reinigen
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2020
Is this soy bitch really trying to argue because Rosenbaum missed grabbing the gun and tripped because of his momentum, he wasn't a threat and it was a bad kill? Fuck you, Jesus.
Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….
- Thread starter Random Internet Person
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Thank God that McGinnis was the eye witness for this, and not some ANTIFA loving (((journalist))). He's really making it tough for Binger here, and I'm so glad. Kinda sucks that a witness is a better defense attorney than the one Kyle has though.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2020
Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection doesn't seem as bothered by the lack of objections from the defense as Rekieta et al.
legalinsurrection.com
Apparently, these concerns are being fostered by legal commentary and analysis being made about the case both others, including other lawyers, who are covering the Rittenhouse trial on the internet, much as I’m doing myself.
The first thing I should mention is that I don’t get anything but the most incidental exposure to other commentary and analysis of trials I cover, at least while I’m covering them. Just doing what I do, every day, to cover a trial like this is already a 5 am to 9 pm job—I haven’t time to look at other people’s commentary and analysis. That doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily good commentary and analysis, only that I wouldn’t know, personally.
That said, it seems to me as if people are looking at the matter of objections in a hyper-technical sense, as if every possible thing that could be objected to should be objected to, period.
And that’s just not how things work in a real-world courtroom.
Whether to object involves a great many factors, not all of them purely legal, and so there’s always a balancing of those factors by any attorney presented with the technical option of making an objection.
For example, not only is the decision to object invariably a balancing of some sort, many of the theoretical grounds for objecting are themselves a balancing. One of the most common complaints I’m hearing about this defense, for example, is that they are failing to object to evidence that is prejudicial.
OK, fine—but it’s a criminal prosecution, folks. In every criminal prosecution ever, the state is admitting evidence that is prejudicial to the defendant, if by prejudicial we mean “harmful.” And the state is allowed to do that—it’s their job. If they could only introduce evidence that was not harmful to the defendant, there’d be little point to prosecuting anybody.
The real question, legally speaking, is not whether the evidence is prejudicial, but whether that negative prejudicial character of the evidence outweighs whatever positive character the evidence might have—such as relevance, for example. Evidence that is highly prejudicial and only modestly relevant is likely to be deemed inadmissible by a judge—but evidence that is highly relevant and only modestly prejudicial is likely admissible. That’s the balancing, in that context.
But whether to object also requires balancing considerations outside of the technical.
For one thing, many people may not understand that in the process of direct and cross-examination, it is not that each party gets to ask the witness whatever questions might pop into their pretty little heads. Rather, each successive stage of questioning can only properly address issues that were raised in a prior step.
Imagine, for example, that on direct the state asks a witness about issues A, B, and C, but not about issue D. That means that cross-examination by the defense is limited to asking only about issues A, B, and C—because issue D was not asked about on direct, it cannot be inquired about on cross.
Now imagine that there are aspects of issue C that are very, very important to the defense—they want to dig into issue C with a bayonet and gut it, right in front of the jury. At the same time, there are some small facets of issue C where the evidence is arguably prejudicial or irrelevant some other legitimate grounds for the defense to object to the prosecution introducing issue C on direct in the first place.
Does the defense make a perfectly legitimate objection to issue C when the state tried to introduce it on direct—meaning, if the defense objection is successful, that issue C would be unavailable to them on cross-examination? Or does the defense accept the modest hit of whatever facet of issue C is unfavorable, so they can thoroughly eviscerate that issue on cross-examination in front of the jury?
UPDATE: But on this particular point, see comment below from chaswjd: “Wisconsin does not follow the scope of direct rule for cross-examination. Wis. Stat. §906.11(2) (“A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. In the interests of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination.”) If Judge Schroeder has not ordered that cross be limited (and few Wisconsin judges do) cross is a wide open field.” I share this in the interests of transparency, I myself am not in a position to either confirm or deny this is the case in Wisconsin, but it’s certainly possible, and I have no reason to think otherwise.
My personal inclination has always been to take a pass on the objection on direct so that I can have substantive fun on cross. And I expect we’re seeing quite a bit of that here, and will see more moving forward.
Of course, it’s possible that defense Attorneys Richards and Chirafisi are simply incompetent buffoons who have no idea what they are about and are simply flushing their defendant’s case down the toilet because of their ignorance of how to raise objections.
But that’s not the way I’d bet, based on my observations of their performance to date.
OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.
I'm somewhere in the middle personally, but I do think that Richards is letting opportunities pass him by. Rittenhouse needed some heavy hitters on his team, like Zimmerman had Mark O'Mara and friendly skeleton Don West.
LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 3
Is Defense Failing Because of Too Few Objections?
legalinsurrection.com
IS THE DEFENSE FAILING FOR LACK OF OBJECTIONS?
On an entirely separate topic, I’ve been receiving a lot of comments and communications from folks who express great concern that the defense is failing Kyle Rittenhouse because of a purported failure to make sufficient objections to the state’s questioning of witnesses and presentation of video evidence.Apparently, these concerns are being fostered by legal commentary and analysis being made about the case both others, including other lawyers, who are covering the Rittenhouse trial on the internet, much as I’m doing myself.
The first thing I should mention is that I don’t get anything but the most incidental exposure to other commentary and analysis of trials I cover, at least while I’m covering them. Just doing what I do, every day, to cover a trial like this is already a 5 am to 9 pm job—I haven’t time to look at other people’s commentary and analysis. That doesn’t mean it’s not necessarily good commentary and analysis, only that I wouldn’t know, personally.
That said, it seems to me as if people are looking at the matter of objections in a hyper-technical sense, as if every possible thing that could be objected to should be objected to, period.
