Posted on 11/17/2021 10:29:58 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
The jury in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse asked Judge Bruce Schroeder in the Kenosha County Court on Wednesday morning whether it should view video evidence in court or in private, prompting the judge to quip: “My nightmare has come true.”
The judge was referring to controversies over the video evidence presented by the prosecution during the trial, including whether zoomed-in images enhanced by artificial intelligence were admissible, and whether the prosecution withheld a higher resolution version of a video than the version that had been provided to the defense until the last day of the trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It may be the judge wants a jury verdict so that the Marxist BLM can’t claim that Kyle “got off” on a technicality.
The judge also may have thought there was enough evidence for a not guilty verdict and that the jury would easily come to that verdict.
The jurors should have been sequestered at the beginning of the trial. Now, they are being intimidated by these thugs outside the courthouse.
These threats are not protected by the first amendment and these thugs should have been dispersed immediately or arrested.
There’s more to consider than legal issues. The judge has had a long, good life. Kyle is just beginning.
The thing even the judge won’t address is that there’s a mob waiting to string him up. There are legal issues with that, but mostly life-or-death reality issues.
The judge will get harassed also. He’s wussing out. Reality issue.
All kinds of pressures point to people taking the path of least resistance. The jury, trying to abrogate their responsibility. The judge, not living up to his responsibility. The prosecution, giving in to their libtard beliefs, along with the media who are going out of their way to misrepresent this case. Biden, who tweeted wrongly about Kyle being a white supremacist. Even us Kyle supporters, who have better things to do than get out there and support him with a megaphone.
If only he had a way to defend himself and his family...
And end up in the same chair as Kyle? Yeah, no thnaks.
“No one knows where it came from....”
Then it is inadmissible. Evidence without foundation cannot be entered into the record.
Agree. There is a literal lynch mob waiting for Kyle and these jurors. Clearly, we live in a post Constitutional nation. Not a single arrest for threats of violence AFAIK.
this safeguard instruction is an anachronism.
***You have to be careful about identifying or labelling anachronisms. The MSM considers gun ownership an anachronism. Libtards consider fair trials to be one. Biden consider’s Kyle’s right to a fair trial to be one.
“The defense named the source in court today. it is known now.”
I had not heard that. Who or what is the source?
Not a single arrest for threats of violence AFAIK.
***The judge would be well within his authority to start issuing arrest warrants for those who are threatening violence against him, his family and against Kyle and his family and against Kenosha business owners.
Well, that’s the problem. The state pushed for it, and the defense did not object, and the judge allowed it. Crazy, huh?
Kyle is a hot potato
No one wants to touch him.
“Not introduced as evidence.”
But it became available early in the jury’s deliberations.
It makes no sense for the jury to be denied seeing it.
The remedy would not be mistrial. One remedy might be to interview each juror about what media they have seen an dismiss each one who did not follow instructions. You have the alternates to draw upon. The problem is that the entire sitting jury wants the high res video ' they are all infected.
Remember the Capone trials when the judge changed the juries?
These jurors are scared and looking for a way out. Wouldn’t you be?
We are a lawess land and one where the crime has to be committed before we will protect the innocent even if they are dead.
at this point everyone and his grandmother knows that the prosecution withheld video evidence upon which their case rests.
they would discuss this failure to provide potentially exculpatory evidence except that it could only be learned by going outside the courtroom, which is (iirc) not allowed.
thus it has become obvious to the jury that the deliberations are a joke. no jury member can explicitly describe the nature of the joke.
the judge is no doubt angered that the prosecution is to blame, but the judge is being made the pressure point.
the prosecution is happy because they think that they have hoisted the judge on his petard of pride. Certainly, the judge demonstrated his mastery of trial law rules in court, but (perhaps) so far, in the DA calculus, he is acting to save his own skin at the potential expense of KRs.
Maybe the judge is allowing more time for the supposed pro-KR majority in the jury to “wake up” the supposed anti-KR minority.
The point that the pro-KR majority could hammer onto the anti-KR minority would be whether or not the fuzzy drone video proves beyond reasonable doubt that KR pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Of course, it does not, and anyone who watches the tuesday evening media knows about the DA misconduct in regards to the video.
The minority strategy would be to provoke someone in the majority to mention the fuzzy drone video DA misconduct, and then send a complaint to the judge. If the judge received such as complaint, the judge would then be forced to kick the alleged pro KR juror(s) off the jury and appoint an alternate (*). Is this correct? The alternate(s) could delay the verdict deliberations and even shift the balance of power in the jury room.
(*) or the judge could declare a mistrial with prejudice at that point, in response to the defense motions for that.
Those are key questions. I’d like to know who in the “Trump” DOJ ordered that FBI drone to fly over Kenosha. My bet is the FBI were fantasizing about another Rodney King police brutality video. The timing would have been perfect for election season. That is most likely is why they were conducting these spy ops.
The judge could grant the mistrial with prejudice and cite the protesters outside intimidating the jury with threats using bullhorns. This, along with all the other indiscretions cited above.
It might not make sense to you or I, but in order for it to be considered by the jury it has to be properly introduced by one side or the other (which it was not), and the trial is past that phase. But I am no lawyer either. This is malfeasance on the part of the prosecution.
> Doesn’t that violate the evidence chain of custody laws?
maybe not if both sides waived chain of custody requirement in sidebar (can that be done?).
Ding...Ding...Ding..
We have a winner
I guess dismissing certain infected jurors is another option.
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.