on 1 or more counts, but the jury is hung on the others, would he be acquitted for those counts and could only be retried on the others?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Folks? What should I do here? Keep this thread going until after the case is officially given to the jury tomorrow and then start the verdict watch thread?

Or start a new thread tomorrow morning for both?

---

rab79 said:

---

Sorry, sorry, the devil made me do it....

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

This guy learned to close by watching Brad Lidge pitch to Pujols in the NLCS

---

Quote:

---

Here the defense actually acquired a fourth big win on the jury instructions.

The issue had been that the instructions as provided in standardized form might have misled the jury into believing that even if they found the defendant not guilty of a primary criminal charge on the grounds of self-defense, that they then should nevertheless go on to consider if he's guilty of one of the lesser included charges.

This is not how it works. If the defendant is clear of the primary charge on the basis of self-defense, his conduct was legally justified, and cannot be the basis for a conviction on a lesser included charge.

---

BusterAg said:

---

When I think about Kyle Rittenhouse, I am reminded of all the people that brought their boats to Houston during Harvey.

Same type of person, people that want to help.

This picture of him being a disaster tourist is completely unfair.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Folks? What should I do here? Keep this thread going until after the case is officially given to the jury tomorrow and then start the verdict watch thread?

Or start a new thread tomorrow morning for both?

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

What does "kept under advisement" mean?

It looks like he is going through with deliberations. Once the jury reaches a verdict, can the judge change it?

---

Yes, he can change it. But a directed verdict can be appealed. A jury acquittal cannot.

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

What does "kept under advisement" mean?

It looks like he is going through with deliberations. Once the jury reaches a verdict, can the judge change it?

---

Yes, he can change it. But a directed verdict can be appealed. A jury acquittal cannot.

---

In most jurisdictions, the judge cannot change the verdict once the jury renders it.

But this is Wisconsin. Their criminal procedure rules are screwy.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

What does "kept under advisement" mean?

It looks like he is going through with deliberations. Once the jury reaches a verdict, can the judge change it?

---

Yes, he can change it. But a directed verdict can be appealed. A jury acquittal cannot.

---

In most jurisdictions, the judge cannot change the verdict once the jury renders it.

But this is Wisconsin. Their criminal procedure rules are screwy.

---

Not true. Judges can throw out jury verdicts in both federal and state trials. It is written in the rules of criminal procedure. States may call it something different but a judge can overrule a jury.

---