- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Discussion Thread
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:21 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:21 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
He aimed a gun at them. That alone would piss me off to be determined to make sure he loses. I can’t imagine the jury having anything but the most animosity towards the prosecution.
Well I mentioned that. Making the jury hate you is obviously a trial skills issue too (although he may just be a shithead and it is unavoidable).
But this closing is rough. I don't think it's going to be determinative, but it might leave the jury pretty confused on where the defense thinks their focus should be as they begin deliberations.
3
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:26 pm to Pettifogger
I'm no attorney, and have never had to do a closing, so I might be completely off with this. But as a jury member, who has been listening to all the evidence, I think I would respect the defense counsel just being brief and direct. They know the evidence. He was given 2 hours for closing. I would have taken 15 minutes, pointed out the main issues, and the main lies done by the prosecutor, and been done.
As a jury member, I think I would have appreciated that more than what I'm hearing now. It's starting to ramble, and jump all over the place.
Just tell them, client clearly had reason to be believe his life was in danger. Show the clips. Highlight the idiot who admitted that he only got shot after he aimed the gun at defendant. Point out the lies of the prosecutor. Then sit down.
As a jury member, I think I would have appreciated that more than what I'm hearing now. It's starting to ramble, and jump all over the place.
Just tell them, client clearly had reason to be believe his life was in danger. Show the clips. Highlight the idiot who admitted that he only got shot after he aimed the gun at defendant. Point out the lies of the prosecutor. Then sit down.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:26 pm to Pettifogger
I think sometimes less is more when it comes to closing..
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:28 pm to Jcorye1
quote:Exactly. This guy sounds like he's a Packers "owner". Bingerfinger sounds like a prick imported from Chicago. That's a big thing up there.
Apparently Richards sounds like a local, which would really help.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:28 pm to Pettifogger
Man I’m listening to this closing on the radio and it’s tough to listen to. He’s struggling and confusing.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:28 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Did he actually point the gun at the jury??
Yup
I'm not saying he didn't, but from the COURTtv angle, it looked like he pointed at the wall.
I don't know definitely either way...just the way it looked from the angle I saw. Maybe someone can show a picture from another view.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:30 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
He’s struggling and confusing.
It basically seems like the prosecution spent all weekend practicing and the defense looked at it after the Packer's game.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:30 pm to redandright
INNOCENT
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:32 pm to OMLandshark
quote:100% Devils advocate...perhaps he did that to make the jurors "feel like the victims did".
He aimed a gun at them. That alone would piss me off to be determined to make sure he loses. I can’t imagine the jury having anything but the most animosity towards the prosecution.
But this guy is crushing it by hammering the gun powder residue. Science doesn't lie. And he's doing a good job discrediting state witnesses who are being sued for $10m.
This post was edited on 11/15/21 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:35 pm to MSUDawg98
I know he kind of stammers a bit, but he is hitting all the points hard.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:35 pm to Ezra Reed
quote:
It basically seems like the prosecution spent all weekend practicing and the defense looked at it after the Packer's game.
Which could be partially calculated, but you still want to be effective. He goes on 60 second runs where he's pretty compelling and likable, but then he'll struggle through the mud for 2 minutes on something inconsequential.
This isn't a disaster or anything, I just don't think it's particularly effective and I think only some of it can be attributed to a folksy effort to connect with the jurors as a "regular guy"
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:38 pm to Festus
quote:
I'm no attorney, and have never had to do a closing, so I might be completely off with this. But as a jury member, who has been listening to all the evidence, I think I would respect the defense counsel just being brief and direct. They know the evidence. He was given 2 hours for closing. I would have taken 15 minutes, pointed out the main issues, and the main lies done by the prosecutor, and been done.
I don’t live in Wisconsin, but I don’t see why this closing is all that bad.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:40 pm to MSUDawg98
quote:
100% Devils advocate...perhaps he did that to make the jurors "feel like the victims did".
Rule #1 on owning a gun: never aim a gun at someone or something you’re not willing to kill. He didn’t check to see if the gun was loaded. He even had his finger on the fricking trigger.
This post was edited on 11/15/21 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:44 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I don’t live in Wisconsin, but I don’t see why this closing is all that bad.
I don't think it's awful. I do think he jumps around a lot. His voice early was very shaky. Every time he took a sip of water, his hand was visibly shaking.
Personally, I think he could have made his closing much more concise. He may be boring some jurors, tough to keep up with him. They've heard tons of evidence. Just hit the highlights. They know that they still have to hear rebuttal. I would think they might appreciate a clear, concise closing.
But hell, he might be hitting a grand slam. I have no idea.
Hopefully, they've already determined not guilty based strictly off the evidence presented.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:45 pm to OMLandshark
if I was on this jury I would make it known with facial expressions that it's time to wrap this up!!
This post was edited on 11/15/21 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:46 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I don’t live in Wisconsin, but I don’t see why this closing is all that bad.
We train associates (in writing and argument) to avoid the temptation to take everything the other side gives you and try and rebut it piece by piece. Rather, highlight what we want to highlight and explain how it disrupts and undermines their overall narrative.
In a case like this he'd still be talking about a lot of evidence/topics, but this a laundry list approach. The reality is that you can't compellingly rebut 100% of the state's case (and you don't have to). So by doing this, you're spending time on weak rebuttals in some cases and by doing so reinforcing parts of the state's case to the jury.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:46 pm to Festus
quote:
I don't think it's awful. I do think he jumps around a lot. His voice early was very shaky. Every time he took a sip of water, his hand was visibly shaking.
It’s very Wisconsin though. This wouldn’t work in NYC, the South, or California, but I think he’s coming across as sincere while Binger is clearly a lying piece of shite. The sincerity I think is going to be a good thing for the jury.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:47 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
We train associates (in writing and argument) to avoid the temptation to take everything the other side gives you and try and rebut it piece by piece. Rather, highlight what we want to highlight and explain how it disrupts and undermines their overall narrative.
In a case like this he'd still be talking about a lot of evidence/topics, but this a laundry list approach. The reality is that you can't compellingly rebut 100% of the state's case (and you don't have to). So by doing this, you're spending time on weak rebuttals in some cases and by doing so reinforcing parts of the state's case to the jury.
Perfectly stated. Have an upvote.
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:51 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
We train associates (in writing and argument) to avoid the temptation to take everything the other side gives you and try and rebut it piece by piece. Rather, highlight what we want to highlight and explain how it disrupts and undermines their overall narrative.
In a case like this he'd still be talking about a lot of evidence/topics, but this a laundry list approach. The reality is that you can't compellingly rebut 100% of the state's case (and you don't have to). So by doing this, you're spending time on weak rebuttals in some cases and by doing so reinforcing parts of the state's case to the jury.
Can you imagine this dude doing a 15 minute close and the kid gets convicted? Lulz
He has a responsibility to his client to overwhelm the prosecution because it's so politically charged IMO
Posted on 11/15/21 at 3:54 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
Can you imagine this dude doing a 15 minute close and the kid gets convicted? Lulz
He has a responsibility to his client to overwhelm the prosecution because it's so politically charged IMO
This would be a lengthy closing regardless.
I don't think he's overwhelming the prosecution, but there is a chance he's overwhelming the jury.
Page 59 of 115
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News