Ongoing Trials in Ahmaud Arbery and Kyle Rittenhouse Cases.

[AUDub 11,153]

The judge was probably really close to declaring a mistrial today. Prosecutor questioned Rittenhouse for remaining silent and brought up evidence that was off limits. 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

Why do you think the defense had Rittenhouse testify @AUDub?  Seems like he didn’t have to and still win the case.

[AU9377 4,960]

4 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

He only went like 20 minutes away from home lmao. 

Tis case is clear AF if you've watched the case or know the law in question. Hell the prosecutors own witnesses have been witnesses for the defense. 

I said that it was unlikely that he would be convicted.  However, anything can happen in a jury trial.  The fact that he was parading the streets with an assault weapon will not be impressive to most rational people.

[AU9377 4,960]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why do you think the defense had Rittenhouse testify @AUDub?  Seems like he didn’t have to and still win the case.

No AUDub, but they couldn't risk not putting him on the stand.  He is young with no prior criminal acts hanging over him.  He needed to explain why he was there.  The jury needed to see him as a young kid more than a guy with an assault weapon looking for a fight.  The prosecution was bound to test the limits with the defendant on the stand.  The defense attorneys knew this and to be honest, they are probably glad that they did.  It gives them something to hang their hat on if they have to appeal a verdict.

[AU9377 4,960]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

I've seen attorneys saying it's routine in NY, SF and MA so yeah this is most likely a regional thing.

And "victim" is a loaded term for lay people. You know, juries, and I have no problem with any judge ever saying the prosecution is not allowed to use the term. I'm a defendant's rights guy, and prosecutors have enough of an advantage as it is. 

You are 100% right about that.  Too many judges act like they are part of the DA's office, many times because they were before they became a judge.

[AUDub 11,153]

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

No AUDub, but they couldn't risk not putting him on the stand.  He is young with no prior criminal acts hanging over him.  He needed to explain why he was there.  The jury needed to see him as a young kid more than a guy with an assault weapon looking for a fight.  The prosecution was bound to test the limits with the defendant on the stand.  The defense attorneys knew this and to be honest, they are probably glad that they did.  It gives them something to hang their hat on if they have to appeal a verdict.

They probably had it in the bag, but not putting him on the stand would be a huge risk to take. Defendants who don't testify in self defense cases lose a whole hell of a lot more often than those who do. I imagine the mind of the defendant is like 90% of these cases.

[AUDub 11,153]

On the other hand the longer he's on the stand the more tenuous it gets for the defense. The prosecutor is going to make every effort to get him to slip and he's still a kid under a tremendous amount of pressure. 

[AU9377 4,960]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

On the other hand the longer he's on the stand the more tenuous it gets for the defense. The prosecutor is going to make every effort to get him to slip and he's still a kid under a tremendous amount of pressure. 

Absolutely.  I represented a guy in New Orleans that was charged with Murder.  He had hidden a hand gun under some trash cans in the back alley of his mother's day care.  He worked there for her.  He had been jumped and beaten by the same couple of guys a couple times, but never filed a police report.  I had a client that was 20, a black male, had never been arrested and was taking classes at Xavier.  He had been denied bail and had spent 2 years in jail awaiting a trial. 

We put him on the stand. The prosecutor questioned him for two days.  He was so worn down by the second day that it was all we could do to keep him from getting confused on the stand.  You can't let them show anger.  He was very angry due to after he shot the guy, the guy's gang fire bombed his mom's home.  He finally just blurted that out, even though he had been instructed not to mention it by the judge.  We were fortunate because the arresting officer also volunteered the information on stand.  We were so careful with him on the stand that I had my co counsel do most of the questioning.  She was a soft spoken good looking young woman and my reasoning was that she would come across softer and more conciliatory than I might.  It isn't very often that you have a client that is as clean as he was.

The prosecution called rebuttal witnesses.  These people were the same witnesses that hadn't responded to subpoenas to depose them for 6 months.  Not surprisingly, the DA found them in a half hour.  After the prosecution was done I started by asking why they were in court today, while not being available before that time?  The response was "That lady (the DA) told me if I didn't come in here and say something that he was gonna walk free."  True enough, the jury deliberated about an hour and returned a not guilty/self defense verdict.

If the DA had not overcharged the case, they may have gotten a different outcome.  I think the same may be true in Rittenhouse.  If the DA wasn't going for the biggest charge available, they might be in a better position.

[bigbird 60,559]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

The judge was probably really close to declaring a mistrial today. Prosecutor questioned Rittenhouse for remaining silent and brought up evidence that was off limits. 

Seems like the prosecutor may want that in order to get a redo.

[AUFightingSoldiers 685]

There's video evidence from multiple angles showing Rittenhouse being attacked AND showing restraint once the immediate threats had been removed. Not even taking in to account the history of the 3 that were shot, Rittenhouse was in immediate danger considering the kicks to the face, skateboard to the neck, gun to the head, and man chasing him screaming I'm going to kill you (n word). One way I have heard it put is that they might not have "deserved to die", but at some point they forfeited their right to expect to live.

Now, from a personal perspective, Rosenbaum (sp?) Never should have seen the light of day after raping a 9 year old and having 4 other sexual assault charges. 

Now we have people trying to dox the jurors. The judge had to make it known in court that someone was caught photographing the jurors this morning. 

