Mistrial looms, but with prejudice or not?

National Review, prosecutorial misconduct.

Judge Schroeder is being placed in a very uncomfortable position. He really wants to leave it to the jury but he may have to put an end to this travesty himself.

The prosecutors effectively testified to allegations unsupported by evidence.

Depending on what happens with the jury Schroeder will have to choose between allowing the prosecution to try again or ending the mess with a mistrial with prejudice.

34 thoughts on “Mistrial looms, but with prejudice or not?

  1. Typical “conservative” garbage to defend this murderous jackass. The drone video in question was delivered to the defense. It showed Rittenhouse pointing his gun at people before he was rushed as someone with guts would rush an active shooter. The resolution issue does not change what it shows. And the resolution issue was caused as much by the defense as the prosecution because they tried to take an Apple air drop transfer on an Android phone.

    The idea that damning evidence should be blocked over a technical disconnect between phones is absurd. Just as absurd as the judge’s ignorance over the nature of pinch to zoom technology on an iPad.

    Already withheld from the jury is a video where Rittenhouse talked about what he would like to do to BLM protesters. And the victims cannot be referred to as “victims.” This judge is bending over backward to save this killer. If there are grounds for a mistrial he should declare one NOW and not be waiting to see whether he likes the verdict of the jury.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The defense did not say the drone footage should be withheld from the jury, they assert that they were not allowed to properly prepare for it. When such a video is entered into evidence, both sides will play it, narrating it in a way that is favorable to their case.

      Among other things, the high resolution video makes it plain that Rittenhouse never pointed his weapon at anyone as he fled from the mob until he was cornered and Rosenblum rushed him.
      In the low resolution video, you can’t see there the rifle was at all times.

      So, the problem is not the jury seeing the video, it is that the defense was denied the opportunity to point that out.

      But even so, the video dispute is the least problematic of the abuses by the proescution, as the article shows.


          1. I understand their claim. You are ignoring the point. Their claim makes NO SENSE if the video exonerates the killer as YOU claim that it does.

            I believe the claim is specious. The prosecution delivered the video in good faith as soon as it was available. The idea that a video needs narration to be prepared in advance is specious as well. It shows what it shows.

            With that said and whatever the merits of the complaints, the judge should rule on the motions BEFORE the verdict is reached. Not doing so smacks of judicial interference with the jury’s role in our system.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The prosecution had a clear copy of the video to prepare their narration, the defense did not.

            You need not go further than that. The Prosecution had the duty to give the defense the same evidence it had, and they did not.

            It is standard practice to wait on the verdict in order to avoid exposing the defendant to double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Constitution.


          3. “It is standard practice to wait on the verdict in order to avoid exposing the defendant to double jeopardy”

            No, it is not. You just made that up. The “standard practice” is to rule on a motion when it is made. By reserving the ruling the judge gives himself the ability to reverse a conviction but not an acquittal (because of double jeopardy).

            Liked by 1 person

          4. That is how our justice system is set up. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

            Remember that in Wisconsin, it is the burden of the state, when self defense is asserted, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant DID NOT believe he was in danger of death or serious injury. The defense is not required to prove he was.


          5. “That is how our justice system is set up.”

            Your statement about what is “standard practice” was simply false. Just another of the “alternative facts” that you frequently bolster your opinions with.

            It is precisely because of double jeopardy that rulings on a mistrial motion should be made immediately and not held in abeyance.


          1. “Disparities in evidence”

            You mean the judge excluding the video in which KR expressed his frustration at not having an AR15 with him so he could shoot some black people he saw leaving a CVS with packages because he ASSUMED they were looting? That happened just two weeks before he set out for Kenosha with body armor and an AR15. Since the verdict turned on KR’s state of mind, why was that damning evidence excluded? What is fair and impartial about that?


          2. He did not have body armor. He had a tactical vest, which has detachable pockets mode to hold magazines.

            I don’t think you understand the legal concept of self defense. This was written for the Trayvon Martin incident, but it has the same concepts. No use reinventing the wheel.

            Self defense


          3. You take exception to my reference to “body armor.” You think “tactical vest” is better? Really? You take a “tactical vest” with extra ammo pouches because you want to be ready to give first aid? You want to think about that some more?

            In any case, KR referred to the garment in question as a “bulletproof vest” and claimed it came from his hometown police youth cadet program. A claim they have denied. Perjury under oath is a felony.


          4. Was quibbling about “body armor” really useful?
            Is quibbling about what KR meant when he referred to his “bulletproof vest” really useful.

            Neither quibble addresses the point. He prepared himself for combat, not for first aid. He was looking for trouble. He found it. And got away with feeding his poor little self-image by killing people. And you make him out to be a good citizen and some sort of hero. Shameful.


          5. Does anyone have an image of the vest? He was not wearing one the night of the shooting.

            I ask because the vests have velcro strips that let you attach various kits, including magazines, hydration packs, and first aid supplies, It would be interesting to see how his vest was set up.


      1. My mind goes there because that is what this verdict means. It is now okay to take weapons to a BLM protest, incite violence by brandishing those weapons and then start shooting people.

        The “truth” is that Kyle Rittenhouse is Not Guilty of murder in exactly the same way that O.J. Simpson is Not Guilty of murder. That is what the jury decided. There is no appeal under the law. I accept that.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Simply carrying a firearm is not brandishing.

          It must be presented in a threatening manner, such as pointing it at a person deliberately. However, even a holstered handgun can be brandished if it is exposed to view and accompanied with a threat to use it.

          Carrying a firearm for personal defense absent aggressive display is not brandishing.


          1. “Simply carrying a firearm is not brandishing.”

            Context is everything. In the context of contentious street confrontations displaying a gun is provocative and it reasonably induces fear in other people. I call that brandishing. Under the law in Virginia that is a crime. You can call it what you want.

            “Under Virginia law 18.2-282, it is a class 1 misdemeanor criminal offense to point, hold or brandish any firearm in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another.”

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “There is no more reason to fear a citizen carrying a firearm for his own protection than to fear a policeman.”

            You can pretend that the context of this “carrying a firearm” is irrelevant and that it would be irrational to be afraid of an armed punk waving an assault rifle all you want. Denying obvious truth is what all you people do all the time.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I suppose this aggressive stance is what you mean by “the proper way” to carry your gun.


            And his finger is not exactly off the trigger.

            When you are “armed” with a plastic bag with some toiletries, this is a threatening person in the context of the street confrontation brought on by Proud Boy types taking the law into their own hands.

            But go on pretending that this punk is a good citizen standing up for law and order.

            Too bad the jury was not allowed to see the video of young Kyle just two weeks before this incident where he is expressing the desire to shoot people he saw leaving a CVS store with some packages. Maybe then they would have understood what a murderous little psychopath he is.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. So, the Proud Boys brought on the confrontation?

            Not the rioters burning businesses and wrecking the city?

            Not the police who stood aside and let it happen?

            Not the BLM organizers who exploited a justified police shooting to advance their cause and raise money?

            It’s only the fault of those who stand up to the radical left’s violence.

            YOu live in a very strange world.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s