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

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 282 8.8%

  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 1,077 33.7%

  • Mistral

    Votes: 264 8.3%

  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votes: 479 15.0%

  • Minecraft

    Votes: 213 6.7%

  • Roblox

    Votes: 132 4.1%

  • Runescape

    Votes: 203 6.3%

  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votes: 514 16.1%

  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votes: 35 1.1%
  • Total voters
    3,199
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leave_Fargut said:
maxresdefault.jpg


KYLE, DID YOU PUT ETHAN RALPH'S NAME IN THE GOBLET OF JURORS?
Click to expand...
"Don't get brazen with me." Judge Schroeder said calmly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, 6thRanger, Syaoran Li and 11 others
Slimy Time said:
Do they allow for majority decisions in Wisconsin/the US? I know in places like Bongland if the jury cannot come to a unanimous decision after so many hours they can go back in front of the judge and tell the judge that they can't come to a unanimous decision, the judge can make an order allowing them to have a majority decision of maximum 10-2 (or 10-1 if the jury is smaller for whatever reason, like them being removed). After that, judge can't do much else and it's a mistrial. That's done to stop 1 or 2 stubborn holdouts from going "no I don't give a shit what people here say, this person is guilty/not guilty and I'm not changing my mind". Its done so that if it's a clear cut case (like this) it speed the verdict up and stop wasting time. If it's truly a difficult case where it's properly hung, then mistrial.

If we weren't in a clown world, this should on the facts and law be clear cut self defence and the kid should get off, and since the possession charges were binned, he should be in the clear, but who knows with how exceptional people are.
Click to expand...
Yes (in the US) but not sure about WI. I believe MOST jurisdictions require unanimous verdicts, but the US Supreme Court has held that this is not a constitutional requirement. Personally I believe that it makes no sense at all to require a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict. If the prosecution cannot obtain a unanimous (or the required minimum number of jurors) guilty verdict, the case should be over.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, 6thRanger, Rent Tin and 6 others
HullDown said:
View attachment 2722030

"you've been wonderful jurors and we couldn't have asked for a higher quality jury" - what is this last day of high school principal speech
Click to expand...
Yeah I know it sounds silly--but he is trying to buck them up to do their duty. Pat them on the back for a good job and they're a bit less likely to just go in there and say "oh fuck who gives a shit let's just agree to whatever so we can all go home." This is standard judge stuff right there in the bench-book.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: 6thRanger, dry roasted, Slimy Time and 3 others
Man, the worst/best option would be a hung jury resulting in a mistrial without prejudice.

On one hand, a second trial would mean Kyle would be up against new prosecutors with all the freshly gained insight Bingbong and Fatman lack. On the other hand, we'll get season 2 of the best thing on American television in years.
 
Kane Lives said:
It's definitely a steady paycheck. Good luck trying to get into the club though. Schroeder was a former pros, I heard.
Click to expand...
It seems like you'd have to degrade yourself and eat shit for decades but then you get to sit in the big comfy chair and commentate on trials and crack wise. Like academic tenure but more powerful and probably a lot better money I'm guessing
 
  • Feels
  • Dislike
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger, Cyber Floyd, Allakazam223 and 2 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back