 

**This is the most disturbing edit I've ever had to do. The original comment is above. Rosenbaum was charged with ELEVEN counts of child molestation, including anal rape, against five different children. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by AUFightingSoldiers

[AUDub 11,153]

15 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Seems like the prosecutor may want that in order to get a redo.

If the judge agrees and declares it a mistrial with prejudice then jeopardy is attached and Rittenhouse is off the hook. 

[bigbird 60,559]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

If the judge agrees and declares it a mistrial with prejudice then jeopardy is attached and Rittenhouse is off the hook. 

Yep.

 

I think the judge is inclined to. What about you?

[AUDub 11,153]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Yep.

I think the judge is inclined to. What about you?

We'll know tomorrow, but if he isn't there already he probably will be the next moment the prosecutor crosses the line. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by AUDub

[DKW 86 7,426]

Watched about 7 minutes of the Rittenhouse kid testifying. He's getting off or very close to it.

The Prosecution has been...ineffective at best. The judge exploded on the guy like a nuke warhead.

[DKW 86 7,426]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

If the judge agrees and declares it a mistrial with prejudice then jeopardy is attached and Rittenhouse is off the hook. 

 

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Yep.

 

I think the judge is inclined to. What about you?

Count me in on this too. Wow, that was brutal to watch.

[AUDub 11,153]

29 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Count me in on this too. Wow, that was brutal to watch.

Could mean nothing. Judges are, well, judges, and there are a lot of attorneys out there that have stories about getting yelled at. That they're the most powerful person in the room doesn't mean they don't often go off on self-indulgent rants. 

But this one, I wouldn't call him biased but man did the prosecution get on his bad side early on. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by AUDub

[AUGunsmith 666]

On 11/10/2021 at 5:14 PM, AU9377 said:

I said that it was unlikely that he would be convicted.  However, anything can happen in a jury trial.  The fact that he was parading the streets with an assault weapon will not be impressive to most rational people.

Doesn't matter that he was there or had a rifle. It's immaterial to the case. With the vast issues the state has had in procedures and rules, along with most state witnesses ending up being pros for the defense, a directed verdict or JMOL could easily happen regardless if the jury. 

Plus an easy appeal. 

[AU9377 4,960]

4 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

Doesn't matter that he was there or had a rifle. It's immaterial to the case. With the vast issues the state has had in procedures and rules, along with most state witnesses ending up being pros for the defense, a directed verdict or JMOL could easily happen regardless if the jury. 

Plus an easy appeal. 

You just never know what a jury is thinking. I seriously doubt that the judge will issue a directed verdict.  That would require there essentially being no facts in dispute.  I agree that it is unlikely that he will be convicted.  However, his state of mind is very important when it comes to a jury deciding whether or not he was acting in self defense under Wisconsin law.  If prosecutors can show that he was the aggressor in any way, that voids any claim of self defense. 

The prosecution will argue in their closing that he was there looking for trouble and that he was therefore the aggressor.  I don't see it from the evidence so far, but juries have reached conclusions that are much more far fetched.

[AU9377 4,960]

On 11/10/2021 at 9:22 PM, DKW 86 said:

 

Count me in on this too. Wow, that was brutal to watch.

He can certainly declare a mistrial.  I'm not sure that he has the authority to  dismiss with prejudice.

[bigbird 60,559]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not sure that he has the authority to  dismiss with prejudice.

Not trying to be confrontational by asking this but, who then would?

[AUGunsmith 666]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

You just never know what a jury is thinking. I seriously doubt that the judge will issue a directed verdict.  That would require there essentially being no facts in dispute.  I agree that it is unlikely that he will be convicted.  However, his state of mind is very important when it comes to a jury deciding whether or not he was acting in self defense under Wisconsin law.  If prosecutors can show that he was the aggressor in any way, that voids any claim of self defense. 

The prosecution will argue in their closing that he was there looking for trouble and that he was therefore the aggressor.  I don't see it from the evidence so far, but juries have reached conclusions that are much more far fetched.

Which is the entire point of the super sketchy video the state brought in yesterday. Which is interesting as they try to use iffy barely allowed evidence over bringing in the subject of the video to testify. 

Doesn't really require no facts thought, just that a reasonable jury wouldn't come to a guilty verdict. 

[AUDub 11,153]

11 hours ago, AU9377 said:

He can certainly declare a mistrial.  I'm not sure that he has the authority to  dismiss with prejudice.

He does but that would be an extreme step and reserved for cases where the prosecution is way out of bounds. 

The threat has to have some oomph behind it to keep prosecutors from abusing the system. 

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

Which is the entire point of the super sketchy video the state brought in yesterday. Which is interesting as they try to use iffy barely allowed evidence over bringing in the subject of the video to testify. 

Doesn't really require no facts thought, just that a reasonable jury wouldn't come to a guilty verdict. 

I don't think they have a good argument, but I do think they have enough of an argument to keep the decision in the hands of a jury.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

Ok, not a serious post here, but here is some Rittenhouse trial memes. 

Quote

 

(tfw no gf= texting lingo for ' that feeling when you don't have a girlfriend')

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

(tfw no gf= texting lingo for ' that feeling when you don't have a girlfriend')

Also, not serious post; if he gets acquitted (which is very possible) he will be a rich man by suing all of the media outlets that called him a murder and white supremist.  At that point his love life will improve greatly.