Skip to main content

I almost think the prosecution in the Rittenhouse trial should go along with having a mistrial without prejudice declared.. One thing they'll do is get get rid of an incompetent and biased judge. I've watched much of the trial and this judge is past his expiration date. Two, the prosecution can try to put their case together better. The prosecutor is lucky if he doesn't get a mistrial with prejudice because of violating the vigilante Kyle's 5th amendment rights.  And three, Kyle will have to try to make himself cry again.

Last edited by The Old Man
@The Old Man posted:

I almost think the prosecution in the Rittenhouse trial should go along with having a mistrial without prejudice declared.. One thing they'll do is get get rid of an incompetent and biased judge. I've watched much of the trial and this judge is past his expiration date. Two, the prosecution can try to put their case together better. The prosecutor is lucky if he doesn't get a mistrial with prejudice because of violating the vigilante Kyle's 5th amendment rights.  And three, Kyle will have to try to make himself cry again.

The request for a mistrial because the defense had a video, but not the enhanced video, is silly. They could enhance it themselves.  That is not even close to a reason for a mistrial.

The "violation" of the 5th amendment right is also spurious.  Mr. Rittenhouse made post trial statements in interviews and on social media.  He waived his right to complain about questions relating to post trial comments or post trial silence.  Also not a good reason for a mistrial.

The judge is neither incompetent nor biased.  He is quirky.  Very quirky.  But, I've appeared many times in Court before quirky judges and also some who were biased or incompetent.  I can tell the difference.  The jury instructions were a bit garbled and incomprehensible, but frankly, they usually are.  I have served on a state bar committee with some judges to prepare standard instructions (in civil cases) and it's not easy.  It is important for a judge to craft instructions that fit the case and not to rely solely on the pattern instructions.

Now, the judge may have made mistakes. But that doesn't mean he is incompetent.  Tiger Woods, in his prime, could hit a ball in a water hazard or three putt.  That doesn't mean he was incompetent.  We're all human.

@irwin posted:

The jury instructions were a bit garbled and incomprehensible, but frankly, they usually are.

"A bit garbled"? They were a mess which included him trying to make changes as he was actually reading it out loud. I'm pretty sure we'll find out the jury had trouble with the 35 page mess of instructions. However, I'm not a lawyer but I was a lowly paralegal. However, never in criminal matters.

Last edited by The Old Man

35 pages is pretty normal.  
anyway, I see the jury is done for the day.  The longest jury deliberations in any of my cases was about 2 1/2 days.  The shortest was about 5 minutes.  In the latter case, the jury left, I shook my opponent’s hand and began to put my papers into my briefcases, but the verdict came before I had finished doing so.
it is, as one might say, variable.

@jcocktosten posted:

It was a protest about racial injustice- victims were shot by a racist moron with an assault weapon there to be violent, who would have been killed by the police if he was a person of color - this is not exactly rocket science

You could not be more wrong!  Focus on the facts of the case not the surrounding noise.  If you only look at the facts there was no other verdict to render.  

@napacat posted:

You could not be more wrong!  Focus on the facts of the case not the surrounding noise.  If you only look at the facts there was no other verdict to render.  

Why do you say Kyle was racist?  If he was, wouldn’t he have looked for black people to shoot?   What proof do you have to support that statement?  I know most people here are successful.  How do you fall into the trap of spouting nonsense without any factual relevance to your statements?

This is an oversimplification, but:

In an article on Rep. McCarthy’s unsuccessful filibuster attempt to derail the law passed a couple days ago in the House, the NY Times said that right wing Rep. Madison Cawthorn sat behind McCarthy and was using chewing tobacco and spitting it into a cup.

That’s not a pretty picture.  On the Senate floor, the desks are all equipped with spittoons.  At least they used to be.  Not so in the House, hence the paper cup. https://medium.com/knowledge-stew/the-spittoons-of-the-us-senate-b459c966e83d

But, it’s pretty gross and not a rather unhealthy habit.

It sort of shows the wide gap between parties.  The Democrats eat tofu and organic vegetables.  The Republicans chew tobacco.   How can they come together on the important issues of the day?

@irwin posted:

This is an oversimplification, but:

In an article on Rep. McCarthy’s unsuccessful filibuster attempt to derail the law passed a couple days ago in the House, the NY Times said that right wing Rep. Madison Cawthorn sat behind McCarthy and was using chewing tobacco and spitting it into a cup.

That’s not a pretty picture.  On the Senate floor, the desks are all equipped with spittoons.  At least they used to be.  Not so in the House, hence the paper cup. https://medium.com/knowledge-stew/the-spittoons-of-the-us-senate-b459c966e83d

But, it’s pretty gross and not a rather unhealthy habit.

It sort of shows the wide gap between parties.  The Democrats eat tofu and organic vegetables.  The Republicans chew tobacco.   How can they come together on the important issues of the day?

they do sell tobacco flavored tofu at the french laundry btw.  mr bourdain got served the dish by keller

Last edited by g-man

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×