Rittenhouse Is Dead Meat.

.... Prosecution mis-conduct all over this case.
Rather obvious that if he is convicted of something
- he'll surely be granted a good appeal.

The Judge surely needs to do the proper thing
and declare a mis-trial with prejudice.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

As in any criminal trial there are two sides the Defense and the Prosecution. Both sides have only one thing in common, they both want to win. Now in this case Rittenhouse who was armed in the midst of a violent protest where destruction of property is happening all around him he shoots and kills two people and wounds another. The Prosecution thinks they have a good case for murder they talk about it, they demonstrate it but they didn't prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. This case needs to end it's waste of time now.

Yep, he will either be charged with something, I don't think he should be, clear cut case of self defense if one applies the law and not their "feelings", or it will be a hung jury and no counselor, the second time won't be tougher because the facts in the case will not change. What you are suggesting is that "feelings" might change. Pitiful, especially from a so called "officer of the law". Originally Posted by HedonistForever

For someone whose legal education doesn’t extend beyond the internet you sure act as if you know a lot. You don’t. And your courtroom experience is zero. So there’s that. I’ve told you what the law is. It’s not what you think or how you think self defense works. But that’s neither here nor there. The jury will decide whether it’s self defense according to the law. Were it clear cut under the law, the judge could have simply directed a verdict and never sent it to the jury. It’s a factual determination that needs to be made and not a legal one. Now, given, the judge could still do that - it would be unusual- and may be awaiting the jury to come back with a decision before deciding how to game it all. Personally I don’t see that happening for any number of reasons.

It could well be deemed self defense by the jury. I suspect however that the first and third shootings will be the ones the jury has the most difficulty applying that to since, though you fail completely to understand the concept of “reasonable belief”, there was no weapon in shooting 1 and in 3 the guy appears to have been trying to de-escalate the situation.

As for your extremely limited understanding of how trials actually work, your implications that facts remain the same but “feeling” may change is nonsensical. The reason second criminal trials are generally harder for the defense is that the defendants story is now looked down. In Rittenhouses case he never provided statements or description Le that the prosecution could investigate or poke holes in prior to his getting on the stand. Now he’s locked to one story which he can’t deviate from in the second trial. The prosecutor has an opportunity to find (if it exists) information that contradicts portions of his story. Now were the prosecution to have withheld exculpatory evidence in the first trial and it was available in the second l, the trial would advantage the defense. That’s not being alleged at all.

.... Prosecution mis-conduct all over this case.
Rather obvious that if he is convicted of something
- he'll surely be granted a good appeal.

The Judge surely needs to do the proper thing
and declare a mis-trial with prejudice.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

As for prosecutorial misconduct and appeal. That’s laughable. So few criminal cases get overturned on appeal it’s negligible. Prosecutors and cops in criminal cases do shit all the time. Cops lie in a large number of cases (usually when it comes to creating probable cause or reasonable suspicion, less so at trial it self). Rarely does that result in a successful appeal. Prosecutors get away with all kinds of antics when it comes to evidentiary matters. Again, rarely resulting in successful appeals that will change the verdict. At best they get sent back for a retrial which -as stated above - works to the prosecutors advantage.

Now I’m sure both of you and Oeb and whomever else will doubt what I’m saying out of hand because that’s the nature of this forum, and to head you off, here my response in advance. Uh huh.

Is this ANOTHER Benghazi thread?


Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yes

For someone whose legal education doesn’t extend beyond the internet you sure act as if you know a lot. You don’t. And your courtroom experience is zero. So there’s that. I’ve told you what the law is. It’s not what you think or how you think self defense works. But that’s neither here nor there. The jury will decide whether it’s self defense according to the law. Were it clear cut under the law, the judge could have simply directed a verdict and never sent it to the jury. It’s a factual determination that needs to be made and not a legal one. Now, given, the judge could still do that - it would be unusual- and may be awaiting the jury to come back with a decision before deciding how to game it all. Personally I don’t see that happening for any number of reasons.

It could well be deemed self defense by the jury. I suspect however that the first and third shootings will be the ones the jury has the most difficulty applying that to since, though you fail completely to understand the concept of “reasonable belief”, there was no weapon in shooting 1 and in 3 the guy appears to have been trying to de-escalate the situation.

