Posted on 11/19/2021 1:47:28 PM PST by ctdonath2
[at timestamp 6:17] "The motion of the defendant is granted, the charges against the defendant on all counts are dismissed with prejudice, and he is released from the obligation of his bond."
“Federal Government can still bring one of their “violated civil rights” charges.”
Rittenhouse needs to immediately sue Joe Biden publicly and for a very large amount. I think that will help stave off any actions by an activist DOJ, since their actions would be viewed as tainted with conflict of interest, given that the DOJ is controlled by Biden.
And get nowhere with it.
Dementia Joe and his media hos had better get ready to be sued though.
Thanks, I had a feeling it was something along those lines.
Surely you're joking.
Not saying your name is "Shirley."
That was bidens second colonoscopty of the day.
There is probably an OSHA emergency rule protecting workplace safety for rioters. And the FBI will enforce it. Along with the CIA and Capitol Police.
That has nothing to do with the pending motions for mistrial, etc. It's simply the way you end a case when the defendant has been acquitted by a jury.
Interesting.. thanks for explaining this.
I believe there were at least two different motions filed by the defense on two different legal grounds … one with prejudice and one without. I’m sure there are legal technicalities that dictate why it’s done that way.
Agree.
Just SOP.
I don’t think that the verdict is why the judge “granted the motion” to dismiss with prejudice. I think he intended to send a message.
In a case where there was NO motion to dismiss with prejudice, and the defendant is found not guilty on all counts, the defendant goes free. There is no need for a separate motion.
The granting of the motion should be done on the merits of the motion itself, not because the jury reached a verdict. In other words, the judge should be ruling on the motion as if no verdict had ever occurred.
The judge could have denied the motion to dismiss with prejudice as moot, on the grounds that the verdict rendered it unnecessary. The fact that he granted it sends a message.
There may also be a very, very, low standard of review on appeal where a motion to dismiss with prejudice is made, such as “abuse of discretion”. Meaning, if that standard pertains, the reviewing court must uphold it unless it’s completely off the wall. A reviewing court applying an “abuse of discretion” standard will NOT reverse the trial court simply because the reviewing court would have come down the other way on what is a judgment call.
Federal charges on what? Rittenhouse has plenty of reason to sue them though.
Very interesting language used by the Judge. He was not impressed with the prosecution at all.
Thank goodness it turned out the way it did because there would be rioting if the judge overturned the jury verdict. In fact, there will likely be rioting tonight anyway.
I don’t feel Kyle will be unreasonable on any of that, because of the outcome, that took huge backing to make possible.
How many jurors were holding up the verdict. Does anyone know yet?
I doubt they will do that since the thugs he shot were all white.
In addition, what do the Dems gain by actually going after him on Federal civil rights charges where the video evidence, if anything, shows the aggressors guilty of violating Rittenhouse’s rights?
And, some Dem strategist has to be at least 1% sane and tells the DOJ that under no circumstances should they do something this stupid in an election year.
The Dems will get just as much play with this whining about the outcome without having incumbents in swing districts having to defend the Brandon administration’s actions if they charge.
My 1 1/2 cents,
I hope the kid gets a few nice scholarships.
He can move and begin his young life again. There are many places that would welcome him and protect him.
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.