Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
stagpanther said:
The obvious solution is to cross-examine the jury upon reaching a verdict. And then cross-examine those who cross-examine them--and so-on, until the desired outcome is reached.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity: Do you respect the rule of law?

If so, would you agree that if a jury -- which is supposed to be impartial -- is swayed in their verdict by outside demonstrators, justice has not been achieved?
 
Out of curiosity: Do you respect the rule of law?

If so, would you agree that if a jury -- which is supposed to be impartial -- is swayed in their verdict by outside demonstrators, justice has not been achieved?
Click to expand...
More than you know. So--just to be clear--it was a small group of protestors that were outside--and included ones in support of Rittenhouse. So how is it that the "usual suspects" quickly arrive at some decision that undue influence favoring the prosecution warrants a mistrial?
 
By now, hopefully at least one thing should be starting to become obvious.

A lot of people on both sides thought that this was an open and shut case. Clearly it isn't or we would have had a verdict before now.
 
A lot of people on both sides thought that this was an open and shut case.
Clearly it isn't or we would have had a verdict before now.
Click to expand...
Oh I do think the facts of the actual shootings were open & shut.

But I fear now is that the jurors (at least some of them) are shutting out hard fact,
reverting to how they feel about the entire non-linear furball from start to finish.
 
mehavey said:
Oh I do think the facts of the actual shootings were open & shut.

But I fear now is that the jurors (at least some of them) are shutting out hard fact,
reverting to how they feel about the entire non-linear furball from start to finish.
Click to expand...
The prosecution knew how to lie and get away with it, how to withhold evidence and get away with it. The jury needs this information also. It would also help if those who wish to intimated the jury were locked up.
 
stagpanther said:
More than you know. So--just to be clear--it was a small group of protestors that were outside--and included ones in support of Rittenhouse. So how is it that the "usual suspects" quickly arrive at some decision that undue influence favoring the prosecution warrants a mistrial?
Click to expand...
Statements that two jurors are delaying the verdict due to fear of the demonstrators.

And I haven't advocated for declaring a mistrial. See my question to KyJim about the possibility of empaneling alternate jurors.
 
Something has sewn doubt into the jury. I didn’t expect any slam-dunks, but at least a few hours of deliberations. I also expected it to go either way.

I haven’t read every opinion here on this forum, but there’s a mix of opinions amongst ourselves, so I can imagine they are more mixed on the jury.

In my own experience of being on juries, even murder trials, less information is available to jurors than spectators.
 
Statements that two jurors are delaying the verdict due to fear of the demonstrators.
Click to expand...
Who said this--and where was it reported? If it's not coming from any of the court officials I'd just ignore it as another tea-leaf reader using their divining rod.
 
He's an odd-ball judge, and the way I view things he seems to be favoring defense's objections over those of the prosecution--almost as if he's purposefully leaving the door open for multiple mistrial filings, which have already happened. I think defense is just doing what they can--going for a hail-Mary pass to get all charges dismissed. They could get it--but it certainly would have nothing to do with justice IMO. Many people keep dismissing the fact that Rittenhouse has to be tried on multiple counts--but because of their bias, view it as simply one instance of "justifiable self-defense" and thus all charges should be dismissed at once.
 
stagpanther said:
He's an odd-ball judge, ...
Click to expand...

He's an elected judge. He sees each juror in part not just as a voter, but the sort of voter who may be likely to sway other voters. He has a likeability switch that is always on while jurors are present.

stagpanther said:
I think defense is just doing what they can--going for a hail-Mary pass to get all charges dismissed.
Click to expand...

I see them doing quite a bit less than what they could. A passive "we've nothing to hide so let it all come in" attitude isn't something I associate with criminal defense, but I'm not very knowledgeable in that field.

I can only speculate that this has something to do with local culture. Different areas have different legal cultures. I've had case at the other end of my state a few years ago in which I was courteous to opposing counsel and the court. Afterward, they expressed their confusion about my location and whether I was really from there. They expected someone who was loud, abusive and generally rude.

Maybe what I think of as the aggressive setting of a criminal defense counsel wouldn't work in that environment.

They could get it--but it certainly would have nothing to do with justice IMO.
Click to expand...

Justice should include a limit on the number of times the state gets to practice its case against you before you are free to go, whether they can disregard your 5th Am. rights, withhold evidence, and raise issues excluded by court order.

Many people keep dismissing the fact that Rittenhouse has to be tried on multiple counts--but because of their bias, view it as simply one instance of "justifiable self-defense" and thus all charges should be dismissed at once.
Click to expand...

I don't get that sense. I see the emotional division on the shooting splitting as follows. One sees a lad up to no good, going somewhere he shouldn't have been, holding a rifle he shouldn't have had. A lot of that judgment isn't about the shootings themselves but the general judgement of the shooter.

The other sees a lad in a place he is entitled to be, carrying a rifle he is entitled to possess who in each instance doesn't fire until he is has little or no other choice and asks, if he didn't properly exercise a valid right of self-defense, who ever has?

Those positions seem set well before the trial began in part because there was so much video evidence before the trial.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by: stagpanther
Many people keep dismissing the fact that Rittenhouse has to be tried on multiple counts--but because of their bias, view it as simply one instance of "justifiable self-defense" and thus all charges should be dismissed at once.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity; In which of these incidents do you not consider KRs actions to be self defense ?
 
Just out of curiosity; In which of these incidents do you not consider KRs actions to be self defense ?
Click to expand...
I've expressed my views multiple times on this thread, and frankly have grown tired of being the "token antifa BLM socialist terrorist" for people to unload on--so I'm taking the 5th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top