re: Rittenhouse day 9-Motions and jury instructions

quote:

---

Is it normal for a judge to wait to issue a mistrial until a jury recommends a verdict he thinks is wrong? That doesn't sound right but I have no clue.

---

It’s allowed. I could see the jury giving a guilty verdict, the court then ruling it was a mistrial meaning dismissal with prejudice, and then the state appealing. .

How normal is something I don’t know. A regulsr criminal law lawyer in the trenches would know.

quote:

---

This judge is not touching what the jury determines.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

This judge is not touching what the jury determines. Fantasy world.

---

You should tell him to rule on the motion soon!

How many think the jury is spending it's entire 3 day weekend not seeing anything concerning the trial?

Guarantee some of them are looking stuff up online. Both good and bad.

I am praying for a hung jury at this point.

quote:

---

If Kyle is found guilty of anything, our entire nation loses. Self defense no longer has any meaning at that point.

---

That is the whole reason the charges were even brought.

Even if he gets off, which he should, it will make people even more hesitant to defend themselves.

quote:

---

If Kyle is found guilty of anything, our entire nation loses. Self defense no longer has any meaning at that point.

---

At this point, its on the jury to figure out with common sense what judge/defense attorney are failing to clear up with proper due process.

The prosecutor might be bad, but he is better than the defense attorney... its ugly but he is getting what he wants.

Keeps talking, judge gets mad, keeps talking, judge says let me think about... judge does what he asks. (rinse and repeat) Defense attorneys sitting there not doing anything.

They better have something amazing for closing arguments if they're just going to let this crap go without a fight.

quote:

---

They better have something amazing for closing arguments if they're just going to let this crap go without a fight.

---

we'll see

either way; there will be an appeal if there is any conviction for anything...

also, I can't imagine that there isn't at least one person that will hold out for not guilty on everything

quote:

---

So out of the 100 or so videos that show clearly what happened that night, the prosecution wants the entire case to hinge on this one video that does not show clearly any of what they are claiming.

---

No... not precisely.

Yes, the prosecution is using this blur of pixels to assert that Kyle raised his rifle. That in itself is very likely going to fail.

But the bigger issue, they want to introduce the "provocation" issue, and this is their means.

Once you can give the "if you provoke, you then waive self defense as an option" statement, it opens the door for jurors to consider that Rittenhouse was provoking the confrontation simply by walking around with a rifle. His armed presence provoked the 'victims' to react as they did.

I see Rosenbaum as the key element of the case. I think it's clear that Rittenhouse shot the others in a defensive manner. The issue was, were they "attacking" him, or were they responding to him gunning down Rosenbaum unjustly... that will be the prosecution's case. It will be argued that Huber, Gaige, etc were attempting to stop/subdue Rittenhouse AFTER he unlawfully shot Rosenbaum... same way you or I might tackle a guy who shoots someone else in a crowd, and we have a clear shot at doing so.

In the instance of Rosenbaum, the prosecution will argue that he was attempting to subdue Kyle, because he was aiming the gun at others, and thus attempting to STOP a shooting.

I THINK that argument will fail, but there's still some uncertainty on that point.