Kyle Rittenhouse trial & updates [Verdict: NOT GUILTY]

[Dr.3D]

Yes, it was. But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.

There are thumb drives. There is DropBox. There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.

This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case. The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated. These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum. There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.

I agree!

And it did change the aspect ratio. That wouldn't happen in a normal compression to a lower resolution.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Yes, it was. But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.

There are thumb drives. There is DropBox. There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.

This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case. The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated. These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum. There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.

He sent it from his Gmail, Kraus said, I know that Gmail allows file sizes of 20MB, I am not aware that they compress video's sent. When you send it from your phone, it can ask I guess if it needs to attach a smaller version. However, if you are forwarding an email, as I believe Kraus claimed to have done, it only asks you if you want to maintain the attachments according to my experience. So either way it seems he is telling a different truth. Or of course, his iPhone works different than mine.

[A Son of Liberty]

I agree!

And it did change the aspect ratio. That wouldn't happen in a normal compression to a lower resolution.

He sent it from his Gmail, Kraus said, I know that Gmail allows file sizes of 20MB, I am not aware that they compress video's sent. When you send it from your phone, it can ask I guess if it needs to attach a smaller version. However, if you are forwarding an email, as I believe Kraus claimed to have done, it only asks you if you want to maintain the attachments according to my experience. So either way it seems he is telling a different truth. Or of course, his iPhone works different than mine.

Concur with both of you.

The bottom line is that the prosecution has CLEARLY engaged in willful misconduct, and it should be an OUTRAGE to all right thinking people.

Let this be an eye-opener to all the "thin blue line" conservatives out there: this is your justice system. This is how it "works". State's attorneys DO NOT GIVE A $#@! about whether you are innocent or are guilty. They care about their stats, and their careers. They will ruin your life over a 2% pay increase, and won't lose a minute's sleep over you.

THIS IS THE STATE. You're waving flags on behalf of sociopaths.

[69360]

Concur with both of you.

The bottom line is that the prosecution has CLEARLY engaged in willful misconduct, and it should be an OUTRAGE to all right thinking people.

Let this be an eye-opener to all the "thin blue line" conservatives out there: this is your justice system. This is how it "works". State's attorneys DO NOT GIVE A $#@! about whether you are innocent or are guilty. They care about their stats, and their careers. They will ruin your life over a 2% pay increase, and won't lose a minute's sleep over you.

THIS IS THE STATE. You're waving flags on behalf of sociopaths.

The country is $#@!ed. It's over. Most of us know that. I still vote mostly for republicans because they are marginally better. But I have no illusions that they can save us.

[A Son of Liberty]

Particularly of note is Viva's addendum to the full video at the end, where he discusses the prosecution's apparent knowledge of "jump kick man".

Just further evidence of the muck, rot and malfeasance that you can expect to encounter in our so-called "judicial system".

[A Son of Liberty]

The country is $#@!ed. It's over. Most of us know that. I still vote mostly for republicans because they are marginally better. But I have no illusions that they can save us.

Yes, it is over, but they are not done with you yet. Our mere existence is a threat to them. And by "our" I mean only those who even incrementally disagree with them. They're infected with a mind disease, and their only impetus is to destroy everything that disagrees with them.

[phill4paul]

Defense asking for a mistrial without prejudice? What the holy hell??

https://gellerreport.com/2021/11/def...rejudice.html/

[Brian4Liberty]

Could it be the video was compressed to a lower resolution to be sent as an email?

That's what I initially thought. Doesn't explain the 20 minute difference in creation date. Doesn't explain any different titles.

Yes, it was. But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.

There are thumb drives. There is DropBox. There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.

This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case. The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated. These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum. There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.

Transmitting images and video via email or texting is always problematic. You pretty much always lose resolution. The correct evidence was not given to the defense, and it was done at the last minute. Grounds for mistrial with prejudice.

Whether it was intentional by the prosecution will remain an open question...but the basic fact remains.

[Brian4Liberty]

Defense asking for a mistrial without prejudice? What the holy hell??

https://gellerreport.com/2021/11/def...rejudice.html/

Doesn’t seem like a good idea. I’d imagine he went with that because he is honest, and did not have evidence that the prosecution intentionally changed the video.

The prosecution has no such qualms. They are scum.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Doesn’t seem like a good idea. I’d imagine he went with that because he is honest, and did not have evidence that the prosecution intentionally changed the video.

The prosecution has no such qualms. They are scum.

They should have someone informing them about the discussions online and they would be able to quickly react to things said by the prosecution.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Defense asking for a mistrial without prejudice? What the holy hell??

https://gellerreport.com/2021/11/def...rejudice.html/

Maybe they want to get paid twice for the same case.

[Dr.3D]

Maybe they want to get paid twice for the same case.

Practice makes perfect.

[Invisible Man]

What are the rules that govern when a dismissal is with prejudice versus without?

It would be a travesty of justice to make Rittenhouse go through this all again to prove his innocence, and especially so if there's some chance that the prosecutors next time around stand a decent chance of doing a better job than they did this time.

[Dr.3D]

What are the rules that govern when a dismissal is with prejudice versus without?

It would be a travesty of justice to make Rittenhouse go through this all again to prove his innocence, and especially so if there's some chance that the prosecutors next time around stand a decent chance of doing a better job than they did this time.

If without prejudice the prosecution pretty much wins anyway. Usually people don't have enough money to fight again.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Yes, it was. But that's not a legitimate excuse for providing the defense with a lower quality video than the prosecution was in possession.

There are thumb drives. There is DropBox. There are a multitude of ways to provide the same quality video.

This merely continues the prosecution's clear misconduct in this case. The judge should declare a mistrial with prejudice, not because it would be good for Kyle, but because it would indicate to prosecutors everywhere that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated. These DA's should be disbarred, at a minimum. There was a time in this country when their fate would have justifiably been quite worse.

It would be like making copies of photo's that were clear and giving blurry ones to the defense.

[Invisible Man]

If without prejudice the prosecution pretty much wins anyway. Usually people don't have enough money to fight again.

In this case, I would expect Rittenhouse to be able to raise the funds needed. That may be what his lawyers are counting on, as was mentioned above.

But I was asking more about what criteria does a case have to meet in order to be dismissed with prejudice, as opposed to without?

[69360]

With predjudice means that charges can be refiled, not necessarily will be.

[Occam's Banana]

With predjudice means that charges can be refiled, not necessarily will be.

That is incorrect. "Without prejudice" means that charges can be refiled. "With prejudice" means they cannot.

(Though if I understand correctly, a dismissal "with prejudice" can be appealed by the prosecution if it occurs after a verdict adverse to the defendant is delivered by the jury.)

[dannno]

FYI the Judge is holding the decision based on whether the jury reaches any guilty verdicts.. if the jury comes back with an acquittal, then they won't need to address the mistrial.

[TheTexan]

FYI the Judge is holding the decision based on whether the jury reaches any guilty verdicts.. if the jury comes back with an acquittal, then they won't need to address the mistrial.

That is risky. The judge would not be able to declare a mistrial after the verdict is read.

There is obvious and repeated prosecutor's misconduct. Mistrial with prejudice is the only reasonable outcome. There is no reason to wait.

[Occam's Banana]

FYI the Judge is holding the decision based on whether the jury reaches any guilty verdicts.. if the jury comes back with an acquittal, then they won't need to address the mistrial.

The judge is clearly hoping that the issue will be mooted by an acquittal. But if the jury convicts, then even a dismissal/mistrial "with prejudice" can be appealed by the state. (If the judge declares a mistrial "with prejudice" before the jury arrives at a verdict, then it would be over.)

Any verdicts one way or the other won't change the basis for any dismissal/mistrial, so there's no essential reason for putting off the decision until after those verdicts are delivered - except that doing so will allow the judge to "pass the buck" to the appellate court (or prosecutor, in the case of dismissal/mistrial "without prejudice"). Any "guilty" verdicts that are not dismissed/mistrialed can be appealed by the defense, as per usual, and any "guilty" verdicts that are dismissed/mistrialed can be appealed (if "with prejudice") or retried (if "without prejudice").

This is why it is almost certain that the judge won't be declaring a dismissal/mistrial "with prejudice" before the jury delivers its verdicts. By declining to do so, he is essentially tossing the hot potato to someone else, no matter how else things go.

[RJB]

Maybe they want to get paid twice for the same case.

Absolutely. Most defendants don't have the almost unlimited donation base that Rittenhouse has.

[Anti Federalist]

Absolutely. Most defendants don't have the almost unlimited donation base that Rittenhouse has.

