- 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: Jury Deliberation Day 2: Rekieta Law live now
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:30 pm to Stonehog
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:30 pm to Stonehog
quote:No. Stupid is showing up to a riot and being unarmed. You seem to have forgotten his assailants were armed.
He was stupid for showing up to a BLM riot with a rifle.
1
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:31 pm to TDTOM
quote:Mike Cernovich said it earlier on Tim Poole.
Reckieta crew said today they can call new witnesses.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:33 pm to blueboy
They said they could call ziminsky and he could testify that Kyle raised his weapon. They said they could call someone else too, but I forget who.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:40 pm to TDTOM
quote:
They said they could call ziminsky and he could testify that Kyle raised his weapon. They said they could call someone else too, but I forget who.
Do any of them practice in Wisconsin?
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:47 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:I'm not a lawyer. I'm digging around briefly...quote:
Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict,
This is a civil procedure that I can't find in the criminal section of Wisconsin code.
Do you have a link to the criminal procedure in Wisconsin statute that allows the judge to change a guilty verdict of a jury?
There appears to be that open listed openly in the Civil segment, and in the Criminal sections, there are references back to that section in the event of post-trial questions.
There do seem to be cited cases for directed verdicts in criminal cases, for example.
Most of the references seem to be directed back towards getting a new trial.
Maybe that's why he is holding out on the verdict- if it's acquitted, he doesn't have to do it.
I don't know the answer, but I suspect the judge does. That appears to be an authority and an obligation held by judges, although rarely wielded. It's a safeguard against something like what this might become- a verdict clearly in opposition to the presented evidence.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:48 pm to diat150
quote:
Should jury deliberation audio be available to the public? To me that would make for great listening
As entertaining as that would be, that's horrible idea. Allowing a jury to operate in privacy is a cornerstone to our judicial process.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:49 pm to KosmoCramer
No clue. I know Barnes must, it he wasn’t on this conversation….I don’t think.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:58 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Now do the rioters.
Qualified Immunity, judging from the past.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 8:59 pm to psk_Vol
quote:
As entertaining as that would be, that's horrible idea. Allowing a jury to operate in privacy is a cornerstone to our judicial process.
I think we could learn alot from it.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:06 pm to Themole
There has been a lot of talk of Kyle walking the streets with a gun as being a stupid decision. Ok. I’ll buy that. But please explain to me why law enforcement and national guard were told to stand by and let thugs burn cities down for a whole summer, until they realized it was going to hurt elections.
The stupid decisions were being made at the local and state levels…to not protect the cities and the citizens.
The stupid decisions were being made at the local and state levels…to not protect the cities and the citizens.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 9:56 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
stupid for showing up to a BLM riot with a rifle.
Tell that to Reginald Denny.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 10:37 pm to Oddibe
Exactly. When our elected officials and law enforcement fail to step in and protect us and our way of life.. we have an obligation and a right to.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 11:06 pm to diat150
quote:
I think we could learn alot from it
When I was in high school in Nashville, I took a civics class taught by a Vandy Law alum. For extra credit, she arranged for us to participate as jurors in mock trials for Vandy Law students. At the conclusion of the mock trial, they would send us "jurors" into the deliberation room. The deliberation room was wired so that the lawyers-in-training could hear us deliberate in real time. It was a very valuable learning tool to these lawyers to get a feel with how people like us off the street decided their cases. Was a very cool experience actually.
However in real life it's just not smart to expose jurors like that to the public. They need the privacy.
Posted on 11/18/21 at 12:13 am to TankBoys32
This entire ordeal is the fault of state and local government. You don’t let people riot and burn. You don’t stand down. You don’t pull back law enforcement and let chaos fill a vacuum. Two people are dead another permanently maimed and another fights for his freedom because when the city needed it’s leaders to lead they chose to stand on the sidelines. They invited chaos in and a 17 year old boy now suffers the consequences while they wash their hands of it.
The judge is indicative of that type of failed leadership. He’s know since he let the drone footage in that he shouldn’t have but did so against his better judgment. He knows full well the mess it’s created and has only been complicated by the DA withholding a higher quality version from the defense. He knows a mistrial is warranted but he doesnt have the courage to do what’s right
The judge is indicative of that type of failed leadership. He’s know since he let the drone footage in that he shouldn’t have but did so against his better judgment. He knows full well the mess it’s created and has only been complicated by the DA withholding a higher quality version from the defense. He knows a mistrial is warranted but he doesnt have the courage to do what’s right
This post was edited on 11/18/21 at 12:22 am
Posted on 11/18/21 at 12:59 am to Blizzard of Chizz
Re the judge- I get a sense that he thinks this is a clear-cut self-defense case, with overwhelming cause to acquit and nothing to convict on... based on the evidence (including the drone footage).
I think he's holding back, because the best possible outcome for the defendent is an acquittal. That happens, Rittenhouse walks away free. No double jeopardy.
Any other ruling, such as a mistrial, and it looks like the precedent is to grant a new trial. Rittenhouse has to go through this circus again. I think if he dismissed the case, the state could appeal on prejudice. If Rittenhouse is found guilty, he can rule a mistrial, and then they go through this again.
It looks like he's trying to push this through, because despite the poor conduct of the DA, they haven't made the case he's guilty of murder.
Re live audio of the jury- if you want to hear jury deliberations, go serve on one.
Sounds mean, but it's the truth. We're watching this for entertainment, they're going through a capital murder case. With crowds gathering (present when they leave) and demonstrating, and probably noting who's coming and going. Nobody wants to go through that shite in real life, and nobody wants others listening in on them as they do it.
I think he's holding back, because the best possible outcome for the defendent is an acquittal. That happens, Rittenhouse walks away free. No double jeopardy.
Any other ruling, such as a mistrial, and it looks like the precedent is to grant a new trial. Rittenhouse has to go through this circus again. I think if he dismissed the case, the state could appeal on prejudice. If Rittenhouse is found guilty, he can rule a mistrial, and then they go through this again.
It looks like he's trying to push this through, because despite the poor conduct of the DA, they haven't made the case he's guilty of murder.
Re live audio of the jury- if you want to hear jury deliberations, go serve on one.
Sounds mean, but it's the truth. We're watching this for entertainment, they're going through a capital murder case. With crowds gathering (present when they leave) and demonstrating, and probably noting who's coming and going. Nobody wants to go through that shite in real life, and nobody wants others listening in on them as they do it.
Posted on 11/18/21 at 5:48 am to Scoob
Good morning.
There’s a lot of drama going on right now in this case and it is probably going to increase.
If we get a verdict, I think there is a good chance it comes today. If today passes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the jury foreperson announces to the judge at the end of tomorrow that they are hopelessly deadlocked. The judge may tell them to go back again.
There is a motion to dismiss pending. The judge can rule on that at any time prior or after a verdict. The judge will probably let the jury continue to deliberate and come to a conclusion then announce his ruling.
The issue in the motion, this artificially enhanced video that was not made available to the defense, is a difficult one for the prosecution. They are bound to make any and all evidence available to the defense. If they withheld evidence to gain a tactical advantage or to disadvantage the defense, that is absolutely grounds for a dismissal, with prejudice.
I think the judge is observing the deliberations very carefully. The jury has requested to view video again. I’m not sure if we know specifically what video, all I’ve heard is video from the night. Every single case where video was involved the viewing by the jury during deliberation was done in the courtroom with judge, prosecution, defense present. I wouldn’t agree otherwise. If the jury asks to view the video in question as part of their deliberations, I think the judge will definitely take that into consideration when ruling on motions.
That video at issue is critical. There is a jury instruction of provocation by the defendant. If the jury believes that video shows provocation by the defendant against Rosenbaum, then the affirmative defense of self defense goes out the window.
I think we are heading to a hung jury, maybe a conviction for reckless endangerment. I would not be surprised if the judge dismissed the case because of the actions of the prosecution.
In that scenario, which I think the judge would prefer to avoid but nevertheless feel obliged to do, prepare for big melty mess.
There’s a lot of drama going on right now in this case and it is probably going to increase.
If we get a verdict, I think there is a good chance it comes today. If today passes, I wouldn’t be surprised if the jury foreperson announces to the judge at the end of tomorrow that they are hopelessly deadlocked. The judge may tell them to go back again.
There is a motion to dismiss pending. The judge can rule on that at any time prior or after a verdict. The judge will probably let the jury continue to deliberate and come to a conclusion then announce his ruling.
The issue in the motion, this artificially enhanced video that was not made available to the defense, is a difficult one for the prosecution. They are bound to make any and all evidence available to the defense. If they withheld evidence to gain a tactical advantage or to disadvantage the defense, that is absolutely grounds for a dismissal, with prejudice.
I think the judge is observing the deliberations very carefully. The jury has requested to view video again. I’m not sure if we know specifically what video, all I’ve heard is video from the night. Every single case where video was involved the viewing by the jury during deliberation was done in the courtroom with judge, prosecution, defense present. I wouldn’t agree otherwise. If the jury asks to view the video in question as part of their deliberations, I think the judge will definitely take that into consideration when ruling on motions.
That video at issue is critical. There is a jury instruction of provocation by the defendant. If the jury believes that video shows provocation by the defendant against Rosenbaum, then the affirmative defense of self defense goes out the window.
I think we are heading to a hung jury, maybe a conviction for reckless endangerment. I would not be surprised if the judge dismissed the case because of the actions of the prosecution.
In that scenario, which I think the judge would prefer to avoid but nevertheless feel obliged to do, prepare for big melty mess.
Posted on 11/18/21 at 5:59 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
I think we are heading to a hung jury, maybe a conviction for reckless endangerment.
How can he be guilty of reckless endangerment if they jury is hung on the homicide of Rosenbaum?
If you are a juror that believes it was self defense , then you cannot find him guilty of reckless endangerment
Based on the video requests from yesterday: I think there is 1 or 2 holdouts on acquitting him and the self defense jurors wanted to show them that he clearly doesn’t raise his gun until a gun is pointed at him with Gabe and that Kyle then walks straight to police to turn himself in
Posted on 11/18/21 at 6:15 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
How can he be guilty of reckless endangerment if they jury is hung on the homicide of Rosenbaum? If you are a juror that believes it was self defense , then you cannot find him guilty of reckless endangerment
Well, that’s what the defense argued and I’m inclined to agree. Yet juries can always surprise you. I think chances of conviction are small, a hung jury is more likely.
Posted on 11/18/21 at 6:17 am to IT_Dawg
I should also say aside from Rosenbaum we have the considerations of the videographer who did not attack Kyle and testified that he was almost hit by Kyle’s shooting.
Posted on 11/18/21 at 6:49 am to IT_Dawg
A compromise in the jury. Give us not guilty and they agree to a lesser charge
Page 55 of 56
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News