- 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 3:32 pm to alpinetiger
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:32 pm to alpinetiger
Dude if that’s the case, this little provocation L was meaningless before it was decided. Otherwise, this case is a rout.
0
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:32 pm to Dawgirl
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:33 pm to Dawgirl
quote:
Ok. Criminal is different from civil then.
You can’t do this in civil cases either after a jury has rendered a verdict. The jury goes home, reads the news, gives interviews. You can’t call them back in and show them a new piece of evidence and see if that changes their mind.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:34 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
Sorry I should have been more clear. If there is no jury and a judge decides is what I meant.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:34 pm to TDTOM
quote:When the judge allowed the picture to be shown to the jury, there was nobody on the stand to testify what the picture was actually depicting. During closing remarks the prosecution will tell the jury that is Kyle pointing the gun at someone. The jury’s only testimony to that will be the prosecutors and not a witness.
Because the prosecution will be telling them what it shows, that is why this isn't allowed.
I am sorry. I am not a lawyer and I am not following.
The defense will be able to counter that point during closing as well.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:36 pm to Oddibe
quote:
When the judge allowed the picture to be shown to the jury, there was nobody on the stand to testify what the picture was actually depicting. During closing remarks the prosecution will tell the jury that is Kyle pointing the gun at someone. The jury’s only testimony to that will be the prosecutors and not a witness.
This could be reversible error. So at least if this jury gets it wrong he has a basis to try and have his conviction overturned.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:37 pm to Oddibe
quote:
When the judge allowed the picture to be shown to the jury, there was nobody on the stand to testify what the picture was actually depicting. During closing remarks the prosecution will tell the jury that is Kyle pointing the gun at someone. The jury’s only testimony to that will be the prosecutors and not a witness.
can the defense object to that during the prosecution's closing and say "no one testified to that on the stand"?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:37 pm to rt3
quote:
can the defense object to that during the prosecution's closing and say "no one testified to that on the stand"?
Yes. And they better.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:39 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
LSUFAITHFUL
Are you a defense attorney?
If they object and it is sustained then the jury cannot consider it, correct?
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:41 pm to rt3
quote:
can the defense object to that during the prosecution's closing and say "no one testified to that on the stand"?
"Your honor, Mr. Rittenhouse was shown the video and said he didn't point his gun at Mr. Ziminski. We enlarged the photo and slowed down the video to clearly show that Mr. Rittenhouse is lying."
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:41 pm to MidWestGuy
quote:
She really looked like she didn't want to be there. I wonder if she's pissed that the Mayor didn't just let the cops do their jobs? If they shut down the violent rioters, burners, looters (AKA 'civil protestors'), Kyle would not have gone there, none of this would be happening.
You must be one of the Back the Blue guys.
She was pissed because she was called by the DEFENSE as a witness.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:41 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:we already know the ADA has crossed ethical lines at least twice during the trial, the judge seemed to have crossed a line yesterday by allowing this evidence. I asked the question yesterday but no one answered. In the event Kyle is found guilty, will the actions of the ADA and the judge help Kyle with an appeal ?
This could be reversible error. So at least if this jury gets it wrong he has a basis to try and have his conviction overturned.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:42 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Are you a defense attorney?
If they object and it is sustained then the jury cannot consider it, correct?
I’m a civil defense attorney. I don’t do criminal. But for the most part the rules of evidence are similar.
If they object and the judge sustains, the jury is not supposed to consider it. But, it’s hard to unring that bell.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:43 pm to Oddibe
quote:
In the event Kyle is found guilty, will the actions of the ADA and the judge help Kyle with an appeal ?
The actions of the ADA certainly. The allowance of the evidence could be evaluated, but it doesn't seem obviously egregious so I doubt it would factor in much, if at all.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:43 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
I think, the judge is allowing this case to go to the jury. The last photo done today is irrelevant, it's nothing anyone can even make out.
The only relevant issue is the prosecution being able to add the intruction-
If the defendant provoked the conflict, then the defendant loses the self-defense option.
