Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

[Puff]

He's just throwing half-baked arguments at the wall, in random and confusing sequences, instead of building a narrative and hammering the key points home.

It IS the prosecution's turn. I'll call it if it's this shit with defense witnesses.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I'm a defense lawyer and I think the defense really fucked up today.

That said the prosecution is equally as bad so it kind of cancels out.

i would agree that Richards is pretty fucking bad.

But bad lawyers win cases all the time, lmao.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

It is baffling in some instances.

One thing Rackets et al are saying is Richards should be hitting things much harder and clearer.

And they ain’t wrong.

I have done questioning during trials, it can be nuanced and complex. It's not TV/a movie. A local criminal defense attorney, who is good at his/her job and is experienced, knows the judge and their rulings, the locals and thus the jury, and knows when to be subtle and when not to be. You only have to win over the jury and the judge, once your client is acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge, you have won. Prosecution cannot appeal (some states yes they can but its just one, I think, might be two or three at most). Just getting something in, over the objections of opposing counsel, is a win. Even if your client is convicted, you have to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal, right there during the trial.

Each judge has a their own style, for the lack of a better word. You have to know what they like and what they consider important. A local knows this, out of towners don't. You don't want to piss off the judge if you can help it but if you have to hit hard, you do. It goes way better for you and your client if you don't piss off the trial judge unnecessarily, saving it for when you absolutely have to.

I've seen attorneys piss judges off, when they were right and let me tell you it doesn't go down well. I personally fired three attorneys when I was in criminal court for a low level matter years ago and it paid off because I got a guy who knew his judges and I won. The other three were eliciting angry words and stares from the judge, and that was enough for me to utter the words "You're fired".

Remember, judges and lawyers often know each other and mix socially. You don't want them to talk about you as "that guy/girl" in negative tones. Dressing conservatively for court and being polite and friendly to everyone is essential, even to the court officers/clerks. You don't want a single person to think of you as anything other than sweet and nice, even if you clocked a jogger purse snatcher and gave them a broken nose that left them looking like a female punch drunk boxer.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 2687150

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1456102422070374405

>Antaramian
"He is worse than a Jew. He is, may Allah forgive me for uttering the word, an Armenian."
"Trust a snake before a Jew, a Jew before a Greek, but never trust an Armenian."

 

[Car Won't Crank]

I've have done questioning during trials, it can be nuanced and complex. It's not TV/a movie. A local criminal defense attorney, who is good at his/her job and is experienced, knows the judge and their rulings, the locals and thus the jury, and knows when to be subtle and when not to be. You only have to win over the jury and the judge, once your client is acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge, you have won. Prosecution cannot appeal (some states yes they can but its just one, I think, might be two or three at most). Just getting something in, over the objections of opposing counsel, is a win. Even if your client is convicted, you have to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal, right there during the trial.

Each judge has a their own style, for the lack of a better word. You have to know what they like and what they consider important. A local knows this, out of towners don't. You don't want to piss off the judge if you can help it but if you have to hit hard, you do. It goes way better for you and your client if you don't piss off the trial judge necessarily, saving it for when you absolutely have to.

I've seen attorneys piss judges off, when they were right and let me tell you it doesn't go down well. I personally fired three attorneys when I was in criminal court for a low level matter years ago and it paid off because I got a guy who knew his judges and I won. The other three were eliciting angry words and stares from the judge, and that was enough for me to utter the words "You're fired".

Remember, judges and lawyers often know each other and mix socially. You don't want them to talk about your as "that guy/girl" in negative tones. Dressing conservatively for court and being polite and friendly to everyone is essential, even to the court officers/clerks. You don't want a single person to think of you as anything other than sweet and nice, even if you clocked a jogger purse snatcher and gave them a broken nose that left them looking like a female punch drunk boxer.

That got me thinking, considering how convoluted the judge gave the jury instruction before the trial began, maybe Richard's circuitous questioning might be just up the judge's alley.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

That got me thinking, considering how convoluted the judge gave the jury instruction before the trial began, maybe Richard's circuitous questioning might be just up the judge's alley.