And that’s just not how things work in a real-world courtroom.
Whether to object involves a great many factors, not all of them purely legal, and so there’s always a balancing of those factors by any attorney presented with the technical option of making an objection.
For example, not only is the decision to object invariably a balancing of some sort, many of the theoretical grounds for objecting are themselves a balancing. One of the most common complaints I’m hearing about this defense, for example, is that they are failing to object to evidence that is prejudicial.
OK, fine—but it’s a criminal prosecution, folks. In every criminal prosecution ever, the state is admitting evidence that is prejudicial to the defendant, if by prejudicial we mean “harmful.” And the state is allowed to do that—it’s their job. If they could only introduce evidence that was not harmful to the defendant, there’d be little point to prosecuting anybody.
The real question, legally speaking, is not whether the evidence is prejudicial, but whether that negative prejudicial character of the evidence outweighs whatever positive character the evidence might have—such as relevance, for example. Evidence that is highly prejudicial and only modestly relevant is likely to be deemed inadmissible by a judge—but evidence that is highly relevant and only modestly prejudicial is likely admissible. That’s the balancing, in that context.
But whether to object also requires balancing considerations outside of the technical.
For one thing, many people may not understand that in the process of direct and cross-examination, it is not that each party gets to ask the witness whatever questions might pop into their pretty little heads. Rather, each successive stage of questioning can only properly address issues that were raised in a prior step.
Imagine, for example, that on direct the state asks a witness about issues A, B, and C, but not about issue D. That means that cross-examination by the defense is limited to asking only about issues A, B, and C—because issue D was not asked about on direct, it cannot be inquired about on cross.
Now imagine that there are aspects of issue C that are very, very important to the defense—they want to dig into issue C with a bayonet and gut it, right in front of the jury. At the same time, there are some small facets of issue C where the evidence is arguably prejudicial or irrelevant some other legitimate grounds for the defense to object to the prosecution introducing issue C on direct in the first place.
Does the defense make a perfectly legitimate objection to issue C when the state tried to introduce it on direct—meaning, if the defense objection is successful, that issue C would be unavailable to them on cross-examination? Or does the defense accept the modest hit of whatever facet of issue C is unfavorable, so they can thoroughly eviscerate that issue on cross-examination in front of the jury?
UPDATE: But on this particular point, see comment below from chaswjd: “Wisconsin does not follow the scope of direct rule for cross-examination. Wis. Stat. §906.11(2) (“A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility. In the interests of justice, the judge may limit cross-examination with respect to matters not testified to on direct examination.”) If Judge Schroeder has not ordered that cross be limited (and few Wisconsin judges do) cross is a wide open field.” I share this in the interests of transparency, I myself am not in a position to either confirm or deny this is the case in Wisconsin, but it’s certainly possible, and I have no reason to think otherwise.
My personal inclination has always been to take a pass on the objection on direct so that I can have substantive fun on cross. And I expect we’re seeing quite a bit of that here, and will see more moving forward.
Of course, it’s possible that defense Attorneys Richards and Chirafisi are simply incompetent buffoons who have no idea what they are about and are simply flushing their defendant’s case down the toilet because of their ignorance of how to raise objections.
But that’s not the way I’d bet, based on my observations of their performance to date.
OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2019
Good for him for standing his ground. Made pros sound like a bully
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
McGinnis handled that masterfully. Binger was trying to salvage his "shot in the back" narrative. I hope the jury noticed.
Also, Based Judge intervened again, rebuking pros for commenting on testimony.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
If Kyle gets off, the judge deserves Hard R's legal fees.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2019
I’m autistic af and googled what is represented in the Wisconsin seal to know what we are looking at
The Great Seal of the State of Wisconsin is a seal used by the secretary of state to authenticate all of the governor’s official acts, except laws. It consists of the state coat of arms, with the words "Great Seal of the State of Wisconsin" above it and 13 stars, representing the original states, below it.
- Top:
- Forward, the state motto
- A badger, the state animal
- Center:
- Top left: A plough, representing agriculture and farming
- Top right: A pick and shovel, representing mining
- Bottom left: An arm-and-hammer, representing manufacturing
- Bottom right: An anchor, representing navigation
- Center: The U.S. coat of arms, including the motto E Pluribus Unum
- The shield is supported by a sailor and a yeoman, representing labor on water and land[1]
- Bottom:
- A cornucopia, representing prosperity and abundance
- 13 lead ingots, representing mineral wealth and the 13 original United States[1
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Fucking finally, an objection, and a good one. Stop trying to testi-lie, Binger! You fucking snake.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2019
Binger is fucking with the juries lunch to argue with his own witness, Rittenhouse is very lucky it was right leaning reporters there that night and not CNN.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
i take branca's opinions over nick's when it comes to murder trials. nick isnt really able to comment on anything but procedure.
He's also very lucky that the judge is the one who helped him. Lord knows his own lawyer won't.
waffle
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2013
I'm however far behind Nick is, but I'm glad McGuiness obviously is on team Kyle, because Richards is just letting the prosecutor do anything.
It's entirely possible that Richards has extensively interviewed him and know that he can just let him talk because he knows he'll only say good stuff.
It's entirely possible that Richards has extensively interviewed him and know that he can just let him talk because he knows he'll only say good stuff.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2021
zachs fair
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
McGinniss handled his wording carefully when answering pros. Felt like they were going in circles, as if he was explaining a concept to a retard that just didn't understand the words coming out of his mouth.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
If Kyle does ask for new counsel, would they have to put the trial on pause to get them up to speed?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2019
I think that’s why the defense didn’t interject To me it seemed like the prosecution was trying to manipulate him into saying what he wanted to hear
- Status