wiscoaster
Member
It was initially closed, then reopened. I suspect an interim staff discussion resulted in a decision that it was a good topic. As I think in the main it has proven to be.
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?
- Thread starter wiscoaster
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for your analysis and feedback.How do you know that?
FYI, there WERE arrests made that night. That Kyle Rittenhouse's assailants weren't arrested may have to do with the fact they were either killed or seriously wounded.
Act lawfully.
Huh?
It wasn't a random arrest or selective enforcement....Kyle Rittenhouse, by his own admission shot three people. The District Attorney felt it wasn't self defense and charged him with first-degree reckless homicide among other charges.
Remember the old adage about not counting one's chickens before they hatch.
The jury instructions that have now been agreed upon include include an instruction on the subject of provocation. If the prosecution can persuade the jury that Kyle's pointing of the rifle before he was fired at constituted intentional provocation, the defendant will be stripped of the privilege of the legal defense of self defense, all other facts aside. Period.
Expect that argument o be made in the prosecutor's closing argument.
And do not be surprised if the defendant os convicted on most counts.
The jury instructions that have now been agreed upon include include an instruction on the subject of provocation. If the prosecution can persuade the jury that Kyle's pointing of the rifle before he was fired at constituted intentional provocation, the defendant will be stripped of the privilege of the legal defense of self defense, all other facts aside. Period.
Expect that argument o be made in the prosecutor's closing argument.
And do not be surprised if the defendant os convicted on most counts.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
From our perspective it is not possible to say with any certainty.
If I had to guess, I'd say at this point it will be difficult to impossible for the prosecution to persuade the jury of anything that isn't 100% black and white.
The trial was over before the prosecution rested. KR will walk out of the courtroom as a free man.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
If that happened I would be more terrified than surprised.
Jim Watson
Member
There is no predicting, but with the judge allowing accusations of Provocation, it opens up a lot of options for attack.
The government lawyer doesn't have to prove what he says in closing and he can put the defense lawyer very obviously on the defensive, which would not look good.
The government lawyer doesn't have to prove what he says in closing and he can put the defense lawyer very obviously on the defensive, which would not look good.
wiscoaster
Member
I think your expectation of the prosecution's strategy from here on is correct. However proving intent is always a difficult and slippery hill to climb because you cannot see into another person's mind and even that person's description of what they were thinking at the time is colored by time and subsequent events. Intent has to be proved primarily by actions and behaviors and at this point there's nothing new the jury hasn't already seen that the prosecution can put before them. So I'm not sure that this strategy will get him convicted. (Or at least I sure hope it doesn't).
danez71
Member
That would have been my guess as well but this interesting article puts the question in question.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jury-charges-against-kenosha-shooter
DukeConnor
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2016
- Messages
- 1,126
I think we are giving the jurors too much credit. They probably don't understand all the legal speak and most likely made up their minds after kyles testimony.
My sister was in a jury and didn't want to convict someone because he was young and felt sorry for him.
These are also people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
My sister was in a jury and didn't want to convict someone because he was young and felt sorry for him.
These are also people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
The prosecutor was making it seem like Grosskreutz pointing his weapon point blank at KR was not a big deal and he should not have been worried about Grosskreutz shooting him when Grosskreutz drew his weapon in some high retention position cause he could have shot him from further out if he wanted to. But for some reason if KR pointed his weapon at someone prior to the self defense, that is supposed to be a big deal. lol
I took my story down. I didn't like the questions I got from someone and my reply to his reply was deleted by a moderator so to prevent further confusion, I took it down... at least on my post.
Last edited:
wiscoaster
Member
Madcap_Magician
Member
I kind of think the same. I am most concerned about two scenarios: 1) The prosecutor is able to convince the jury that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before he was attacked. Most of the defense arguments would fail if that happened. The evidence for it is extremely flimsy, and that's why the prosecutor was arguing so fiercely about the drone surveillance video enhancements, which give a very fuzzy picture that they are arguing show Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at people prior to the first shooting. It's real fuzzy. If the defense is able to hammer the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, I think Rittenhouse is acquitted. 2) I am concerned about a jury with a substantial number of people who feel that because of Rittenhouse's poor judgment in going to Kenosha as private EMS and security in the first place that they need to convict him of something.
Convicting on something will happen, IMHO, if there are long deliberations and they finally want to go home. Kyle is better off with a quick move to acquittal on all charges. Once they start to dicker, that's bad.
Now jury research suggests that strong personalities who quickly dominate the conversation carry the day. If more than one agree (>2), that's what happens. Of course, we will have to see. Interesting to see the folks who didn't make the final 12 but were in the jury box think about it.
Now jury research suggests that strong personalities who quickly dominate the conversation carry the day. If more than one agree (>2), that's what happens. Of course, we will have to see. Interesting to see the folks who didn't make the final 12 but were in the jury box think about it.
I just don't think #2 is going to happen. I'd be shocked but these days, lately, everything that has been going on is shocking.
But lets say he gets convicted, and with the violation of his 5A rights that even shocked the judge, this case has to be easy to get appealed... I could be wrong. But for at least the most serious charges I think it would get appealed quick.
