There’s video (see my vanity this morning) of Kyle there with his buddies at the used car lot with the two brothers that own it.
The state had that evidence and yet still put the brothers on to testify falsely.
The. They used the argument at opening and closing that Kyle was there without the owners knowledge or consent.
Mistrial.
Suborning perjury.
Right?
Here’s the law.
Wisconsin Statutes 946.31 – Perjury
Current as of: 2020 | Check for updates | Other versions
Terms Used In Wisconsin Statutes 946.31
Felony: A crime carrying a penalty of more than a year in prison.
Following: when used by way of reference to any statute section, means the section next following that in which the reference is made. See Wisconsin Statutes 990.01
Grand jury: agreement providing that a lender will delay exercising its rights (in the case of a mortgage,
Person: includes all partnerships, associations and bodies politic or corporate. See Wisconsin Statutes 990.01
Statute: A law passed by a legislature.
Testimony: Evidence presented orally by witnesses during trials or before grand juries.
(1) Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constituted, is guilty of a Class H felony:
(a) A court;
(b) A magistrate;
(c) A judge, referee or court commissioner;
(d) An administrative agency or arbitrator authorized by statute to determine issues of fact;
(e) A notary public while taking testimony for use in an action or proceeding pending in court;
(f) An officer authorized to conduct inquests of the dead;
(g) A grand jury;
(h) A legislative body or committee.
(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the perjured testimony was corrected or retracted.
The connection that I am saying that is not correct, is that perjury results in mistrial. I don’t disagree with the definition of perjury.
The car lot owner evidence you cite could be a Brady violation, wehre prosecution does not share evidence in its possession that favors the defendant. Maybe.
But as far as the LAW goes, whether or not Kyle has permisison, or was asked to be there, that angle isn;t relevant. It’s prosecution generated smoke and a good defense team would object to the evidence on that basis. It’s not relevant.
Lying about something that is not material to the case isn’t even perjury.
Note that I am not defending the prosecution or the conduct of this trial. Just saying that you make a leap when you assert “mistrial.”
Perjury has its quirks too. Counsel in a case are advocates, so they get to lie without risk of committing perjury. What they risk is losing the case, depending on the judge’s attitude and the outcome the judge wants to get in the case overall.