• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

Wisconsin vs. Kyle Rittenhouse for murder in Kenosha *NOT GUILTY*

lawandcrime.com

Defense Says Kyle Rittenhouse Was Attacked 'in the Street Like an Animal'

During opening statements on Tuesday, a defense attorney for Kenosha, Wis. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse characterized the teen who killed two people and injured a third during civil unrest in the summer of 2020 as someone who pulled the trigger only after others attacked him "in the street like an...
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com



201001-kyle-rittenhouse-jm-0936.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Tresir said:
MSNBC. Throw the book at them.

edition.cnn.com

Kyle Rittenhouse jury concludes third day of deliberations without verdict | CNN

The jury in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial concluded its third day of deliberations Thursday without a verdict in a day that featured the judge's decision to ban MSNBC from the courtroom for allegedly following a jury bus.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com
Click to expand...
Like or hate the judge, if they are trying to get to jurors, it is deserved. Imo this should be chargeable with jail time. It's right up there with stalking as you know they are not worried about juror's privacy or safety but just the opposite. They are or would ENDANGER them.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Like or hate the judge, if they are trying to get to jurors, it is deserved. Imo this should be chargeable with jail time. It's right up there with stalking as you know they are not worried about juror's privacy or safety but just the opposite. They are or would ENDANGER them.
Click to expand...
exactly. There was NO good reason to do that and he should be called out for it at the least.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Like or hate the judge, if they are trying to get to jurors, it is deserved. Imo this should be chargeable with jail time. It's right up there with stalking as you know they are not worried about juror's privacy or safety but just the opposite. They are or would ENDANGER them.
Click to expand...
so he "never intended to contact jurors or photograph jurors", then why was he instructed to follow them for exactly???
 
Guess Who said:
They were doing similar on my local case. It was downright creepy! There were no jurors since it has never went to trial, but they were definitely stalking people.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't like it but I can understand it to a point of trying to catch someone unaware to get a few words or an interview. Like Nate Eaton did to Chad and Lori in Hawaii or Tyson did to Barry Morphew and even to try to get words from friends or others. But stalking or watching or laying in wait is creepy rather than just call or knock on their door... If they say no, they say no.

Jurors though in the hot sided cases, no one will ever want to sit on such a jury and many already don't out of fear.

I don't know but MSM is going too far imo.
 
Guess Who said:
so he "never intended to contact jurors or photograph jurors", then why was he instructed to follow them for exactly???
Click to expand...
Who knows with this craziness, he was supposed to probably just ensure they weren't getting paid off and meeting someone for a sack of cash lol or see where they live and then the higher ups were going to "bug" the house... I am just being halfway sarcastic in that it seems there isn't anything they won't do (media)...

But actually I agree with you, you are told to follow them but for no reason??? Really??? Makes no sense.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Why didn't they enhance it themselves? I think there was a similar complaint/statement in Morphew. It was something they couldn't open or some file format of something and well, I think the prosecution said they tried to help them or tell them how more than once and it is not their job to do so, get or hire your own people to do it...

I don't know the rules on such though, just saying handing over discovery is one thing but what the other side chooses to do with it or how much time to put into it is another... What are the rules on this? I have no idea. All I know is all consideration seems to be given to defendants and any little thing seems to be appealed... Or there is a motion to dismiss of course...
Click to expand...
It was a different format that apparently did not transfer properly from iPhone format to Android. They were also late handing it over apparently.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I wouldn't like it but I can understand it to a point of trying to catch someone unaware to get a few words or an interview. Like Nate Eaton did to Chad and Lori in Hawaii or Tyson did to Barry Morphew and even to try to get words from friends or others. But stalking or watching or laying in wait is creepy rather than just call or knock on their door... If they say no, they say no.

Jurors though in the hot sided cases, no one will ever want to sit on such a jury and many already don't out of fear.

I don't know but MSM is going too far imo.
Click to expand...
I think that was a little different. I am not even sure they (Vallow and Morphew) had been charged with anything at that point, so fair game there. But intimidating a jury is against the law I think so deffo going to far.
 
