More thoughts on the Rittenhouse trial
Those of us who have followed the story of Kyle Rittenhouse have been well aware for quite some time that the fact situation supports self-defense and that his being charged was a political act.
But in a trial, facts previously unknown can come out, and one’s opinions can change as a result – or become even more firm. And trials are inherently unpredictable. Sometimes the verdict seems to us as though it should be crystal clear, and yet the jury delivers a surprise one way or the other.
In the Rittenhouse trial so far, as I’ve been following it at Legal Insurrection and other sites, my opinion that Rittenhouse is innocent has only become more strong, and it was strong enough already. So far, at least, the trial has been a kind of travesty in which the prosecutor struggles with his own witnesses to get them to say what he wants them to say to implicate Rittenhouse, and they do the opposite because facts are stubborn things.
For an example of what I mean, see yesterday’s post at Legal Insurrection by Andrew Branca, featuring this sort of exchange (Binger is the prosecutor, McGinnis is his own witness, and Rosenbaum is one of the men Rittenhouse killed that night):
Binger had been very unhappy when McGinnis was allowed to suggest during cross-examination that it had been the intent of Rosenbaum to seize Kyle’s rifle. Binger objected at the time, but Judge Schroeder overruled the objection.
Now on re-direct, Binger rather heatedly challenged his own witness: You can’t read Rosenbaum’s mind, right? You can’t know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn’t that right?
McGinnis paused a moment, and replied: “Well, he said “F-you, and then he reached for the weapon.” So, maybe not entirely guesswork.
The trial so far reminds me slightly of some legal dealings I had long ago with much lower stakes of course. I had been stopped at a yield sign at a complex intersection in a large city, and an impatient small truck had clipped me on the side in the driver’s eagerness to go despite heavy traffic coming at us. He sued me for damages to his truck and I had to answer questions for a deposition. The questions all assumed I had been moving, and so when it kept saying some form of “How fast were you moving when you hit so-and-so?” I had to rewrite the whole thing and say something like, “I wasn’t moving when so-and-so hit me.” And on and on like that.
The Rittenhouse prosecution is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. So far it seems that whether the prosecution succeeds or not depends on whether the jury has been prejudiced enough and/or intimidated enough. That’s not how justice should be.
Last week, ABCNews published a piece entitled “Ahead of Rittenhouse Trial, Race Seen as Underlying Issue” because, of course, in a trial in which nearly everyone is white, the trial “is being watched closely as a referendum on race and the American legal system.” Our republic is collapsing into an abyss of tyranny, insanity, stupidity, and corruption, while the utterly shameless and mendacious MSM (completely ignoring the inhumane mistreatment of dozens of J6 political prisoners) are fixated on demented and delusional racialized propaganda; just yesterday, the malign and odious (and absurdly well-remunerated) black race-hustler Michael Eric Dyson accused newly-elected Winsome Sears of being the black face of white supremacy.
If our republic collapses into an inescapable “abyss of tyranny, insanity, stupidity, and corruption”… liberals, more than any other demographic will be deserving of the largest share of the blame.
For they, in their heart of hearts, know better.
I worry about the jury, but the evidence so far is solidifying Rittenhouse’s position for self-defense.
Let’s skate to where the puck is going to be.
If he gets off, all hell could break loose.
Perhaps I do not understand how the law works.
But, I thought there was a pre-trial phase in which each side gets to question witnesses before the trial so that there wouldn’t be any “surprises.” Or at least you get to question your own witnesses before trial.
So, if that is the case why didn’t the prosecutor get this straight before going to trial? Or were they so confident that they had a case that they didn’t do their homework? Or perhaps they thought the jury would buy anything they are selling?
or I am just not sure how the law works.
@ charles > “I thought there was a pre-trial phase in which each side gets to question witnesses before the trial so that there wouldn’t be any “surprises.” Or at least you get to question your own witnesses before trial.
So, if that is the case why didn’t the prosecutor get this straight before going to trial?”
Everything I know about the law, I learned from reading AesopSpouse’s textbooks & watching Perry Mason, but I’m pretty sure the first rule is: make absolutely certain that you don’t have any surprises on the witness stand.
This is now two state’s witnesses who aren’t letting the prosecutor drive their testimony.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/11/04/just-a-reminder-about-the-rittenhouse-trial/
Good on them.
As to why Binger didn’t know they were going to say what they said on the stand: did they mislead him, or did he not listen to them during pre-trial preparation, or did he skip the prep?
Maybe some irate underling will leak the answer some day.
The prosecutors seem to be auditioning for World’s Worst DA –
Day 4 of the trial had yet more blunders where the state’s witnesses did more good for the defense than for the prosecution.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-4-two-state-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/
When the Zimmerman trial began, even CNN observers said it looked like the prosecution was ttrying to tank their own case.
But they were doing the best they could with had.
This is worse; they don’t care about the evidence. They’re depending on the jury. As with Chauvin.
Jim Snow America.
Better get used to it.
Since the Rittenhouse case involves guns, I thought I’d include this:
I think the term. [gun violence] is unfair. It implies that 1] if guns didn’t exist in the US, then less violence would happen.
I’ve seen no evidence to back up that idea.
A national museum, the National Building Museum, is making a display about “gun violence”. This display will show histories + artifacts of US people who were murdered using guns.
This display or exhibit is called: “The Gun Violence Memorial Project”.
I think this is unfair.
Where is the display about murder with knives, called, “the Knife Violence Project” ?
Where is the display about murder done with cars, called,, “the Cars Violence Project” ?
Where is the display about murder done with fists, called, “the Fists Violence Project” ?
I think that if civilian GUNS are banned, then people will find other items to do murders with.
The same is true with all violence.
I think this “gun violence” museum display will give people the wrong idea, the idea that if 1] no US (civilian) people owned guns, then 2] the amount of violence, or violent crime in the US, will be less.
I think this museum display can be used by people who want to [unfairly outlaw guns from the US people].
Please contact your Congress members and tell them you don’t want this display.
The squish-meisters at Power Line are now taking the line that Rittenhouse was on a “misguided mission”.