Judge issues interesting ruling in proceedings prior to Rittenhouse trial
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is about to begin on November 1, but in a related hearing the judge has ruled as follows:
On Monday, Schroeder reiterated his reportedly long-held policy against allowing the word “victim” in his criminal trials until there is a conviction. He said the word is “loaded” with prejudgment.
Therefore prosecutors will not be allowed to use that term to refer to the three men shot by Rittenhouse (no one disputes that he shot them; the question is whether his actions were justified by self-defense).
The defense team will be allowed, however, to refer to the men shot as looters or rioters or arsonists:
The three men Kyle Rittenhouse shot during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin can be labeled rioters, looters or arsonists if the teenager’s defense team has evidence to support the characterizations…
Binger, the prosecutor, argued that the words “rioters,” “looters” and “arsonists” are “loaded, if not more loaded,” than “victim.”
At the link there’s a photo of Rittenhouse in the courtroom. Until now I’d only seen the photos of him that night in Kenosha, and I hadn’t realized what a baby face he has (well, after all, he’s 18 now and was 17 when he shot the men – but he looks really young to me).
That NBC article I linked doesn’t do a good job of explaining why a judge might make this differentiation between what class of terms are allowed for the people Rittenhouse shot. I looked in a few more articles but didn’t find any good explanations there, either, so I’ll just offer my own sense about the basis for the decision. I think it’s that the presumption of innocence for the defendant, Rittenhouse, precludes labeling these men as “victims” because it seems to pre-judge the very question the trial is supposed to resolve: whether their actions constituted the sort of provocation that would justify Rittenhouse shooting in self-defense.
However, the three men either were rioters and/or looters and/or arsonists or they were not, and they are not the defendants. Of course, the defense attorneys can’t just accuse them of anything they want. But they can present evidence of what the men were doing that night if relevant and if those activities fit the definition of the terms “rioters,” “looters,” or “arsonists.” The three men don’t have the same protections defendant Rittenhouse does (and only one is alive, although that isn’t the basis on which the ruling was made).
That’s the answer I’d give on a law exam, anyway.
Yup… My non-legal opinion is in synchro with yours, Neo.
Yeah, Binger is right, those terms are loaded, BUT, as you say, they are not on trial here (even though they clearly should be!).. So enough evidence to prevent a successful slander/libel charge is adequate.
But “victim”, as you say, does presuppose what the trial is about.
I’m surprised this “victim” distinction hasn’t been settled, one way or the other, in general law. It seems like an obvious point.
How about “alleged victim”?
Re: “Victims”…
For anyone who hasn’t seen the video footage:
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1453216431240200194
Robert Barnes is on Rittenhouse’s defense team and he talked a lot about it here on the Viva and Barnes livestream the other day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK5_2imyfo8
I’d call them what they really are- Hitler Jugend
Thanks Griffin. That was very informative.
Rittenhouse’s attackers were participating in a riot. Multiple instances of arson occurred by those rioters. Can’t say they were looting but the first two labels are valid.
A term is only “loaded” if inaccurate. Their presence demonstrates the accuracy of the labels.
If I was one the bench I would rule that they may simply describe them as individuals with allowance of first person observations of the actions they were engaged in that are relevant to the claim of self defense.
There is a perfectly good word for the prosecution to use, but it is telling that they fight to use victim rather than decedent.
In fact, that the prosecution fought this in a hearing tells me the judge was correct in his ruling.
In the Viva and Barnes livestream, Barnes said that Rittenhouse was trying to decide between being a nurse or a cop. Thus far, my impression of the lad is that the worst that can be said about him is that he was at the time of the incident young, naive, overly goodhearted and impulsive. According to Barnes, a lot of impressive legal talent has come to work on his defense. I hope it all matters.
I agree with the judge’s characterization of them being rioters (probably worse, since they were apparently stalking Rittenhouse). It’s nice to see the boot on the other foot occasionally. The fact that it’s the truth is icing on the cake.
Not a lawyer, but surely the judge’s direction will be Exhibit A in a prosecution appeal if Rittenhouse is acquitted?
Not a lawyer, but surely the judge’s direction will be Exhibit A in a prosecution appeal if Rittenhouse is acquitted ?
prosecution cant appeal an acquittal
@avi:prosecution cant appeal an acquittal
Oh, I’m sure they’ll find some emanation or penumbra in the Fifth Amendment in cases of this sort! They come very close to double jeopardy with some of the Federal prosecutions. But the government does not get to appeal acquittals today.
The traditional approach is to get a US Attorney to file a fed case of denial of civil rights – right to life in this case. It’s deliberate double jeopardy, but the judges club allows it. I also believe it has a lower burden of proof. Then there’s always a civil suit for anything ranging from intentional infliction of inferiority and hurt feelings to offense exhalation in the presence of a favored prog constituency.
Basically anything and everything to inflict as much pain as possible, regardless of expected outcome.
avi, I refer to them as SturmAntifa, SA for short.
The fact that Rittenhouse was prosecuted at all is an indication that the Kenosha County DA is a fraud and he assigned the case to the most reliable fraud on his staff.
Andrew Branca’s piece on it is up this morning (28th) on LI. He has been covering the trial with daily recaps of the events. He also puts them up at his site, Law of Self-Defense.
Here is a link to his video (30 min) presentation of the day’s events (YouTube):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4d_3B5sSGQ
Todd Z.,
Thanks for that. Sounds like you speak from experience.
______
SA = Sturm Antifa. I’m stealing that one.
the prosecution will be allowed to refer the three who were shot as “victims’ during final arguments in its effort to persuade jurors that defendant acted in a criminal manner.