I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
You would assume with the degree of polarisation there is in the US that theres a juror or two in there who made their mind up long before the trial began
I heard that too but I think it's been widely reported that it was a false rumour.
Any reliable source on that though. It sounds believable but place I saw it your man wasn't a good source. What happens in a hung jury?
I'm sure I'd read that there are 2 jurors holding out due to concerns regarding their safety rather than anything else.
Thats surpising indeed. From the evidence, I thought surely this one was a slam dunk for the defence.
In to the 3rd day so maybe a clear split among jurors so you'd have to assume the chance of a compromise verdict involving "lesser" charges is increasing?
IIRC that may mean serious jail time as well but not sure where I heard that.
I don't really expect a verdict today either.
Doesn't really help with the jury being retired at 4:30 pm.
I suppose you shouldn't be too surprised by obvious things they're clueless about.
You have their current "boss" (puppet) in the oval office, coming out with nonsense like this:
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids".
It's probably true of all politicians to some extent, but the dems seem particularly afflicted by such clueless zombies who live in their privileged little bubbles.
That's not normally how appeals of jury trials work.
An appeals court will normally not overturn a jury conviction unless dramatic new evidence is provided. Juries are finders of fact, judges are finders of law and appeals courts don't have juries. For a typical appeal on a conviction to be successful, the appellant will normally have to show that there was some error of law in the original trial. The judge allowed (or disallowed) something which he should not have, there was an error in the interpretation of the law as applied to the case, there was prejudice to be found in the conduct of counsel, jury instructions were incorrect, that sort of thing. For the sake of an application for mistrial due to misconduct of the prosecution, the 'bar' is the conduct, not the trial result itself.
If it was just the video evidence that they withheld "accidentally" then without prejudice may have been the best approach. However, looking at the other incidents combined it's very hard to say there was not prosecutorial overreach when the judge himself said he didn't believe them when they said they were acting in good faith.
Doesn't the bar become much higher though?
As MT said his presumption of innocence is gone and he will end up spend at least a couple of years in jail until his appeal is heard.
An appeal is much harder because the original conviction removes the presumption of innocence from the accused, and the onus moves to the appellant's legal team to prove innocence, instead of being on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Seems like a shut case. Only people who attacked him got shot. He didn’t fire the first round.
lessons to be learned.
Not particularly. The legal errors are a matter of record, the only difference really is between if it's seen as 'that damned biased judge' reversing a conviction or an appeals court.
I believe he would remain in custody pending the appeal.
Binger's(prosecution) questioning of Rittenhouse tried to make him look bad for exercising his right to silence after his arrest. A prosecutor should never do this and he knew it. He was excoriated by the judge for doing this in front of the jury. "Now you're telling your side of the story". That question made the court excuse the Jury and remind the prosecutor of the defendants right to to post-arrest silence.
He was also admonished for trying to bring in 'evidence'(other acts motion) already deemed inadmissable by the judge - twice, in front of the Jury.
The judge said he didn't believe Binger was acting in good faith and this can be used for grounds for a bad-faith argument.
The prosecution agree with Rittenhouse's lawyers that they had a higher-quality drone video that their case rests on than the defence, which had a compressed 3.6mb copy while the prosecution had a 11.2mb copy.
Was just doing some research there it seems the grounds for mistrial with bias require prosecutor overreach that was intentional, whereas a mistake such as the drone video being compressed accidentally might be grounds for mistrial without bias because it can be argued it was accidental.
No. Deliberations have finished for today. Back at 9am tomorrow.
Will there be a verdict today one way or another?
I try to tune into the live streams and watch chat but all I see is "GUILTY" and "INNOCENT" spammed a gazillion times a second.
What are the grounds for a mistrial? I have not been following that closely.
Oooof.
This is getting messy.
West Africans are per capita at the top in performing in America, with Nigerians massively over represented in Wall Street.
I can kind of understand how protestors might be upset now. It looks like the judge is giving Rittenhouse kind of 'a shot to nothing', if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict he could just declare a mistrial.
If he was going to declare a mistrial he should do so before the verdict IMO and he had perfect grounds to do so.
The judge said as much today. He's praying for an acquittal or there's going to be serious questions to answer.
They also asked for a mistrial without prejudice a few minutes ago. Madness.
I think the judge has yet to issue a ruling on that request. https://www.cbs58.com/news/motion-for-mistrial-with-prejudice-still-on-the-table-in-rittenhouse-trial
It looks like he's hoping the jury will save him, otherwise this might turn into a shitshow altogether.
They should have kept with the original motion for a mistrial with prejudice.
Not if the defense just found out the prosecution withheld evidence and then presented it in closing arguments.
Yes deliberately it seems. The defence is seeking a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice based on this new evidence only admitted last week from the FBI drone. (See video here) (Around 6mins 55seconds) The previous motion for mistrial that was with prejudice was about a different issue.
The prosecution's case initially was that Rittenhouse is an 'active shooter, white supremacist, crossing state lines illegally in possession of a weapon seeking trouble'.
Their own witness quashed this story when they said Rittenhouse didn't fire until he fired first. They now needed evidence that Rittenhouse somehow provoked one of the earlier shootings
Then, half way through the trial, they start to talk about 'provocation'. Rittenhouse somehow provoked these men. What was this based off of?
A blurry drone footage supplied by the FBI which was digitally enhanced. What's wrong with this evidence? Well it turns out the file was compressed before being 'enhanced'. Compression makes the file smaller, by grouping alot of similar objects together, essentially deleting a lot of the finer data.
The prosecution explains it happened sometime in between him sending it back and forth to the officers involved in the case, he's not sure how it happened. It happens if you attach it as an e-mail he explains but not when 'air-dropped'.
Their whole case now rests on that blurry drone footage which was compressed. That image shown in court wasn't just to say 'look Rittenhouse was there at that time' they were used to 'prove' the angle of the gun.
Looks like we're going to have another jury and another trial.
What are the defense playing at here? This is pure madness. They have all the cards here and are folding on a royal flush. Looking for mistrial without prejudice is crazy.
Is the prosecution deliberately f*cking this up? It's like a Will Farrel comedy. Very odd.
Isn't it a lot harder to argure a case like this in the appeal courts rather than now though?
As a matter of interest would Rittenhouse be placed in custody until that appeal is heard as well?
The arguments for 'mistrial' are matters of law and thus just as valid after the jury returns a verdict, the conviction can be overturned by the court of appeals.
I suspect that's the 'least-damaging outcome.'
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here. I'd be very surprised if anyone thought that all Africans were black.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
