Rittenhouse Hearing Update, Expert Witnesses Brought In

AmmoLand ^ | 14 October, 2021 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The video of part 1 is a few seconds short of one hour and fifty minutes. Part 2 is another hour and twelve minutes.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s hearing on October 5th was primarily about expert witnesses and the motion by the defense to dismiss the charge against Kyle Rittenhouse of illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor.

A technical term for determining the suitability of expert witnesses is a Daubert hearing.

Judge Schroeder started the hearing by noting there is no report from the prosecution’s proposed expert witness, even though he spent some time checking for it over the weekend:

“Over the weekend, I had been checking periodically for the report by Witness Willis, and couldn’t find any, so I left a note for the clerk to contact Mr. Binger and see where the report was, and found out for the first time yesterday, that there is no report. 

Do you want to comment on that?” (Directed to DA Binger).

It should be noted Judge Schroeder has carefully, gently, almost subtly, corrected or admonished DA Binger at several times during these proceedings. The lead Prosecutor, DA Binger answered with a carefully scripted reply.

Almost all the players in the courtroom appeared to have a heightened awareness they are on camera, they are being recorded, the recording is live, and will be a part of a near-permanent record available to the public on the Internet. The exception seemed to be Bob Willis. He is the proposed expert witness for the prosecution. He is located in Milwaukee. He is the only one who seems casual and unconcerned about his appearance.

DA Binger did not have a report from the expert witness, Willis. Binger says Willis has been working on it for the last two months.  Binger said it will be

[marktwain]

I watched the hearing. The prosecution is claiming possession of the rifle was illegal, but the law creates a clear exception for people 16 years old and older.

The prosecution says it is only and exception for hunting, but the law does not say it is only for hunting.

[Lockbox]

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/rittenhouse-hearing-update-expert-witnesses-brought-in/#ixzz79pxbSqiT Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook Judge Schroeder stated that people are supposed to be able to read the law and understand it. He said if highly trained and experienced lawyers are having a difficult time understanding the law, then how can ordinary people be expected be understand it? He referenced a potential appeals court. He is concerned the law might be ruled too vague to be constitutional. The law is somewhat convoluted, but is reasonably understandable. 948.60 3(C) exempts rifles and shotguns from the definition of dangerous weapons. The exception is not limited to hunting or to the restrictions in chapter 29. The prosecution’s argument is: that exception is absurd in Milwaukee and Racine, so the legislature could not possibly have meant for the statute to do what it does. This deserves treatment in a separate article.

I am very literal, and reading the statue wording above it would apply to the whole state.

[wastedyears]

An “expert witness” in what?

[Beagle8U]

I think throughout American history those 17-45 are part of the militia and the country’s first line of defense.

I can’t see how it could be illegal for Kyle to use the rifle in self defense.

[Lurker]

“An “expert witness” in what?”

Matter of self defense, I believe. Sounds to me like the prosecutor is having trouble finding an “expert” who will dispute that claim.

L

[RandallFlagg]

I’d love to see the defense call Masaad Ayoob and watch the prosecution get obliterated.

[Howie66]

Being a former spurt, under pressure?

[School of Rational Thought]

Binger’s prosecution misconduct is being laid bare for public view.

[School of Rational Thought]

If you don’t already view, I recommend listening to Robert Barnes (on the defense team) when appears on Viva Frei on youtube or on Locals.

[Blood of Tyrants]

All this to focus on whether he was illegally possessing the firearm and not on the killings. It’s almost as if the prosecution is trying to salvage SOMETHING out of this case since their own indictment indicates that Rittenhouse acted in self defense when he shot those turds.

And why hasn’t Gage whateverhisnameis been charged with brandishing a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm? It is quite obvious on the videos that he had the gun in his hand when Kyle shot him in the arm.

[Blood of Tyrants]

According to 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes Kyle is legally a part of the US militia.

[woodbutcher1963]

I recently took the NRA self defense course required for concealed carry in MA here in NH.
The person who teaches it is a retired MA Sheriff who is considered an expert witness when it comes to hand guns and other fire arms. He has been called to testify, primarily for the prosecution in many murder cases in New England.

He had intimate information on many of the famous murders that have happened here in the last twenty years. He also spoke about the Rittenhouse case in WI. He said it was a clear case of self defense. However, the government was determined to make an example of the kid.

[marktwain]

My suspicion is they will claim the possession of the firearm is illegl;

the confrontations would not have happened if the firearm was not there;

deadly force was not legitimate if the firearms were not there;

Therefore the deaths were caused by Rittenhouse bringing an illegal weapon into a situation where he should never have been.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep, even the prosecution's own indictment seems to indicate that Kyle was acting in self defense. Since Kyle was 17 at the time and US laws have supremacy over the states, Kyle was a member of the militia as per 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes.

[Blood of Tyrants]

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4005156/posts?page=14#14

[AndyJackson]

The prosecution’s argument is: that exception is absurd in Milwaukee and Racine, so the legislature could not possibly have meant for the statute to do what it does.

From the SC down legal precedent is that statutes are read strictly according to their plain language, and if the language is clear there is no role in the court in interpreting the statute but will construe it as written.

IOWs the DA is lying. If as written it is clear and you don't like the law, go back to the legislature and get the law changed.

[Lockbox]

Amazingly nobody ever goes back to the legislature to get the law change do they.

[Little Ray]

So, what are the chances the prosecution is going to offer a plea deal? “Plead guilty to illegal possession of a firearm and we’ll drop everything else.”
They are going to want something, and, if it goes to court, it just takes one rational juror to screw over the prosecution’s case.

[marktwain]

They are going to want something, and, if it goes to court, it just takes one rational juror to screw over the prosecution’s case.

My take is the prosectution is all about punishment by process.

They demanded a two million dollar bail;

They fought bail; they demanded more bail (denied);

they helped organize demonstrations against the judge (I cannot prove it);

They demanded to know Rittenhouse' current location, probably so they could pass the information to leftist activists, and in spite of numerous death threats.

I think they hope to get a hung jury or conviction on the possession charge;

There is a separate charge of providing the weapon to Kyle, by his friend, Dominic Black, that is a felony, but it depends on convicting Kyle of the misdemeanor weapons charge, so the charge against Kyle serves as a lever to coerce "cooperation" from Black.

I suspect that is how they got some cell phone video they attempted to use against Kyle in court.

If they can get a hung jury on any charge, they can then re-charge for another trial, costing Kyle even more in process punishment.

[sauropod]

Bkmk