As for your extremely limited understanding of how trials actually work, your implications that facts remain the same but “feeling” may change is nonsensical. The reason second criminal trials are generally harder for the defense is that the defendants story is now looked down. In Rittenhouses case he never provided statements or description Le that the prosecution could investigate or poke holes in prior to his getting on the stand. Now he’s locked to one story which he can’t deviate from in the second trial. The prosecutor has an opportunity to find (if it exists) information that contradicts portions of his story. Now were the prosecution to have withheld exculpatory evidence in the first trial and it was available in the second l, the trial would advantage the defense. That’s not being alleged at all.



As for prosecutorial misconduct and appeal. That’s laughable. So few criminal cases get overturned on appeal it’s negligible. Prosecutors and cops in criminal cases do shit all the time. Cops lie in a large number of cases (usually when it comes to creating probable cause or reasonable suspicion, less so at trial it self). Rarely does that result in a successful appeal. Prosecutors get away with all kinds of antics when it comes to evidentiary matters. Again, rarely resulting in successful appeals that will change the verdict. At best they get sent back for a retrial which -as stated above - works to the prosecutors advantage.

Now I’m sure both of you and Oeb and whomever else will doubt what I’m saying out of hand because that’s the nature of this forum, and to head you off, here my response in advance. Uh huh. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Uh huh!!!!!!!

For someone whose legal education doesn’t extend beyond the internet you sure act as if you know a lot. You don’t. And your courtroom experience is zero. So there’s that. I’ve told you what the law is. It’s not what you think or how you think self defense works. But that’s neither here nor there. The jury will decide whether it’s self defense according to the law. Were it clear cut under the law, the judge could have simply directed a verdict and never sent it to the jury. It’s a factual determination that needs to be made and not a legal one. Now, given, the judge could still do that - it would be unusual- and may be awaiting the jury to come back with a decision before deciding how to game it all. Personally I don’t see that happening for any number of reasons.

It could well be deemed self defense by the jury. I suspect however that the first and third shootings will be the ones the jury has the most difficulty applying that to since, though you fail completely to understand the concept of “reasonable belief”, there was no weapon in shooting 1 and in 3 the guy appears to have been trying to de-escalate the situation.

As for your extremely limited understanding of how trials actually work, your implications that facts remain the same but “feeling” may change is nonsensical. The reason second criminal trials are generally harder for the defense is that the defendants story is now looked down. In Rittenhouses case he never provided statements or description Le that the prosecution could investigate or poke holes in prior to his getting on the stand. Now he’s locked to one story which he can’t deviate from in the second trial. The prosecutor has an opportunity to find (if it exists) information that contradicts portions of his story. Now were the prosecution to have withheld exculpatory evidence in the first trial and it was available in the second l, the trial would advantage the defense. That’s not being alleged at all.



As for prosecutorial misconduct and appeal. That’s laughable. So few criminal cases get overturned on appeal it’s negligible. Prosecutors and cops in criminal cases do shit all the time. Cops lie in a large number of cases (usually when it comes to creating probable cause or reasonable suspicion, less so at trial it self). Rarely does that result in a successful appeal. Prosecutors get away with all kinds of antics when it comes to evidentiary matters. Again, rarely resulting in successful appeals that will change the verdict. At best they get sent back for a retrial which -as stated above - works to the prosecutors advantage.

Now I’m sure both of you and Oeb and whomever else will doubt what I’m saying out of hand because that’s the nature of this forum, and to head you off, here my response in advance. Uh huh. Originally Posted by NoirMan

... You don't say?

### Salty

So it looks like this trial can end with either of two different miss-trial motions or a hung jury.

My guess is that if the jury finds Rittenhouse guilty on any count that gives him any significant prison time, the Judge will declare a miss-trial with prejudice.

Arguing with NoirMan about law would be like arguing with LL or Captain Midnight about economics. You can agree or disagree with him philosophically, but he’ll likely give you better insights than you can get listening to the pundits on CNN or Fox.

The judge has not declared a mistrial. He has all the elements to do so. He said he will wait until the jury has finished it's deliberations. So, if they come back with a guilty verdict the judge can over rule them and that would be the time to do it. If they come back to acquit then the judge does not have to do anything. If they are hung, the judge can over rule or set up a new trial date. I'm thinking that if they find Rittenhouse guilty after all the evidence saying otherwise (including evidence hidden by the prosecution) the judge will over rule the jury and have a finding of not guilty or, failing that, he will declare a mistrial with prejudice.

