Posted on 11/10/2021 9:44:52 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Judge Bruce Schroeder of the Kenosha County Court accused prosecutors of a “grave constitutional violation” in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Wednesday morning after they tried to comment on his earlier reactions to testimony in the case.
Rittenhouse stunned observers by taking the witness stand in his own defense, something that defendants rarely do in such trials. He recalled the events of Aug. 25 last year, when he fired on members of a mob attacking him during a Black Lives Matter riot. As he began to describe the events leading to the shootings, he broke down, and the trial took a brief recess.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I guess one witness, yesterday, pointed out the prosecution tried to get him to alter his police statement towards their favor.
12 jurors, one judge, half a chance, as the saying goes.
13-1/2
But it’s meant for a defendant who knows he’s guilty, not a man innocent of the charges, as in this case.
The judge needs to step in and put a stop to this. Dismiss the charges with prejudice. He does not need to wait for a jury to rule.
Wouldn't that be suborning perjury?
I’ll bet a significant percentage of leftists believe that the guys that were shot were actually black. Anything else would cause them to challenge their basic assumptions, which is not something they’re willing to do.
True, but having done more than a few jury trials in my time, there are some things that are timelessly true. First, a jury always begins by viewing both counsel in the case with suspicion, and your job is to win them over. Conversely, a jury always holds the judge in very high regard. They usually see the judge as an impartial administrator of the law, and look to him or her for signals on how they should interpret what is going on. When a judge admonishes counsel in front of a jury the way that is happening here, it typically has a very adverse impact on that counsel's credibility and on his case.
All that said, I went to a very interesting seminar once sponsored by the local bar association. They found a civil case -- a hit from behind with neck injuries car accident -- which had settled on the eve of trial and brought the attorneys, the parties, the witnesses, and experts in to try the case on a Saturday in the courtroom where the real trial had been scheduled, and before the judge originally assigned to the case. They used a volunteer jury pool drawn from the community, only for this purpose they empaneled four separate juries. The four juries heard the entire case from start to finish, just as it would have been tried had it not settled. At the end the juries retired separately, and after some deliberation, returned with four different verdicts. One found for the defendant, another awarded the plaintiff a huge amount, another awarded token damages to the plaintiff, and another came back with a modest award for the plaintiff. You might conclude that it's all in picking a jury, and there is a great deal of truth in that. For instance, the jury that came back for the defendant was composed mostly of young women, and the defendant was a handsome young man who presented well.
I hope you’re right about Kyle but I’m holding my breath. It’s up to the jury. I was stationed at Ft. Bliss when the entire nation was watching the OJ verdict. I was in the S2 shop with several other Soldiers watching TV when verdict was read. WOW!
After that I’m always expecting a jury to do the same thing. And I’ll have to hand it to OJ’s defense team. They were brilliant and played the jury while the prosecution were near idiots.
In this case that is reversed BUT I still doubt the sensibility of the jury.
I just watched the video of Kyle breaking down on the stand and I’m weeping for the brave brave young man and his mother.
Never underestimate the power of jury nullification.
Which is reason #1 why Rittenhouse never should have been allowed to testify.
Reasonable doubt has already been well established.
“Which is reason #1 why Rittenhouse never should have been allowed to testify.”
Not tricked so far. Judge has stated he is seriously listening to defense statement considering entering motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Here it is: 6 Most Realistic Courtroom Dramas According To Lawyers
https://www.simplemost.com/most-realistic-courtroom-dramas-according-to-lawyers/
Here it is: 6 Most Realistic Courtroom Dramas According To Lawyers
https://www.simplemost.com/most-realistic-courtroom-dramas-according-to-lawyers/
“””When a judge admonishes counsel in front of a jury the way that is happening here””””
The jury was not present when the judge gave the prosecutor an ass kicking.
What's your point?
“Wouldn’t that be suborning perjury?”
No perjury occurred.
I don’t know if it’s true, but I’ve heard that the Judge has the power to make a ruling different from the jury’s. If he thinks the Prosecution’s case was nefarious, and believes what’s true, then even if the jury comes back guilty, the Judge can override that.
I just watched that exchange.
The prosecution was dancing around on the issue. IMO, trying to cover their asses to your point.
They asked him to ADD to his police report. Which is altering.
Explain how Rittenhouse breaking down sobbing on the witness stand is good for his defense.
Is he more or less likely to make an incriminating statement in that state of mind?
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.