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
I'm not 100% certain that is correct. Obviously, each state has its own SD laws, but in some states in which I have lived, the instigator of a fight can claim SD if he had broken contact and was trying to escape. Likewise, one cannot claim SD if one is chasing a burglar from one's home down the street. If that matches WI law, Rittenhouse could possibly be convicted on the 1st killing and acquitted on the others. I always felt that this case hung on the legality of the 1st shooting, however.
I agree. Rittenhouse's critics will call it a victory if all they get is his being banned from gun ownership for life.
I wonder if the people who find humor in this understand that the right to a jury trial was listed in the Declaration of Independence. We literally fought a war to secure this right (and others).These are also people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Apparently not so in WI for intentional provocation.
CapnMac
Member
There are a number of very cynical attornies i nthe trail lawyer arena who ill opine various things--like most juries decide the case right after Opening arguments; and that Jury Instruction retention is very poor (as in less than 3 minutes). I am not qualified to opine on those positions, nor of the persons making them. I merely can but observe, and share.
Such things give me pause, as they reinforce my own cynicism--which does not make them true.
There are so many ways this trial could go.
To my eye, the Judge may be leaving it wide open to hear the verdict of the jury and decide that the jury was "tainted" by prosecutorial misconduct. Or not. The judge may let the verdict stand being very confident in being overturned on appeal. And might find the prosecutor in contempt, too. Or not.
At this point the only thing I'm sure of is that there are people who are very certain of one outcome or another are going to be surprised at the actual outcome. I no longer have any idea how this will wrinkle out.
Such things give me pause, as they reinforce my own cynicism--which does not make them true.
There are so many ways this trial could go.
To my eye, the Judge may be leaving it wide open to hear the verdict of the jury and decide that the jury was "tainted" by prosecutorial misconduct. Or not. The judge may let the verdict stand being very confident in being overturned on appeal. And might find the prosecutor in contempt, too. Or not.
At this point the only thing I'm sure of is that there are people who are very certain of one outcome or another are going to be surprised at the actual outcome. I no longer have any idea how this will wrinkle out.
Do you think that trial court judges properly do that?
How might a judge not "let a verdict stand" and how would his thoughts about an appeal enter into it?
After a verdict?
CapnMac
Member
It's my understanding that judges have such tools at their discretion. If rarely used.
Several JD I've talked to have stated that if the judge feels the prosecutor was deliberately engaging in misconduct during the trial, the judge then can censure same, but would do so after the end of the trial so as to not "taint" the proceedings. Which makes the charge of contempt a separate act subject to its own review and/or appeal. And the judge has appeared to be that angry more than once.
I'm told mistrials are like meteorites--rare but not impossible. And the number of left-leaning speculations that the prosecution wants a "mistrial" keeps getting my attention.
As stated above--I no longer have a guess any more.
Hung jury--maybe
Mistrial--maybe
Mistrial with prejudice--maybe
Guilty--maybe
Not guilty--maybe
Gojira rises up out of Lake Michigan and destroys the greater Milwaukee area--least likely, but maybe
Jim Watson
Member
I am considering the possibility that the judge was just going through the motions, that letting the prosecution argue Provocation is the key to sending Kyle up.
lsudave
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,042
Just my own amateur opinion and observations here (and I am not from Wisconson, an attorney of any sort, etc):
- the only (actual) shooting in question is the Rosenbaum one. The prosecution seems to be trying to introduce the 'provocation' clause, stating he (Kyle) leveled his weapon at someone, and Rosenbaum was provoked (acting to stop the perceived impending shooting by Kyle).
- A side effect of the "provocation" idea, and likely the true intent, is to suggest Kyle 'provoked' the attacks by being there, armed visibly. Creating a loophole whereby you could say all of this happened because he was there, therefore he is at fault.
- the other shootings are cut and dry; if he is innocent of the first one. Those, then, are clearly self-defense.
- The weapons charge... I wonder if he set up a Straw Purchase and admitted under oath to this. His only saving grace is that he himself never took the weapon home beforehand, but I still suspect trouble for him and the other guy's dad down the road on this.
- it comes down to the jury, as people stated. It could be that they are locked into one view or another. If he's found guilty of a bunch of the heavy ones, I would suspect that the jury was compromised, either from the start or by jury intimidation (which has been hinted at). I honestly don't see clear proof that Kyle acted in other than self-defense. I don't see the pointing of the rifle in the video (I don't see Kyle in the drone video, even after it being highlighted. That, combined with the holes in the prosecution's case, would lead me to not convict (and emotionally, especially not a 17 yr old). There's too much in doubt with this, to ruin a man's life.
I was thinking about the video of him prior to the shooting where he is being interviewed by someone and he's pointing out his med supplies and not acting in an aggressive manner. He's not talking about shooting anyone that messes with him. He's not acting like a tough guy with an attitude. I think if KR was looking for trouble, he probably would not have been able to hide it so well when he was interviewed. I don't see him being that smart as to not show it. It may not mean much, but just something I thought about.
KR is an angel compared to all the left wing heroes killed while resisting arrest. So many of them have videos and facebook pictures with guns posing all gangster, while their families go on and on about how they are all choir boys... even the rapists. lol
- Status
