Illinois judge to rule on Rittenhouse extradition to Kenosha

herald-review.com ^ | 10/30/2020 | MICHAEL TARM

[aimhigh]

An Illinois judge said he will decide late Friday afternoon whether a 17-year-old accused of killing two demonstrators in Kenosha, Wisconsin, should be extradited across the border to stand trial on homicide charges.

Defense lawyers had indicated before the hearing in Waukegan that they would call witnesses, including Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, to try to block his extradition. But they called no one and said they had chosen instead to focus on legalities of the case.

After hearing 45 minutes of arguments, Judge Paul Novak said he would issue a ruling by 5 p.m.

[LibWhacker]

Shoot him in the other arm; he’s still got that I’m-a-tough-guy-and-I’ll-kill-ya’-if-you’re-a-Trump-supporter aura about him.

[freeandfreezing]

The Constitution requires states to return people accused of crimes in other states.

That is true in general, but the charges have to be legitimate, and apply to the person whose transfer is being sought.

As one example, and it is a matter of facts, it is a defense to extradition if you are not the person accused of the crime that the other state is seeking to extradite you for.

In that case the defense would provide evidence that the person accused of the crime in the other state was not the individual in custody.

There are other arguments that can be raised as well, and for at least one of the charges it is clear from Wisconsin law and uncontested facts that Rittenhouse did not violate the law.

[Chode]

[hattend]

Too bad they saved his arm.

[SJackson]

I can’t imagine he won’t be extradited. Even if not, it’ll be a long life never being able to leave Illinois.

[CedarDave]

They saved it, but the nerves and muscles were pretty much destroyed. They call him “Lefty” now!

[hanamizu]

The only thing at issue here, is that the Wisconsin case is so extraordinarily frivolous and vengeful - and on video.
Though if it is actually automatic, there would not be need for a hearing.

---

Full disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I have taught the Constitution virtually word-by-word for many years. Extradition is required, but not necessarily automatic. The defendant does get to have a hearing. As someone noted he can claim he is not the person wanted by the other state. Obviously that cannot apply in this case. I suppose a lawyer could claim that the law in question is absurd, but again that doesn’t apply here. Can they argue that the charge itself is absurd? I suppose they can but I don’t know that an Illinois judge has or should have the power to make that judgement.

In any case consider the politics of Illinois. Do you think that upon appeal the Illinois court system is going to rule against Rittenhouse’s extradition?

[krogers58]

I would imagine that a defense to extradition would be that he will be denied due process, as it’s clear in WI’s indictment of him, demonstrates he will not be able to recieve a fair trial in WI. The due process clause sweeps broadly.

[hanamizu]

I would imagine that a defense to extradition would be that he will be denied due process,

---

I actually have heard of such a claim, but again, both IL and WI are states currently under democrat governors. IL has been dominated by democrats for years. I can’t see their judicial system sustaining such a claim.

[baclava]

Judge orders extradition to Kenosha county to face homicide charges, he’s being moved.

[coloradan]

At least 3 assaults, maybe more like 5 or 6.

[Carriage Hill]

If the Kenosha DA and Grand Jury decide it was self-defense and declines to prosecute, the family can turn it into a civil suit, can’t they?