troy fairweather
Member
It seems like the prosecutors are planting evidence, it's been said the prosecutors know how to push the judges buttons and get away with it.
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?
- Thread starter wiscoaster
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about these particular prosecutors, but in lots of cases, prosecutors and public defenders have the advantage of being in front of the same judge every day. I've been appearing in front of the same judge for about 3.5 years. As you might imagine, I've developed a pretty good sense for what he likes, doesn't like, and how far I can push things.
ETA: As the old saying goes, "A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge."
Old_Grouch
Member
Can the judge order a directed verdict of Not Guilty?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I rather enjoyed watching the interactions between the judge and the prosecutors. And I must say...I CAN NOT, for the life of me, EVER picture myself standing in front of any of my Commanding Officers and pulling the stunts Binger did. Even if Binger had never been before this Judge in court before, he certainly has enough experience as ADA to know better, not to mention all the pretrial stuff the prosecution and defense went through with the judge.
I am absolutely NOT kidding when I say my sphincter sympathetically clenched during the encounter where the judge lambasted Binger over the Fifth Amendment issue and bringing up evidence the judge had clearly excluded prior to the trial. AND THEN to essentially tell the judge to shut up so he could say what he wanted to say?!?!
I watched that particular interaction twice...and my sphincter nearly cramped the second time I watched it, it was so bad.
I agree with Attorney Richards...there was NO WAY that ADA Binger did NOT know what he was doing.
I said this elsewhere...If someone were to make a professional DVD with HD resolution of all the court proceedings of this trial, I would buy it for the entertainment value.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
so is the Judge so don't feel bad.
Jim Watson
Member
People get so thrilled over the judge scolding the prosecution but note that he does it away from the jury so the railroad can go through. Those admonishments are said to support the appeals after the locomotive has passed.
Agreed.
I've had a client pull some stunts that made a judge very angry, and I caught the brunt of it. So I have some sympathy. That said, given Binger's antics, my simpathy is . . . shall we say . . . . limited?
troy fairweather
Member
Think I seen one has appeared in front of that judge 400+ times.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
I was thrilled too, and I fully recognize why those scoldings have to occur with the jury absent.
The judge is trying so very hard to make sure everything is above board.
Madcap_Magician
Member
Not just that, but the absolutely devastating response to the prosecutor's limp excuses for the video - the female defense attorney who was all "The metadata says the file you sent me was created 21 minutes after the file you played to the court and the file names are different. There is no way anyone's e-mail compressed this file to what I have now. And why was this the only file sent to me by e-mail instead of via Dropbox?"
And not just that but even if the e-mail did compress the file, the file compression happens on the sender side, so it's still the state's fault!
And not just that but what is up with the state's incompetence in using their personal e-mails to transfer evidence!?!?!?!?
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Jim Watson
Member
From Branca at LegalInsurrection.com
Defense makes verbal motion for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice. Prosecution makes laundry list of excuses over the state not providing defense with high-resolution drone video. Judge warns prosecution that he’d warned them there would be a day of reckoning over this drone video–and then says he’s not going to make a decision now, inclined to see what the verdict is going to be.
Does not make sense to me. At the very most, if a conviction(s) will he reverse or mistrial on the basis of the assorted videos? But would he, really? Or will the DA just have gotten away with it?
Surely if acquittal it does not matter, the dirtiest the DA could do will not have worked.
Defense makes verbal motion for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice. Prosecution makes laundry list of excuses over the state not providing defense with high-resolution drone video. Judge warns prosecution that he’d warned them there would be a day of reckoning over this drone video–and then says he’s not going to make a decision now, inclined to see what the verdict is going to be.
Does not make sense to me. At the very most, if a conviction(s) will he reverse or mistrial on the basis of the assorted videos? But would he, really? Or will the DA just have gotten away with it?
Surely if acquittal it does not matter, the dirtiest the DA could do will not have worked.
yeongjo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2021
- Messages
- 59
after
In Commonwealth v Brangan, the Supreme Judicial Court
At the end of the prosecutor’s closing, defense counsel moved for a mistrial and the judge took the motion under advisement.” After the jury returned its guilty verdict, “the judge informed counsel that the defendant’s motion for a mistrial remained pending.” After a non-evidentiary hearing, the judge allowed the motion for a mistrial and ordered a retrial, on the ground that the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument were prejudicial error which no curative instruction could have mitigated. In its appellate challenge, the Commonwealth argued that although the allowance of a defendant’s motion for a mistrial is generally not appealable by the Commonwealth, such an appeal was appropriate here because the judge waited until after the verdict to order a retrial, thus rendering the defendant’s motion “akin to a motion for relief from a guilty verdict under the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
In its decision rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument, the SJC opined that “because the defendant’s motion cannot be characterized as a motion for relief from a guilty verdict pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the denial of which could be appealed, “the Commonwealth had no right to appeal the judge’s order granting the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and ordering that the defendant be retried.” In the Court’s view, “there was no question that the judge intended to grant a mistrial…. The fact that the mistrial was granted after the verdict was not a result of when the motion was brought or any other action of the defendant, but instead was due to the trial judge’s decision to take the defendant’s motion under advisement.” The Court asserted that “to allow such motion to be appealed simply because it was granted post-verdict would be to change the character of the motion.”
