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.