Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Take this link to Andrew Branca’s real time commentary on the Friday, 11-12-21 arguments over jury instructions, conducted without the jury present.  To see it in sequence, you’ll have to continually hit the “load more” bar at the bottom, and go all the way to the beginning of the arguments.  It’s comical, in a seriously deranged way.

On Friday, the Prosecutors struggled, with incredibly lunatic arguments, to include every lesser charge one could imagine on every count.  Why?  They obviously have no confidence in the more serious charges they’ve filed.  If you’ve not had any real exposure to this sort of thing, by all means take the link.  Mark Twain said anyone who appreciates the law or sausage should never watch them being made.  Were he alive today, he’d say anyone who appreciates justice should never watch a criminal trial, particularly not one like this, a blatantly political, show trial.

What we know, as this is written is we won’t know the exact charges, and the instructions that will be given to the jury, until sometime Monday morning.  The case will go to the jury for deliberations sometime Monday.  More on this shortly.

How Can We Know A Trial Is Political?  Perhaps the surest way is to determine whether the police and/or prosecutors have followed normal procedures.  Some murder charges can be filed quickly.  Consider this scenario: the police, answering a 911 call, come upon a man, holding a knife and covered in fresh blood, stumbling out the front door of his home, disarm him and ask “what happened?”  The man replies: “I finally killed the bitch; I stabbed her good!”  And yes, that sort of thing sometimes happens.  The officers rush inside and find his freshly disemboweled wife, dead.  That’s a pretty much open and shut case.  No witnesses.  Prosecutors won’t need to wait for detailed forensic results, and sufficient investigation can be done within hours to determine which charges are appropriate, and whether they can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

But take an incident like the Rittenhouse case.  The prosecutors engaged in egregious charge stacking within about 48 hours!  There was no need to rush.  Kyle turned himself in within hours of the incident.  He wasn’t going anywhere; bond was set at $2 million dollars! Considering, in isolation, this happened in the middle of a riot, that there were two distinct—minimum—crime scenes, potentially hundreds of witnesses, loads of video, at least some of which wasn’t magically produced until nearly the end of the trial when the prosecution desperately needed a pseudo-miracle, autopsies to be done, a complete time frame to be completed (it never was), and a variety of forensic examinations and reports to be made, what was the rush?

There is no way the police could possibly have done anything nearing a complete investigation in two days.  Witness interviews alone would take weeks if not months.  There is simply no way any prosecutor could possibly know what they needed to know to make an informed charging decision within two days, likely not within two months.

Why then did they go ahead with entirely inadequate knowledge and evidence, knowledge and evidence, which did not improve with time?  Politics.  The mob wanted blood; local and state politicians wanted the riots to stop.  After all, those rioters, who they came to understand couldn’t be controlled, were making them look bad.  Who knew Normal Americans would get so upset about having their businesses burned down and unmistakable evidence their moral and intellectual betters didn’t give a damn about their lives?  They needed a sacrifice, something to get the national media and rioters off their backs.  They’d had enough of “mostly peaceful” protests.  Many more and they might burn Kenosha completely to the ground.  Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year-old nobody, carrying a demonic AR-15, was the perfect patsy.

How else can we know?  Does the prosecution have sufficient evidence to prove the charges?  Right. Now you see what I mean.

The Role/Roll Of The Media:  Consider this from Legal Insurrection’s Professor Jacobson at The New York Post:

Media malpractice has come full circle in Kenosha, Wis.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial for the shooting deaths of two people and the wounding of another is nearing its end, with the jury expected to get the case soon. The shootings took place as riots, arson and looting shook Kenosha after police shot Jacob Blake on August 23, 2020. The violence fed off the nationwide riots and looting that followed the May death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody.

From the start, the media misrepresented the Blake case and ensuing riots. They portrayed Blake as an unarmed man who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, subjected to police brutality due to racism.

The truth was far different.

Indeed it was, as the evidence presented at trial made clear.  Did that make any difference to the media?  Of course not.  If you’ve been following this case—the SMM Rittenhouse Archive is here–you know, based on their reporting, the media must be watching some other trial taking place in the alternate, woke universe.

It’s happening again with the Rittenhouse case, which was born in the Kenosha riots. From the media coverage leading up to the trial, one would think Rittenhouse was a white supremacist militia member who traveled to Kenosha to shoot up peaceful protesters.

The headline highlight of Grosskreutz’s testimony according to a Daily Beast report was that he “tried to surrender” to Rittenhouse. Similar misleading narratives frame the case at the New York TimesWashington PostUSA Today and elsewhere. Reading only these publications, it would be reasonable to believe the original story of Rittenhouse as a shooter run amok, despite the trial testimony to the contrary.