Something positive I'd note about Richards is that he seems to have gotten Schroeder on his side, its wild but whenever there's a conflict between the lawyers, even pre-trial, I feel like he comes down against Binger like... 85% of the time, part of that is Binger is throwing shit at the wall, but the other part is that Richards, while i think he'spretty bad in the court in terms of telling a story/questioning, is pretty solid on the law.

 

[LaxerBRO]

Also the polls that says Kyle rittenhouse was in the wrong I gaurnetee you those were mainstream media push polls. If you talk to people in Kenosha themselves they will tell you most of the city is rooting for the kid. Remember polls can be manipulated and most times are often manipulated.

Bradley Effect

The Bradley effect posits that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias.[7][8] Specifically, some voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well. The race of the pollster conducting the interview may factor into voters' answers.

I've have done questioning during trials, it can be nuanced and complex. It's not TV/a movie. A local criminal defense attorney, who is good at his/her job and is experienced, knows the judge and their rulings, the locals and thus the jury, and knows when to be subtle and when not to be. You only have to win over the jury and the judge, once your client is acquitted or convicted of a lesser charge, you have won. Prosecution cannot appeal (some states yes they can but its just one, I think, might be two or three at most). Just getting something in, over the objections of opposing counsel, is a win. Even if your client is convicted, you have to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal, right there during the trial.

Each judge has a their own style, for the lack of a better word. You have to know what they like and what they consider important. A local knows this, out of towners don't. You don't want to piss off the judge if you can help it but if you have to hit hard, you do. It goes way better for you and your client if you don't piss off the trial judge necessarily, saving it for when you absolutely have to.

I've seen attorneys piss judges off, when they were right and let me tell you it doesn't go down well. I personally fired three attorneys when I was in criminal court for a low level matter years ago and it paid off because I got a guy who knew his judges and I won. The other three were eliciting angry words and stares from the judge, and that was enough for me to utter the words "You're fired".

Remember, judges and lawyers often know each other and mix socially. You don't want them to talk about your as "that guy/girl" in negative tones. Dressing conservatively for court and being polite and friendly to everyone is essential, even to the court officers/clerks. You don't want a single person to think of you as anything other than sweet and nice, even if you clocked a jogger purse snatcher and gave them a broken nose that left them looking like a female punch drunk boxer.

In addition, objecting to everything too aggressively makes it look like you have something to hide with the jury and turns them off.

So far, it seems the prosecution is making the case for the defense for a majority of the points.

 

[LeChampion1992]

Bradley Effect

Thanks the Bradly effect is the best way to describe the incident. If you believe the media spin everyone will say Kyle rittenhouse is in the wrong. But alot of that is due to the fact many people fear political/social retribution for having the wrong opinion.

This is mainly why I think Kyle rittenhouse will probably get off.

 

[NEETzsche]

The thing that gives me hope is seeing how quiet the jury has been. It's clear this judge isn't playing along with the media circus that might actually make this a fair trial. So far 95% in full aquittal on the charges. Sure the jury might be tampered but I'm doubting it. I'm saying this Kyle rittenhouse will probably get off and when he does it's going to be great for the online right.

I sincerely hope you're correct but I'm extremely skeptical that you are. We've seen a lot of bitter vindication in the form of "everything is illegitimate."

 

[theshitposter]

makes me think of this

is that Leslie Claret, the piping legend?

 

[Feline Supremacist]

In addition, objecting to everything too aggressively makes it look like you have something to hide with the jury and turns them off.

This is why a bench trial, a trial before a judge without a jury, is better if you case relies heavily on a point or several points of law, and it would be beyond the scope of the average person not familiar with criminal law to understand. And especially if you're a seasoned and criminal defense attorney well regarded by your peers.

 

[NEETzsche]

This is why a bench trial, a trial before a judge without a jury, is better if you case relies heavily on a point or several points of law, and it would be beyond the scope of the average person not familiar with criminal law to understand. And especially if you're a seasoned and criminal defense attorney well regarded by your peers.

Yeah, but to loop back to the point of this thread: would that be a good idea here? Given that it's obvious the kid was defending himself. Source: the videos.

 

[TheClappening]

This is why a bench trial, a trial before a judge without a jury, is better if you case relies heavily on a point or several points of law, and it would be beyond the scope of the average person not familiar with criminal law to understand. And especially if you're a seasoned and criminal defense attorney well regarded by your peers.

