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

[Corn Flakes]

Figures it's women making things harder for everyone. Bet they think they can just sit on it until they get what they want.

Like a woman would do.

You say that, but there's a good chance it's also a woman or two pushing the hardest for Rittenhouse's innocence. Meanwhile the men in the jury just watch in silence like a bunch of husbands at a clothing store.

 

[Matt Damon]

I sort of can visualize a scenario where there is at least one irate juror screaming at the holdouts on this foolishness. The video review was probably for everyone else to show the hold outs "See the Kid is innocent, what cant you understand?" This is me being optimistic.

I still think I'd be the worst juror of all time.

"Sheryl, it's right there. Just look it at it, you dumb bitch. Come on, it's not going to get any more obvious. You're holding up a hundred people whose time actually has value, you cow."

 

[Spicey McHaggis]

And only 10 years ago, the internet was a free place where rival ideas could coexist and censorship was unimaginable. In 50 more years of Clown World there won't be any guns in the USA.

Oh, there will still be guns. Even if they were outlawed today, it would take at least a hundred years, if not much longer just to get the ones currently in existence out of circulation. That's not even factoring in shit like stuff being stolen from police/military, and guns being smuggled in.

 

[BradCarter]

Shouldn't the two holdouts be replaced, then?Better that than a mistrial!

Talking entirely out of my ass I think they need to show that the jurors are refusing to argue. And there were snippets overheard hinting the judge was talking about swapping jurors.

 

[HandsomeDan]

...another thing what are the consequences if a juror actually states "I know hes innocent, but Im afraid so I want him charged with something"

I have never been on a jury before, what happens in this situation, is the Judge informed?

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

You say that, but there's a good chance it's also a woman or two pushing the hardest for Rittenhouse's innocence. Meanwhile the men in the jury just watch in silence like a bunch of husbands at a clothing store.

Could 100% see mask Karen vs based mom(s) arguing while everyone else just sits there in silence.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

...another thing what are the consequences if a juror actually states "I know hes innocent, but Im afraid so I want him charged with something"

I have never been on a jury before, what happens in this situation, is the Judge informed?

If you wanted to get rid of that juror, yes, you could discreetly tell the bailiff to tell the judge.

 

[Bumbling Fat Moron]

Here's something I'm wondering. Can a state supreme court throw a case out without an appeal? I've seen a lot of lawyers say that the defense should make an appeal now before the trial even ends, but I'm wondering if the state supreme court can just look at a case that has self-apparent misconduct and just say "no, we're declaring a mistrial directly from our bench."

Well, going off from Here...

Although some cases are decided based on written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an "oral argument" before the court. Oral argument in the court of appeals is a structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges focusing on the legal principles in dispute. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present arguments to the court.

Most appeals are final. The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari," which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. There are also a small number of special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.

Different types of cases are handled differently during an appeal.

Doesn't seem to be possible, unless it falls on the "Handled differently" or i just completely misunderstood your question

 

[theshitposter]

Just point a gun at a pregnant chick while robbing their house and he would be buried in a golden casket and dubbed Saint Kyle of Kenosha.

you make fun of msm for fabricating narrative while peddling fake news talking points yourself. there was no "pregnant woman" anywhere in the george floyd's equation. i'll delete my account if you prove me wrong

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

there is a supreme court case coming up that bans may issue
so every state has to approve your CCW application for any reason or no reason.

Plus almost half of states are constitutional carry now.

 

[Puff]

there is a supreme court case coming up that bans may issue
so every state has to approve your CCW application for any reason or no reason.

It's a bit more nuanced than that, but basically forces shall issue and bans requiring exceptional circumstances.

 

[Jarolleon]

On people doing something stupid, I'm honestly just hoping it's not a small number of people doing something stupid. If it's zero? Fine, status quo it is. If it's a fuck ton? It was a long time coming.

It'll be some loon in a crusader outfit that tries to break him out, and we'll argue over whether he was a fed or not.

 

[Corn Flakes]

...another thing what are the consequences if a juror actually states "I know hes innocent, but Im afraid so I want him charged with something"

I have never been on a jury before, what happens in this situation, is the Judge informed?

Technically that would result in them being replaced by a reserve juror because it's an admission of their judgment being tainted by external considerations.

In practice, the judge won't replace anyone because replacing a juror would imply starting deliberations all over again.

 

[Puff]

Plus almost half of states are constitutional carry now.

It bothers me that on every major, emotionally charged, issue the states are separating from each other. One state tightens abortion regs, another loosens them. One tightens gun laws, another loosens them.
The country is pulling apart harder.

 

[Leave_Fargut]

...another thing what are the consequences if a juror actually states "I know hes innocent, but Im afraid so I want him charged with something"

I have never been on a jury before, what happens in this situation, is the Judge informed?

In theory, they're being impaired from their duty to deliver a genuine verdict by extrajudicial forces and so should be replaced with alternates. Externally it would look too much like engineering a verdict to actually be done, though

 

[BradCarter]

Oh, there will still be guns. Even if they were outlawed today, it would take at least a hundred years, if not much longer just to get the ones currently in existence out of circulation. That's not even factoring in shit like stuff being stolen from police/military, and guns being smuggled in.

The CIA has educational videos on how to fabricate guns using scrap metal stolen from military trucks. Targeted at teaching children.

 

[Lodoss Warrior]

The thing is, Barnes never actually gave any advice. He wanted to be the center of attention, so he got a bunch of dubious experts who'd all provide their own 'insight', all led by only him.

Nothing there is transferable, since as soon as Barnes got kicked every single expert, who had never been presented to the defense, just vanished.

This makes it sound like you have intimate knowledge of the defense team’s strategy, which I’m dubious of.

Barnes literally said in public streams and videos before the trial how Baris had already polled the toxic Kenosha jury pool.

At the very least, cut the middle-man and talk to Baris about good questions to ask potential jurors. Because right now, that OJ juror contributor the team selected evidently messed up in her advisement.

 

[Puff]

Pulled up Rackets stream and Lawgic is being an exceptional bitch and complaining the defense aren't yell-y enough.

This makes it sound like you have intimate knowledge of the defense team’s strategy, which I’m dubious of.

Barnes literally said in public streams and videos before the trial how Baris had already polled the toxic Kenosha jury pool.

At the very least, cut the middle-man and talk to Baris about good questions to ask potential jurors. Because right now, that OJ juror contributor the team selected evidently messed up in her advisement.

The jury polling is literally the only thing I trust him on and I still think he's exaggerating. 33% G, 33% lean G, 33% NG? Where's the middle?
Everything else he changes his story on depending on what will slander Richards more.

 

[namelesstacotruck]

...another thing what are the consequences if a juror actually states "I know hes innocent, but Im afraid so I want him charged with something"

I have never been on a jury before, what happens in this situation, is the Judge informed?

The foreman can send a note about that and the judge should then call a mistrial. But if Mask Karen is foreman and you have a judge refusing to mistrial....

 

[Astro Galactic Megalul]

It's still live but Crowder analyzed the whole thing with sling and AR-15 to prove that what prosecution claims happened couldn't have happened
It's rather pointless now but might be useful for some, just rewind it and you'll find the bit