From the inception of the Blake shooting, to the riots and now to the Rittenhouse trial, media malpractice has framed a Kenosha narrative completely divorced from reality.

Even so, take this link to see at least a few D/S/Cs willing to accept reality. Why, by the way, do I link to other articles that say the same things I’m saying?  I don’t for a moment imagine I know everything and can think of every angle.  I do try to provide as much information for you, gentle readers, as I can.

Now, imagine a star witness in a hyped trial goes on TV and repudiates his sworn testimony?  Would the legacy media be interested in that?  Not if it damaged the narrative:

Oh yes, this was the same Grosskreutz who said his gun just fell out of his waistband…

However, on Thursday night Grosskreutz changed his story while being interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN.

Cooper then asked, ‘What was going through your mind in the moment right before you were shot?’

Grosskreutz replied, ‘That I was going to die, and I felt that I needed to do whatever I could to … try and preserve my own life.’

Cooper then played the video from Grosskreutz’s testimony in court where he confirmed that he had pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on the teen before he was shot.

Cooper then called out the disparity between the testimony and when Grosskreutz was on Good Morning America and claimed that he was not pointing his gun at Rittenhouse and asked him to clarify the discrepancy.

Grosskreutz has also confirmed during his testimony that he saw a mob advancing on Rittenhouse, and had approached him with his gun drawn.

Grosskreutz blamed his testimony in court on the ‘skilled’ defense attorney, who was ‘…able to present questions to help support their narrative.’

‘That’s their job,’ he added.

Riiiight.  That “skilled” attorney showed him a photo that revealed his handgun pointing at Kyle’s head from a few feet away and asked him if he was pointing his gun at Kyle and if Kyle shot him only after he did that, and he answered “correct.”  I can see how that was somehow devious and manipulative.  Most of the legacy media haven’t touched it.  Try any search engine and see for yourself.

And what are the likely consequences of a political prosecution and media malfeasance?  Law Professor Jonathan Turley, far from a conservative, explains:

 Even without the unforced errors by the prosecution, this was always a difficult case. Wisconsin has a strong self-defense standard. After a defendant claims to have acted to repel a threat, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the prosecution prompted its own witnesses to create layers of doubt in the case. In doing so, it seems to have reduced the range of possibilities to somewhere between a hung jury and outright acquittal on the major charges.

The problem is that many people may be unaware that the case is collapsing due to such evidentiary or tactical failures. Any hung jury or acquittal will come as a shock, and the level of outrage is likely to be greater. This case began with violent rioting in Kenosha, and the news coverage is fueling the danger of renewed violence.

It is even worse in that some coverage has dismissed the trial as an exhibition of raw racism. Some have criticized Judge Bruce Schroeder after he enforced long-standing constitutional principles and defended the core constitutional right of the defendant against self-incrimination.

Yeah.  How dare he?  But even Wisconsin’s governor has apparently been roused from his D/S/C slumber:

The mobs will be howling outside and around the courthouse in Kenosha in anticipation of a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, which goes to the jury Monday. Mind you, not just any verdict will result in rioting, only a Not Guilty verdict.

The Wisconsin Governor has authorized 500 National Guard troops for Kenosha:

‘Approximately 500 Wisconsin Army National Guard troops are reporting for State Active Duty as authorized by Gov. Tony Evers to support local partners in ensuring public safety in conjunction with hundreds of officers from volunteering law enforcement agencies. This, as the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is in its final stages.

‘We continue to be in close contact with our partners at the local level to ensure the state provides support and resources to help keep the Kenosha community and greater area safe,’ said Gov. Evers. ‘The Kenosha community has been strong, resilient, and has come together through incredibly difficult times these past two years, and that healing is still ongoing. I urge folks who are otherwise not from the area to please respect the community by reconsidering any plans to travel there and encourage those who might choose to assemble and exercise their First Amendment rights to do so safely and peacefully.’

Translation: Dear D/S/C, BLM/Antifa/etc. thugs, please don’t come back and try to burn Kenosha to the ground again.  We let you get away with it once, but we have to virtue signal in reverse now.  Sure, the Vice President will make sure you get bail, and you won’t get prosecuted if you, by some miracle, get arrested, but please, please, please, don’t make us look like what we are again.  We know we invited you last time, but not this time, so please be nice and stay away!  We only want local D/S/C thugs this time, honest!

Fallout:  Consider this from Brietbart:

Mark Richards, the lead defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse in his murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, informed the court on Friday that his client suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had been seeing a therapist for treatment.

Hmmm.  I wonder if this could have had anything to do with Kyle’s breakdown on the stand?