You know, I wonder if it's possible to ask for bench trial for some of the charges and jury for the others.

The minor in possession of a gun charge, for example, looks like solely a law question. I don't think either party will object to the fact that a 17-year-old Kyle was walking around with a M&P15 Sport 2 (16'' barrel, longer than 26'' overall) on that night. There's nothing for a fact finder to noodle out, since no facts are in dispute. It's just whether statute X Y and Z applies to Kyle.


Also on a completely unrelated note, I wonder if I should buy some stock in Aguila. That's the ammo Kyle used to ice Pedobaum and Skate'n'Die and turn Grosskreutz into Lefty.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

You know, I wonder if it's possible to ask for bench trial for some of the charges and jury for the others.

The minor in possession of a gun charge, for example, looks like solely a law question. I don't think either party will object to the fact that a 17-year-old Kyle was walking around with a M&P15 Sport 2 (16'' barrel, longer than 26'' overall) on that night. There's nothing for a fact finder to noodle out, since no facts are in dispute. It's just whether statute X Y and Z applies to Kyle.


Also on a completely unrelated note, I wonder if I should buy some stock in Aguila. That's the ammo Kyle used to ice Pedobaum and Skate'n'Die and turn Grosskreutz into Lefty.

If it was me and I had a defense attorney that I liked and the clerks, guards and police officers liked and believe him to be"good" (meaning he won most of his cases and they'd choose him to represent them) then I might agree to a bench trial if my attorney recommended it. Most matters don't go to trial though, especially something like the minor in possession weapons charge. But this is a woke/Antifa cause so here we are and Kyle is at trial.

 

[NEETzsche]

If it was me and I had a defense attorney that I liked and the clerks, guards and police officers liked and believe him to be"good" (meaning he won most of his cases and they'd choose him to represent them) then I might agree to a bench trial if my attorney recommended it. Most matters don't go to trial though, especially something like the minor in possession weapons charge. But this is a woke/Antifa cause so here we are and Kyle is at trial.

Do you think he's going to walk?

 

[AnOminous]

You know, I wonder if it's possible to ask for bench trial for some of the charges and jury for the others.

It's possible to ask for anything. Whether you get it or not will be a different question. Sometimes a defendant will ask that a case be bifurcated into separate trials because the evidence in one trial will be so prejudicial to the other that a fair trial will be impossible.

Such requests are rare. I'm not sure how often they're granted in the rare instance they're made.

A defendant could also plead guilty and request a jury for sentencing, but the likelihood of a prosecutor actually agreeing to limit the waiver of the right to a jury trial just to the adjudication of guilt is fairly low, as the whole point of a plea deal is avoiding a jury trial.

In general, the system is going to be hostile to a request that instead of one trial, there be two.

The minor in possession of a gun charge, for example, looks like solely a law question. I don't think either party will object to the fact that a 17-year-old Kyle was walking around with a M&P15 Sport 2 (16'' barrel, longer than 26'' overall) on that night. There's nothing for a fact finder to noodle out, since no facts are in dispute. It's just whether statute X Y and Z applies to Kyle.

That's what I thought, too, and that the issues in that case are essentially irrelevant to the self defense affirmative defense in the criminal case, and worse, prejudicial to that case. It lets the prosecution muddy the water with a bunch of gun sperging. So I could see a request to bifurcate the two cases. It didn't happen, though.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Do you think he's going to walk?

I think he has a fair chance but this is a politically charged case, which often go south, but not always. Hard to tell.

 

[NEETzsche]

I think he has a fair chance but this is a politically charged case, which often go south, but not always. Hard to tell.

The only way I can see it going south is they reject a self-defense plea in spite of it obviously being the case, specifically for political reasons. There's basically no real enforcement mechanism for "don't read or talk about the trial" that I can see.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

This guy gets a 2nd chance to live and instead puts the entire public at risk,

I hate to be that guy but it's fucking Wisco my man. They usually don't make DUI more than a ticket until at least the third one.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

The only way I can see it going south is they reject a self-defense plea in spite of it obviously being the case, specifically for political reasons. There's basically no real enforcement mechanism for "don't read or talk about the trial" that I can see.

Well you have a jury and a grandstanding prosecutor's office, They're the wild cards in this game when you have media and "activists" around.