Meaning, if Rittenhouse levelled his gun at Rosenbaum (for example), he doesn't get to shoot Rosenbaum for then lunging.
Because Rosenbaum would have been provoked, feeling if he didn't attack, he was about to be shot (in theory).
i.e., the OTHER party is acting in self-defense.
Rosenbaum is the only relevant shooting. It's clearly demonstrated what happened with the others. They are attacking him while he attempts to flee to safety.
If Rittenhouse is found to have shot Rosenbaum unjustly, is the crowd (not the police) allowed to pursue and detain him, or not? I don't know the letter of the law on that one. I'm pretty sure you can tackle an active shooter (at your own risk), but he wasn't active at that point.
I think the original intent of the prosecution should have been to try to present Kyle as an inexperienced person, intimidated into unjustly shooting Rosenbaum because he was scared... but that Rosenbaum wasn't a threat to him at that time. I think that could have been believable, but the defense was able to successfully disprove that.
I just can't see a murder charge sticking.
The only relevant issue is the prosecution being able to add the intruction-
If the defendant provoked the conflict, then the defendant loses the self-defense option.
Meaning, if Rittenhouse levelled his gun at Rosenbaum (for example), he doesn't get to shoot Rosenbaum for then lunging.
Because Rosenbaum would have been provoked, feeling if he didn't attack, he was about to be shot (in theory).
i.e., the OTHER party is acting in self-defense.
Rosenbaum is the only relevant shooting. It's clearly demonstrated what happened with the others. They are attacking him while he attempts to flee to safety.
If Rittenhouse is found to have shot Rosenbaum unjustly, is the crowd (not the police) allowed to pursue and detain him, or not? I don't know the letter of the law on that one. I'm pretty sure you can tackle an active shooter (at your own risk), but he wasn't active at that point.
I think the original intent of the prosecution should have been to try to present Kyle as an inexperienced person, intimidated into unjustly shooting Rosenbaum because he was scared... but that Rosenbaum wasn't a threat to him at that time. I think that could have been believable, but the defense was able to successfully disprove that.
I just can't see a murder charge sticking.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:44 pm to TDTOM
If the prosecutor made a personal factual conclusion during closing, most definitely one supported by nothing in the record, as defense counsel I'd move for mistrial and sanctions against prosecutor for that very well known no-no by an attorney, especially after the long line of similar actions by prosecution throughout.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:44 pm to LSUFAITHFUL
quote:
But, it’s hard to unring that bell.
Correct, but they would only get one look at a very questionable video/picture. The prosecutor won't be able to spend very much time on it.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:45 pm to Oddibe
quote:
In the event Kyle is found guilty, will the actions of the ADA and the judge help Kyle with an appeal ?
I think letting this picture in alone with no foundation could be reversible error. I think the courts have already very clearly found that insinuating that hiring a lawyer means you are guilty is a violation of the 5th amendment (which the prosecutor did here). So he would have some arguments.
Appeals are rarely successful though, so I wouldn’t want to bank on that if I’m the defendant.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:54 pm to TDTOM
quote:
Correct, but they would only get one look at a very questionable video/picture. The prosecutor won't be able to spend very much time on it.
Agreed. And the prosecutors credibility is shot with this jury. I mean a witness testified that they pressured him to change his statement and it shook him so bad he hired a lawyer.
If I’m on the jury and the prosecutor tells me the sky is blue, I’m gonna be skeptical of anything they say.
But I also have a brain. Hope some of the people on this jury have a brain and some principles.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:55 pm to Scoob
quote:
The only relevant issue is the prosecution being able to add the intruction-
If the defendant provoked the conflict, then the defendant loses the self-defense option.
I find it hard to believe that even if he did point his gun at Pedodwarf at some point, the fact Pedodwarf chased him for what appears to be at least 80 feet or more doesn't put Kyle into the position of a victim in fear for his life.
Page 24 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News