I do not pretend to offer legal counsel or be an expert of the law. But the reference the Judge made to "it's going to be ugly" portend disaster for the prosecution. IMO - I may be completely mistaken also. But there are several motions under consideration before the judge which he has not yet ruled upon.
Anyone far more competent than I care to weight in?
Remains to be seen. There is this.
In Commonwealth v Brangan, the Supreme Judicial Court
At the end of the prosecutor’s closing, defense counsel moved for a mistrial and the judge took the motion under advisement.” After the jury returned its guilty verdict, “the judge informed counsel that the defendant’s motion for a mistrial remained pending.” After a non-evidentiary hearing, the judge allowed the motion for a mistrial and ordered a retrial, on the ground that the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument were prejudicial error which no curative instruction could have mitigated. In its appellate challenge, the Commonwealth argued that although the allowance of a defendant’s motion for a mistrial is generally not appealable by the Commonwealth, such an appeal was appropriate here because the judge waited until after the verdict to order a retrial, thus rendering the defendant’s motion “akin to a motion for relief from a guilty verdict under the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
In its decision rejecting the Commonwealth’s argument, the SJC opined that “because the defendant’s motion cannot be characterized as a motion for relief from a guilty verdict pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the denial of which could be appealed, “the Commonwealth had no right to appeal the judge’s order granting the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and ordering that the defendant be retried.” In the Court’s view, “there was no question that the judge intended to grant a mistrial…. The fact that the mistrial was granted after the verdict was not a result of when the motion was brought or any other action of the defendant, but instead was due to the trial judge’s decision to take the defendant’s motion under advisement.” The Court asserted that “to allow such motion to be appealed simply because it was granted post-verdict would be to change the character of the motion.”
I do not pretend to offer legal counsel or be an expert of the law. But the reference the Judge made to "it's going to be ugly" portend disaster for the prosecution. IMO - I may be completely mistaken also. But there are several motions under consideration before the judge which he has not yet ruled upon.
Anyone far more competent than I care to weight in?
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
I have an iPhone. I use gmail on it but not the gmail app, the mail app is the one the iPhone comes with. Whenever I want to send a non-trivial-size attachment, it ASKS me if I want to send the original or a choice of several smaller versions, and I have to affirmatively pick the version I want (original or one of the smaller ones) before it will send it.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Nothing about the First Amendment makes it all encompassing. Spread malicious lies willfully in an attempt to defame and see how the First Amendment offers no protection against slander.
My "should be a felony" is obviously tongue in cheek.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
I do not understand why the defense would move for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice.
Elkins45
Member
Corpral_Agarn
Member
I think that if he decided to go the protest, he'd probably bring the rifle again.
Saved his life.
Maybe not , but that is entirely moot in regards to the trial.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
Nothing about the First Amendment makes it all encompassing. Spread malicious lies willfully in an attempt to defame and see how the First Amendment offers no protection against slander.
My "should be a felony" is obviously tongue in cheek.
I think we're mostly on the same page but I would like to call out that "felony" is indicative of criminal justice and "slander" is indicative of civil recourse. Two very different things that should have their own standards applied.
Conjecture, Your Honor.
Only he can say that and at any given moment he may give a different answer.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
In this situation, it is an important distinction because leaving his home with the rifle and going to Kenosha has the potential to be illegal, while retrieving the firearm in Kenosha and carrying it within the state is not illegal.
I also don't understand what you're getting at with would he do it again. I think given the opportunity to go back in time and avoid a traumatic experience most would avoid it. It really has no bearing on the facts of an event that has already occurred.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
One of my friends decided to use a forklift to lift his riding mower in order to change the blades rather than remove the deck like the normal procedure. While attempting to break loose one of the blade bolts he jerked it off the forks and it came crashing down on his head, cracking his skull and causing him to be hospitalized for over a month. If given the opportunity to do it all over again I’m betting he would remove the deck. I can also assure you nobody in his shop has ever used a fork lift in place of a jack again.
Rittenhouse obviously can’t have a do-over. That doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t learn from his mistakes. Yes, having the rifle there saved his life, but it also might be the thing that initially drew the attention and interest of his attacker.
I think his presence there was an error in judgement from the start. We wouldn’t be discussing his trial if he had used better sense because he never would have needed to shoot anyone.
wiscoaster
Member
No!! I disagree most heartily!! We need to get in the presence of these people and oppose them. To me, Kyle is an American patriot and hero. You might argue that carrying a rifle to such a confrontation was a mistake ... I would have carried a concealed handgun ... but just going there was not a mistake or a lapse of judgment. Going there was an act of great courage, selflessness and patriotism. He was there to do good and to oppose evil. We need more of that. And I'll stand on that conviction.
ColoradoMinuteMan
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 702
We all have a different set of values and we can easily play the "if only this wouldn't have happened" game. If we had a executive branch of government in WI that focused on maintaining order, we wouldn't have civilians driven to putting themselves into harms way to defend life and property. Now the same executive branch of government that failed to protect their constituents right to property is prosecuting the citizens that were driven to do their job. The primary issue I have issue with as it relates to Rittenhouse's decision to go into harms way is related to his age. If the elected officials fail to live up to their constitutional responsibilities then what other choice do we have than to defend our own rights? Your anecdote about your friends lawnmower really doesn't resonate with me in this situation. We're talking a matter of civil rights here, not something as trivial as "could have done it smarter."
- Status
