My concern is that this is a Rorschach test for the jury.
Shown the blur and if you harbored a conclusion before the trial and already made up your mind, you’d take the blur of nothing and hang your hat on it.
“See! That blur shows he pointed a gun and was the aggressor. If they defended themselves after that well it’s still on Kyle for showing up with a high caliber gun to a mostly peaceful protest!”
You don’t want the jury to get that instruction.
The evidence is a blur. Prosecutors lied already and will lie about it more in the closing.
Any jail time for Kyle is likely a death sentence.
The totality of prosecution evidence is supposed to be evaluated agianst “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
Blobs should figure into the calculus. It’s just a blob sitting there, could be anything. That the prosecutor calims it is one thing is not evidence - it is the prosecutor advocating for the outcome he wants.
I agree with others who have commented that the decision will be a poliical one couched in law and fake law. I sepculate at least one juror will favor the fake law that says Kyle should have stayed home, so everything that follows is on him, and self-defense is not a defense. Liberals are immune to logic and persausion.
I also speculate 9 of the jurors “get it,” and the one or two undecides will pretty quickly “get it” too - even though the prosecution has done its best to conflate and confuse things as it mangles the law. Will that one liberal eventually capitulate? Who knows.
As I said, all pure speculation. I’ve been on three criminal juries. Highly variable conduct in deliberation. Much depends on which of them is chosen leader.
I agree with you. People who believe that the riots were “mostly peaceful protests”, are not going to believe that Kyle is innocent.