Oh No msnbc getting in trouble for following the bus and takin pictures Hmm ,, So Judge pissed now
An "who causes violence in this country " Hmm Media , social media to push the agenda

I would be dry shocked if the judge overturns jury’s guilty verdict with a mistrial, after the fact. One of the things he could be doing, gaming as I’d call it, is awaiting the jury to make a decision and call the attorneys in for 1 last conference to see if they can come to a plea agreement based on what he has decided on the mistrial requests. He’ll have the knowledge that the jury has deliberated and come to some conclusion. If they hang, he doesn’t have to decide any motion as too be a retrial. He can hold the threat of deciding against the prosecution on a mistrial or some evidentiary matter which could be appealable and it suggests to the defense they are likely not getting n acquittal. Or he could hold the threat of a mistrial resulting in a retrial which would favor the defense. This might get an agreement to something like attempted manslaughter and 5-8 years.judges do this all the time.

Also I would be even more surprised if he granted anything with prejudice. That would likely land him some issues with the appeals court or Supreme Court and that’s something no judge wants to deal with. As I noted previously, the complaints for a mistrial are overplayed and the evidentiary matters at issue are pretty minor.

Isn't he 75 years old? They're going to scare him with higher court? I don't think so. I should also point out that I did not say that the verdict would be published by the jury but just that the jury rendered a verdict which the judge would know.

For someone whose legal education doesn’t extend beyond the internet you sure act as if you know a lot. You don’t. And your courtroom experience is zero. So there’s that. I’ve told you what the law is.


You gave your opinion of what the law is and when I asked you to provide the statute you are applying, you tell me you don't have the time or "inclination" ( that part I believe ). That I just have to accept your "opinion" as fact. Sorry counselor, ( if you really are one ) it doesn't work that way.


It’s not what you think or how you think self defense works.



It's the way it worked in the Brown and Martin case. Why won't you address the Brown case counselor? It makes you look cowardly not to address it since it doesn't fit your narrative.




But that’s neither here nor there. The jury will decide whether it’s self defense according to the law. Were it clear cut under the law, the judge could have simply directed a verdict and never sent it to the jury. It’s a factual determination that needs to be made and not a legal one. Now, given, the judge could still do that - it would be unusual- and may be awaiting the jury to come back with a decision before deciding how to game it all. Personally I don’t see that happening for any number of reasons.

It could well be deemed self defense by the jury.


And I assume you'll be here to tell us that they don't know what the law says, huh?


I suspect however that the first and third shootings will be the ones the jury has the most difficulty applying that to since, though you fail completely to understand the concept of “reasonable belief”, there was no weapon in shooting 1 and in 3 the guy appears to have been trying to de-escalate the situation.

As for your extremely limited understanding of how trials actually work, your implications that facts remain the same but “feeling” may change is nonsensical. The reason second criminal trials are generally harder for the defense is that the defendants story is now looked down. In Rittenhouses case he never provided statements or description Le that the prosecution could investigate or poke holes in prior to his getting on the stand. Now he’s locked to one story which he can’t deviate from in the second trial. The prosecutor has an opportunity to find (if it exists) information that contradicts portions of his story. Now were the prosecution to have withheld exculpatory evidence in the first trial and it was available in the second l, the trial would advantage the defense. That’s not being alleged at all.



As for prosecutorial misconduct and appeal. That’s laughable. So few criminal cases get overturned on appeal it’s negligible. Prosecutors and cops in criminal cases do shit all the time. Cops lie in a large number of cases (usually when it comes to creating probable cause or reasonable suspicion, less so at trial it self). Rarely does that result in a successful appeal. Prosecutors get away with all kinds of antics when it comes to evidentiary matters. Again, rarely resulting in successful appeals that will change the verdict. At best they get sent back for a retrial which -as stated above - works to the prosecutors advantage.

Now I’m sure both of you and Oeb and whomever else will doubt what I’m saying out of hand because that’s the nature of this forum, and to head you off, here my response in advance. Uh huh. Originally Posted by NoirMan

That's why I asked for the statute that you say you don't have time to look up. Laughable doesn't even begin to cover that.

Arguing with NoirMan about law would be like arguing with LL or Captain Midnight about economics. You can agree or disagree with him philosophically, but he’ll likely give you better insights than you can get listening to the pundits on CNN or Fox. Originally Posted by Tiny

Like CNN saying "you can't argue with Michael Avanati, he's a lawyer!!!!!


Think lawyers don't get it wrong sometimes Tiny?

Not guilty across the board. The jury made their decision. Which was exactly how it works.

I did address Michael Brown. It was because a police officer has additionally latitude in shooting people.

the verdict is in. in about 1 hour it will be known


https://news.yahoo.com/rittenhouse-j...045848199.html


Jury reaches verdict in Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial