- 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: Rittenhouse day 9-Motions and jury instructions
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:12 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:12 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Again, his life had already been threatened and a gun was pulled on him at that point. There’s no provocation case. They will try to make it, but it’s not there.
Yes there is, the judge allowed. (that is what I heard)
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:12 pm
1
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:12 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Its all about the record. <---
Then why did the judge allow it?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:14 pm to Meauxjeaux
Right. Even the young fricking Turks have softened on Rittenhouse. Lol
After days of the defense dragging nuts all over the place they lose one small jury instruction battle and people here start jumping off the ship.
After days of the defense dragging nuts all over the place they lose one small jury instruction battle and people here start jumping off the ship.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:14 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Then why did the judge allow it?
I didn't really hear the defense object. There is nothing in the record, to support what the prosecution claims.
I would be objecting on Monday morning to maybe save themselves, even the talking heads in the youtube channel were screaming object.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:16 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
There is nothing in the record, to support what the prosecution claims.
Does there need to be? If the prosecutor gets up, shows the video and says see....
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:17 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
That’s what I said. They will make an argument on provocation, but they don’t have evidence to back it up. The chronology doesn’t back it up. The blur blobs taken from Neptune don’t show it, and even if they did- Kyle had already been provoked by the armed Zelinsky and Rosenbaum
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:19 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Are you saying the prosecutor will be able to show the video but not point out the movement they believe is him raising the gun? Again, I am no lawyer so I don't know.
In closing, prosecutors can only summarize the evidence. With respect to this image, they got it into evidence. But, no one testified that they took the video in question, that it was Kyle, that they saw him raising his gun.
Prosecutors can show the picture, but the lawyers don’t get to say what they think it is. A witness with personal knowledge has to testify to that.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:21 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
but the lawyers don’t get to say what they think it is.
Yeah that would be speculation.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:22 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
And they can’t call the one (zeminsky) guy who would happily testify this because he’s a known liar.
No one has testified to seeing this. It all comes from prosecutors interpretation of grainy video.
No one has testified to seeing this. It all comes from prosecutors interpretation of grainy video.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:22 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
I would be objecting on Monday morning to maybe save themselves
Can they do this? Can they request to go back and argue about it?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:23 pm to Dawgirl
quote:
Yeah that would be speculation.
Not only that, they aren’t witnesses. The lawyers don’t get to give evidence.
This would be like the prosecutor in an armed robbery case submitting a picture of a robbery suspect with a mask on to the jury, and just proclaiming it was their suspect. That’s not how any of this works.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:23 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Does there need to be? If the prosecutor gets up, shows the video and says see....
That is not what they are allowed to do, they have to have the record to support their theory... in this case, he the prosecutor is identifying the defendant and his actions. If the prosecutor is a witness he could have been sworn in and deposed.
That is what the rest of trial is for, presenting testimony which the jury uses to find the true facts. In this case, the prosecutor is basically testifying (or at least what I would call it).
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:25 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
That is not what they are allowed to do,
Ok, that is what I having been trying to get an answer to. So, this may not actually be that big of a deal?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:26 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:As per Robert Barnes before he was removed from the defense team, and Rich Baris who did the polling, over 2/3 of the residents polled in Kenosha assumed that Rittenhouse was guily and they didn't have an open mind about it either. Barnes wanted to do a very long and specific voir dire to remove these types of people, but instead this terrible defense attorney empaneled the jury in one day. Hopefully they'll be a few on the jury that have an open mind and Rittenhouse can get a mistrial. I think the odds are very low for an acquittal even though it very obvious Rittinghouse is innocent.
They have nothing on provocation. Would it have been ideal for the judge to remove it from jury instruction? Sure. But it’s not going to pass the smell test. Prosecution doesn’t dispute Zeminsky pulled a gun on Kyle and doesn’t dispute Rosenbaum threatened to kill him immediately before the alleged gun raise. Who is being provocative?
And this trial isn’t in fricking Chicago. It’s in the whitest areas of the Midwest. This jury is more likely to acquit geographically.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:28 pm to TDTOM
Probably not.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:28 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Ok, that is what I having been trying to get an answer to. So, this may not actually be that big of a deal?
It’s a big deal because the judge seems to be allowing it. Despite no foundation being laid.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:28 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
I would think that even after a verdict has been decided that if new evidence comes to light, they can file a Motion to Reopen Evidence correct?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:31 pm to Dawgirl
quote:
I would think that even after a verdict has been decided that if new evidence comes to light, they can file a Motion to Reopen Evidence correct?
No. After a verdict the trial is over. If new exculpatory evidence comes forward they would have to work to get the verdict overturned which is very difficult. People get exonerated after the fact with DNA but it takes years/decades to fix a wrongful conviction.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:31 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Ok. Criminal is different from civil then.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:32 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
It’s a big deal because the judge seems to be allowing it. Despite no foundation being laid.
But if all they can do is say he was provoked based on a shitty video then what gives?
Page 23 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News