Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorneys allege that the prosecution hid evidence
American Thinker ^ | 17 Nov, 2021 | Andrea Widburg

Posted on 11/17/2021 3:40:22 AM PST by MtnClimber

hat is an extremely serious allegation and one that seems, on its face, to justify the requested mistrial with prejudice.

During the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the prosecution argued that Kyle provoked the men who attacked him by waving his gun. To prove this, during the trial, the prosecution gave the defense fuzzy drone footage. There was a great deal of argument about what could be extrapolated from that fuzzy view. It turns out that the prosecution had within its possession a high-quality video that it played for the judge after the trial ended. On this, and other evidentiary grounds, the defense moved for a mistrial with prejudice.

The defense motion states the facts with sufficient clarity that I’m going to reprint them here verbatim:

On November 5. 2021, the fifth day of trial on this case, the prosecution turned over to the defense footage of a drone video which captured some of the incident from August 25, 2020. The problem is, the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video. What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state. The file size of the defense video is 3.6 MB and the state’s is 11.2 MB. Further, the dimensions on our video are 480 x 212, the state’s, 1920 x 844. The video which was in the state’s possession, wasn't provided to the defense until after the trial concluded. During the jury instructions conference, the defense played their version of the video for the court to review. The state indicated their version was much clearer and had their tech person come into court to have the court review their clearer video. The video is the same; the resolution of that video, however, was not.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: communism; misanthropy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: Yo-Yo
No. When they inform the defense that a person of interest came forward, many months ago, only at trial, it is a gross violation. The defense could have prepared to, and then called JKM to the stand.

Since they were not given proper notice, this is more grounds for a mistrial.

When the prosecution violated the 5th amendment rights, this trial should have ended.

21 posted on 11/17/2021 6:31:10 AM PST by Solson (DeSantis/Hawley 2024!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Solson

Thanks for the correction


22 posted on 11/17/2021 7:17:54 AM PST by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: shotgun

No worries. Been watching that channel the entire trial and it’s been fantastic. Learning quite a bit!


23 posted on 11/17/2021 7:28:24 AM PST by Solson (DeSantis/Hawley 2024!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Solson

Me too. Those guys and that gal seem pretty sharp.


24 posted on 11/17/2021 10:09:39 AM PST by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson