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

[Kimchi4breakfast]

The way I have come to understand it through these various cases, of course none of them taking place in WI so it could be different, is that you have to declare you want a Bench Trial BEFORE you know who the judge is so it can be super risky depending on who you get, and in the end it's better odds that you can convince 1 person out of 12 that you're innocent over one man.

Oh, see now that makes sense. It doesn't work that way here, but 50 states and 50 sets of rules yadayadayada.

 

[Aria]

The perpetually outraged are still outraged. News at 11

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial faces backlash for off-color Asian food joke

The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial is facing backlash for making an off-handed joke about Asian food in the courtroom Thursday.

www.nbcnews.com

I don't think he even cares what bunch of retards on twitter think.

 

[anionfarflung]

someone on Nicks stream called it. they said this exact thing would happen.

Yeah it was Legal Bytes. She said it about 5 seconds after the judge made the joke.

 

[Milwaukee Macho Man]

I don't think he even cares what bunch of retards on twitter think.

The way we should all live.

 

[Michael Janke]

for some of you, these media trials are the only ones you see
but in truth, this whole thing is unusual. most court procedures are incredibly boring. an exciting court means someone is fucking up hard.
whenever the prosecution does anything, there's always some kind of trick or thin line walking.
wintesses testifying that they attempted witness tampering.
using civil rights against the defendants and witnesses.

 

[Mr Bunny]

"Faces Backlash"

He probably hasn't even noticed LMFAO.

Well he's a proud individual after all, did you apparently hear what his ringtone is.

See, very proud.

 

[DelusionTree]

He cannot testify to anything that was brought up to rebut, but I wouldn't put it past him to try and surprise them with it. High risk, but they're currently fucked on facts and appear to be actively trying for mistrial.

I'm pretty sure generally the rebuttal phase allows new witnesses to directly refute any defense witness, and Kyle was a witness.
If it happens, Backdoor Binger is going to whine to the judge about fairness and how Ziminski is a material witness to the events and blah blah blah. He'll probably get in even if it pisses off the judge.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

He as much as said that he intends to try and use a Provocation exception to torpedo Kyle's Self Defense claim, since he told the judge yesterday he'd like Provocation included in their jury instructions. I'm praying that Hard R and 47 not only object, but well, and prevent Binger from trying to weasel that in because it seems like that is his last chance to try sliming it up. Binger plans to include the Provocation information as instruction, then at closing insinuate or outright testify that Kyle provoked all the violence somehow and thus must lay down and die - giving possible activists a fig leaf.

Either Binger will suggest that

1. being in Kenosha armed that night counts as Provocation (which is ridiculous and outside the scope of the law) and also a potential issue with his 1st and 2nd Amendment right to boot
2. Kyle's good faith attempts to render medical aid and prevent arson (by non-violent means) somehow present as Provocation, which is nonsensical unless you believe people have the right to arson
3. that Kyle was armed with a long gun illegally and thus his violation of that law counts as Provocation, except that the State's own witnesses testified that they thought Kyle was 19, 20-something, even 25! There is zero testimony that anyone thought Kyle was underage and illegally carrying
4. that Kyle 'pointed his gun at Ziminsky' and that counts as Provocation for Rosenbaum, which even if true or had any evidence still doesn't work because Provocation doesn't 'transfer' and even under Provocation retreating or taking other action to diffuse the conflict regains your right to self defense

Point 1 is ludicrous and overbroad, as is point 2. The issues with point 3 and 4 comes down to a rule about closing arguments, and how generally only evidence that has been entered into the record can be used in them. This is referred to as 'facts not in evidence' issue in most circuits, and is pretty serious, you find several appeals where this is a core issue. Regardless, the point is that attorneys cannot suddenly insert at closing new facts that were not submitted, crossed, and confronted. There is no evidence in the record that anyone believed Kyle was underage, and there is no evidence in the record from eye-witness testimony, video, picture, or otherwise of an act of Provocation. The State's own eye-witnesses did not testify to Kyle ever doing anything that counts as provocation in general. In specific, the testimony of Balch and McGinnis cover both overall and specific time frames where Provocation would be an issue and they not only failed to mention any such acts, but their testimony precludes them.

The specific thought that Kyle pointed his rifle at Ziminsky is a 'fact' insofar as a fact is in court, in that is it must be testified on and subject to examination and cross by the defense. No witness has testified that this act occurred, in fact the State's witnesses deny that it happened. No witness has testified to a video of this, or even an interpretation - the state's own 'expert' witness did not analyze or interpret the blurry sasquatch.jpeg and the only person concluding it shows a provoking act is Binger. That Kyle may or may not have pointed his rifle at Ziminsky is not a fact for the jury to deliberate on, as it has zero basis in testimony or evidence and is a fabrication of Binger.

Worse still, this would be another deliberate act of prosecutorial misconduct that fits in with the pattern of Binger, and should be a part of the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Binger has in this case a history of Brady violations, in particular his directives for police to seize the phones or everyone and videotape all interview except with Grosskreutz and the long delays or failures to provide the defense with discovery until prompted by the court. Binger's failure to subpoena Ziminsky during his case in chief or as a rebuttal witness was a deliberate choice designed to keep the defense from having opportunity to confront this ridiculous legal theory that Binger is trying to bring in at the 11th hour without foundation. It would be a violation of the criminal procedures and basic Constitutional rights.