To a certain degree...remember, Rittenhouse fund raisers were kicked off most of the major Marxist sites like GoFundMe and so on.

[RJB]

To a certain degree...remember, Rittenhouse fund raisers were kicked off most of the major Marxist sites like GoFundMe and so on.

People will find a way to get it to Rittenhouse. The lawyers will count on that.

I know someone who had an open and shut self defense case but was charged with murder. The lawyer was charging $24,000 if it went to a full trial and $12,000 if it was thrown out with the grand jury. Everyone was sure it would get thrown out. My grandfather said to pay the lawyer $24,000 whether it was thrown out or went to court. The guy didn't and it went to the full trial and he was easily aquitted, but it was hell for my friend. My grandfather knew what he ws talking about.

[Occam's Banana]

The judge would not be able to declare a mistrial after the verdict is read.

Actually, he can. He has already taken the defense's motion for mistrial under advisement, but he hasn't ruled on it yet.

He can still grant that motion even after the jury arrives at any "guilty" verdict(s).

He's almost certainly hoping the jury acquits and moots the issue, so he won't have to make that decision.

If there are any "guilty" verdicts, though, then he will have to rule on the motion.

And if comes to that, I doubt he will grant it - at least not "with prejudice" (which would be appealable anyway, because it would come after the verdicts).

So I expect he would either deny it or grant it "without prejudice." (Hopefully the latter, since overturning convictions on appeal is a stone bitch.)

[Invisible Man]

With predjudice means that charges can be refiled, not necessarily will be.

That is incorrect. "Without prejudice" means that charges can be refiled. "With prejudice" means they cannot.

(Though if I understand correctly, a dismissal "with prejudice" can be appealed by the prosecution if it occurs after a verdict adverse to the defendant is delivered by the jury.)

I get the difference.

But what criteria need to be met in order to get a with prejudice dismissal versus a without prejudice dismissal?

As in, why would lawyers feel like they need to settle for the latter, unless it's because it's less likely that the former would be granted?

[Occam's Banana]

I get the difference.

I know. I was just correcting 69360's misstatement.

But what criteria need to be met in order to get a with prejudice dismissal versus a without prejudice dismissal?

If I understand correctly, dismissals/mistrials "with prejudice" are not appealable.

If that is correct, then it must be that at least some part of the criteria amounts to judicial prerogative.

IOW: To at least some extent, something like, "the criteria are whatever the judge says they are."

As in, why would feel like they need to settle for the latter, unless it's because it's less likely that the former would be granted?

For just that reason: it's less likely that a "with prejudice" dismissal/mistrial would be granted.

I expect that judges who are loose or generous when it comes to granting "with prejudice" dismissals/mistrials don't have promising prospects when it comes to career advancement (or even keeping their jobs).

[TheTexan]

Actually, he can. He has already taken the defense's motion for mistrial under advisement, but he hasn't ruled on it yet.

He can still grant that motion even after the jury arrives at any "guilty" verdict(s).

He's almost certainly hoping the jury acquits and moots the issue, so he won't have to make that decision.

If there are any "guilty" verdicts, though, then he will have to rule on the motion.

And if comes to that, I doubt he will grant it - at least not "with prejudice" (which would be appealable anyway, because it would come after the verdicts).

So I expect he would either deny it or grant it "without prejudice." (Hopefully the latter, since overturning convictions on appeal is a stone bitch.)

A mistrial after verdict would be an exceptional outcome. Exceptional in the "this basically never happens" sense.

If it is indeed true that he "can" do it, it can be equally sure that he won't.

If this judge won't dismiss with prejudice, he sure as $#@! ain't gonna overrule a verdict after its done.

In this case, for this judge, there's not much difference between "cant" and "wont". It simply isn't going to happen.

[navy-vet]

True

[RJB]

A mistrial after verdict would be an exceptional outcome. Exceptional in the "this basically never happens" sense.

If it is indeed true that he "can" do it, it can be equally sure that he won't.

If this judge won't dismiss with prejudice, he sure as $#@! ain't gonna overrule a verdict after its done.

In this case, for this judge, there's not much difference between "cant" and "wont". It simply isn't going to happen.

Yep. If he doesn't have the balls to do it now for fear of the street mobs, he certainly won't do it after a verdict. That'll quite literally start a riot.