Posted on 11/05/2021 5:24:04 AM PDT by Politically Correct
TRAIN WRECK: Rittenhouse Prosecution Implodes With State Witness Richard McGinnis of Daily Caller
This is NOT supposed to be how the direct examination of your own witnesses is done.
Posted by Andrew Branca Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 02:03pm 73 Comments
Share This StoryFacebookTwitterTelegramGabMeWeRedditEmail
I’ll cover all of this in greater detail in my end-of-day analysis but couldn’t resist getting this out to all of you promptly.
The direct questioning of STATE witness Richard McGinnis by ADA Binger was an absolute trainwreck for the prosecution–and, of course, the jury watched it all happen in real-time.
UPDATE: To provide some context, for more than 12 minutes ADA Binger tried to get McGinnis to testify that Rosenbaum was already falling to the ground when Rittenhouse began shooting him–in other words, that Rittenhouse simply executed Rosenbaum by shooting him in the back when he was helplessly falling.
The actual exchange is in the video, so you can watch it for yourself, but a reasonable paraphrase would go something like this:
Binger: So Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, in the back, as he was falling, correct?
McGinnis: No, Rittenhouse didn’t fire until Rosenbaum charged and lunged at him.
Binger: So he shot him as he was falling?
McGinnis: No, not falling, lunging.
Binger: So you’re saying he shot him while he was falling?
McGinnis: No, that’s not my testimony. Lunging.
This is NOT how it’s supposed to be done, folks.
Talk to you all again when we do our end-of-day analysis this evening.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
When his nightmare is over, hope we can crowd fund him through college and grad or law school.
it’s not prosecution, it’s persecution.
This is a kangaroo political trial which should not have made it past a preliminary hearing.
Thank goodness the judge seems to be following the law.
Rittenhouse obviously was in fear of his life and fired in self defense in all three cases.
I wathce the Richard McGinnis testimony. The guy was amazing. In fact, I had not seen pictures of the players in this courtroom drama and honestly thought the bearded guy asking him questions must be the defense attorney. It took me a while to convince myself that, questioning and answers notwithstanding, he actually IS the prosecution. It became clear as time passed with the direction his questions were “trying” to go but failing miserably.
There is a rule in courtroom law - never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer. He seemed to violate it with almost every question. Or - he’s doing it on purpose. I have a theory about the prosecution here:
Their job in this particular case is not to win. It is to make it clear to a large enough part of the BLM/ANTIFA/leftist part of the population that, when the case against Kyle loses handily (which is inevitable), this one does not rise to the level of their “righteous indignation” - and subsequent rioting. i.e. it takes the wind out of their sails.
Sometimes when you win, you lose*. And sometimes when you lose, you win.
*A classic example of this would be Pearl Harbor.
The best way to take the communist wind out of their sails is to do exactly what Kyle did. Dirt nap em.
McGinnis was one cool cat.
And here is Andrew’s excellent end-of-day analysis:
The prosecution is doing a fine job for the defense.
Humorously, during the recess the cameras were deflected off to the side, as is the usual practice when the court is in recess.
The judge’s microphone, however, was left live. As a result, we got to overhear Judge Schroeder make casual conversation with his clerk.
Part of that conversation went along the lines of, “Man, this seems to be taking forever. How long has he been on the stand? How long? How about, two weeks?”
This is the zimmerman trial all over. The prosecution in that one was just as bad. The actual problem in both is they have no case.
And Pearl Harbor II, on November 3-4, 2020.
Maybe he can prosecute the 1/6 fiasco next. Talk about coaching the witness to lie.
Prosecutor: “So your interpretation of his intent is just a guess right?”
Richie: “He yelled f***k you and reached for the gun”
pic.twitter.com/qqrnMIgIYf
Richie McGinnis was the prosecutors eyewitness who totally destroyed the prosecution’s case with that one-liner.
Interesting theory.
If the prosecution is obligated to bring the case to court (I’m not precisely sure where the obligation would come from, but perhaps simple political pressure is sufficient) and if the prosecution knows better than anyone what a losing case it is, then maybe they could be almost a shadow defense team and help broadcast to the community “This is not a case that you should riot over”.
But I wonder if that could be perceived as any sort of courtroom misbehavior? “Hey, you didn’t really try to convict that guy at all! What’s up with that?”
Here is the testimony. Scroll down for video.
Kyle's life has been hell and no one else would want to go through what he's already been through, even if he wins and is freed soon. So this whole process is a message to any future Kyle's to let the Dim rioters have the freedom to riot and destroy cities, so the end result is more chaos for us to have more government control over our lives.
This is a case of “the process is the punishment.”
I doubt there is any intention to quell the violent activists of the left - if anything this lawyer will come out after verdict and say it was an injustice.
If there is a next time the right properly uses force of violence in self defense, this prosecutor would charge them, too.
There is another message being sent by the prosecution: yeah we may lose this case but we sure F’d this kids life up didn’t we? We will do the same to you if anyone tries something like this again.
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.