Number 2 is literally what leftists believe. They won't say the "they have a right to arson" part out loud, but the idea that interrupting or stopping a marxist domestic terrorist is provocation that means you're a nazi which means you can be "punched" (to death) is absolutely, 100% accepted dogma to the left. After all, as the most ethical and morally perfect people to have ever existed in history, disagreeing with them or inconveniencing them means you are literally evil incarnate.

 

[Michael Janke]

He'll probably get in even if it pisses off the judge

i think at this late in the game, the judge is hoping for no more shenanigans.

 

[Iron Hamster]

That "he wasn't touching you" is the basest example of insulting the jury's intelligence. If you're walking down the street as a woman, and someone grabs your purse that's strapped to you, is that not an attack on your person as well?

The argument he shouldn't have been there, much less with a gun while others had them also, is laughable. Also, is bingo's twisted logic that Kyle wouldn't have shot someone if he had a handgun since he made a big deal about the size of an AR?

Binger is definitely going to try and go over his allotted time.

Not sure the jury would appreciate it.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

If Binger was finally able to flip Ziminsky into testifying by threatening him with an arson conviction, he will try to backdoor him at the last possible moment to fuck the defense without any notice.

He can't. The state and the defense have both rested and the jury has been sent home. If Binger shows up today with a "AKSHUALLY" I suspect the Judge will literally embed his gavel into the dickhead's brainpan.

 

[Puff]

He can't. The state and the defense have both rested and the jury has been sent home. If Binger shows up today with a "AKSHUALLY" I suspect the Judge will literally embed his gavel into the dickhead's brainpan.

If he actually said he rested it's over. If not, they can bring in more rebuttal witnesses.
Edit: Defense officially rested and evidence is closed. Binger CANNOT bring in anything new. Went back and watched it.

 

[DelusionTree]

He can't. The state and the defense have both rested and the jury has been sent home. If Binger shows up today with a "AKSHUALLY" I suspect the Judge will literally embed his gavel into the dickhead's brainpan.

Am I wrong about Binger still having his rebuttal phase left?
I'm almost positive Binger and Fatlock told the judge yesterday at the end of the day they only have two rebuttal witnesses left.

 

[ProtonMailManTheSequel]

The way I have come to understand it through these various cases, of course none of them taking place in WI so it could be different, is that you have to declare you want a Bench Trial BEFORE you know who the judge is so it can be super risky depending on who you get, and in the end it's better odds that you can convince 1 person out of 12 that you're innocent over one man.

The saying in the industry is "selecting a bench trial is just the long way of pleading guilty." However, if one is absolutely 100 per cent confident that one is innocent and that one has slam-dunk evidence demonstrating that (was is the case here), and if furthermore jury intimidation is a real concern (as is the case here), it can actually be the right choice. A judge in a case like this can always escape blame for helping to convict an obviously innocent man by just throwing his hands up and saying "muh jury" but that shit won't fly on a bench trial.

 

[Gehenna]

Am I wrong about Binger still having his rebuttal phase left?
I'm almost positive Binger and Fatlock told the judge yesterday at the end of the day they only have two rebuttal witnesses left.

I am fairly sure the judge tripped them up. He heavily implied they were moving forward and both Binger and Kraus signed off on it. I think he might have made them finish, without them entirely... realizing.

 

[Mr Bunny]

Also, is bingo's twisted logic that Kyle wouldn't have shot someone if he had a handgun since he made a big deal about the size of an AR?

No, that's him more trying to pin Kyle for recklessness and being way over his head, him trying to downplay the hand gun's size would show that.

 

[obsdj]

i think at this late in the game, the judge is hoping for no more shenanigans.

No doubt the judge is hoping for everyone to adhere to the rules of order, and also for cookies, but hopefully he's on guard against Binger's brazen and repeated attempts to skirt the rules especially in the endgame.

 

[Puff]

Am I wrong about Binger still having his rebuttal phase left?
I'm almost positive Binger and Fatlock told the judge yesterday at the end of the day they only have two rebuttal witnesses left.

I scrubbed through the video and found it. Judge declared evidence closed. Don't know if Binger dropped the witnesses intentionally or was cut off.

 

[Gehenna]

I scrubbed through the video and found it. Judge declared evidence closed. Don't know if he dropped the witnesses intentionally or was cut off.

See my comment, he kinda asks them, they both sign off, and immediately he declares evidence closed. Might be misremembering, but I think you briefly see Binger looking surprised but not otherwise saying anything. Though I was more or less checked out by then so it's a hazy memory.

 

[DelusionTree]

I am fairly sure the judge tripped them up. He heavily implied they were moving forward and both binger and Kraus signed off on it. I think he might have made them finish, without them entirely... realizing.

I'll laugh if that's true.
But what @Puff and @HTTP Error 404 were saying, rebuttal comes after both sides rest and you can bring new witnesses to refute the other side's witnesses.