The Prosecution’s Last, Desperate, Hope:

The Prosecution has never had a coherent theory of the case.  Thursday, they spent a great deal of time arguing about the blurry photo supposedly showing Kyle pointing his rifle at Ziminski, who by the way, never testified about that.  Why not?  Because the guy is such a thug and liar the Prosecution didn’t dare expose him to cross-examination.  During Friday’s—11-12-21—argument, ADA Kraus was desperately demanding it be included as the sole proof Kyle provoked the entire incident, and he actually said the photo wasn’t all that important after all!  The commentary by the Judge, who frequently laughed at the Prosecution, and again, angrily yelled at them, is interesting to behold.

And it is that upon which the Prosecution is hanging its hopes for a conviction—more likely, a hung jury.  Take this link to Andrew Branca’s analysis of this issue.  He does a fine and comprehensive job, so I have no need to reinvent that particular wheel.

Final Thoughts:  Here are a few of the likely scenarios:

1) The Stealth Juror: Even if every other juror wants acquittal on all charges, all it takes is one stealth juror to hang the jury, which provokes a mistrial.  Unless Judge Schroeder rules a mistrial with prejudice, the Prosecution gets another run at Kyle with much better preparation, unlimited resources and surely a more cooperative judge, willing to overlook gross constitutional violations.

2) The Dimwitted Juror: This is who the Prosecution hopes to reach with their last minute “what do you see in the ink blot?’ photo ploy.  All they need is one holdout and they get the same result: a mistrial.

3) The Jury tries to compromise, convicting on something or other, perhaps the bogus gun possession charge, which should have been thrown out early, in the hope of keeping Kenosha from being burned down.

4) Prosecutor Binger goes all in for a mistrial and makes another, purposeful, constitutional violation, or two or three, in his closing argument.  I’d say this is a 50/50 proposition at least.

5) Complete acquittal.  If the verdict comes back fast, this is the most likely outcome.  If the jury sticks to the evidence and law, this is the only just outcome.

6) Conviction on any count.  If this is the case, the Defense has major issues for appeal.

It’s clear Judge Schroeder believes very much in the system and wants the jury to deliberate.  He has had more than sufficient cause to not only declare a mistrial, but to declare it with prejudice, preventing a retrial.  Surely, he doesn’t want to be blamed and have his own home burned down, but we should give him the benefit of the doubt here.

In any case, we won’t know any particulars until Monday.  As always, the outcome of a trial can depend largely on closing arguments.  Expect the Defense argument to rely on the law and the evidence.  Expect the Prosecution to rely on emotion, innuendo, and to violate legal ethics.

More Monday night, I’m sure.

UPDATE, 11-14-21, 2200 MT:  Take this link, gentle readers to yet another, but more focused update, by Andrew Branca on the Prosecution attempt to negate a very strong self-defense case using the doctrine of “Provocation.”  There is a YouTube version that is about 26 minutes long, and the text version contains the same information, but adds several court transcripts.

As I’ve previously mentioned, the provocation distraction rests on the notion that Kyle, for a mere second or two, pointed his rifle at Ziminki, which somehow provoked Rosenbaum to attack Kyle (Ziminski was encouraging Rosenbaum to attack Kyle, though he certainly needed no encouragement to do that), while simultaneously stripping Kyle, from that moment, of self-defense in every encounter.  This, despite jump kick guy, Huber and Grosskreutz having no idea of what started the sequence of events.  If you can see what’d the Prosecution claims is present in the imbedded photo, you have far better eyes, and a more active and deranged imagination than I.  In watching the video or reading the text, keep in mind these facts:

1) Binger did not mention provocation—at all—in his opening statement.

2) The Prosecution did not raise it until they came up with their miraculous drone footage, and the far less miraculous and unintelligible photo that supposedly proves this provocation, until the Defense rested and they were arguing motions, without the jury, before the judge.

3) No evidence of provocation was presented to the jury.  The Prosecution could have called Ziminski, the man who was supposedly threatened, but did not.  I’ve already observed why they didn’t dare do that.

4) Kyle testified that he never pointed his gun at Ziminski, rather that after putting out a dumpster fire Rosenbaum started, he saw Ziminski with a handgun—Richard McGinnis also saw him with a handgun—and Ziminski took a step toward him.  This caused Kyle to drop the extinguisher and take a step back, which is when Rosenbaum charged him screaming “fuck you!” and Ziminski fired a shot, which caused Kyle to briefly turn and Rosembaum lunged for his rifle.  In effect, he and McGinnis impeached testimony the Prosecution never offered.

5) I suspect the reason the Defense hasn’t argued more strongly against the inclusion of this “evidence,” is they recognize it as a deadly issue in case of appeal.

I cannot but think of this as nothing more than a more desperate than desperate ploy of unscrupulous, political prosecutors who believe they’re going to lose.  We’ll see if the jury is smarter than they are, but it only takes one to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of justice.