Tresir said:
It was a different format that apparently did not transfer properly from iPhone format to Android. They were also late handing it over apparently.
Click to expand...
In Morphew? Yeah.

I don't know what I think. There are no Perry Mason moments these days as both sides are supposed to provide almost all to the other side and I do agree that if there is evidence withheld or a good possibility of another suspect not pursued, etc., then that should be done and not withheld, after all it should be about justice and the right outcome. These gray areas though or the few areas that one side can try to have a strategy or has to do the work for the other side they had to do first, I'm not so sure I agree and am not so sure what the rules are.

Late is one thing (not uncommon for either side at times in cases from what I have seen) but it was handed over. The format is their problem. Should the prosecution have to do the other side's job because they use a different format?

Just not sure what I think of that one or of this drone thing in this case...

Should the defense know it existed (the enhanced drone thing) or was going to be allowed to be used in court? Maybe... I don't know. What are your thoughts on this?
 
GrandmaBear said:
In Morphew? Yeah.

I don't know what I think. There are no Perry Mason moments these days as both sides are supposed to provide almost all to the other side and I do agree that if there is evidence withheld or a good possibility of another suspect not pursued, etc., then that should be done and not withheld, after all it should be about justice and the right outcome. These gray areas though or the few areas that one side can try to have a strategy or has to do the work for the other side they had to do first, I'm not so sure I agree and am not so sure what the rules are.

Late is one thing (not uncommon for either side at times in cases from what I have seen) but it was handed over. The format is their problem. Should the prosecution have to do the other side's job because they use a different format?

Just not sure what I think of that one or of this drone thing in this case...

Should the defense know it existed (the enhanced drone thing) or was going to be allowed to be used in court? Maybe... I don't know. What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
I am not too familiar with the format issue in Morphew but, sorry, I was referring to this (Rittenhouse) case. The Rittenhouse defence did not even know they had a different copy to the prosecution until it was being discussed in the court. Anyway, we will know soon I guess. Can they bring different verdicts for each person shot? Eg. Not guilty for the homicide of Huber (who attacked him with a skateboard ) but guilty for the other two or could self defence continue for all three incidents?
 
GrandmaBear said:
Like or hate the judge, if they are trying to get to jurors, it is deserved. Imo this should be chargeable with jail time. It's right up there with stalking as you know they are not worried about juror's privacy or safety but just the opposite. They are or would ENDANGER them.
Click to expand...

Jail time should definitely be issued here. I'd say a year. That might make people think twice.
 
Tresir said:
I am not too familiar with the format issue in Morphew but, sorry, I was referring to this (Rittenhouse) case. The Rittenhouse defence did not even know they had a different copy to the prosecution until it was being discussed in the court. Anyway, we will know soon I guess. Can they bring different verdicts for each person shot? Eg. Not guilty for the homicide of Huber (who attacked him with a skateboard ) but guilty for the other two or could self defence continue for all three incidents?
Click to expand...
It's me too, I'll be the first to admit I am not familiar with Rittenhouse, the case except the basics, and never followed it. I followed Arbery all along but have not been able to watch either trial to speak of right now and would watch Arbery since I know the case but just haven't had the time to commit but I do read here on both to get a gist.

On this one, since I am not up on it from having watched the case since it happened, I try not to comment unless about media, jurors or something more general like that as I don't know the facts of the particular crimes or the case itself well.

I don't know as far as different verdicts, they can bring different verdicts I think for each defendant I think and find guilty on one charge and not on another. How do they do it with more than one victim? I'd like to know as well. I would think they would each be separate counts/charges?

Sorry I thought you were talking Morphew on the format of something in discovery. I do know they couldn't access something or the files on a flash drive or DVD or something so a similar issue to the one here. I just mean in any case with such an issue then, it is the other side's problem if different offices use different programs, software, ways, etc.? Like I Phone as you say in this case to Android. I don't think that should be any bid deal or a reason for mistrial, etc. It's like a small office using a physical fax machine where another faxes over the cloud or by computer...

I guess I would say maybe (not sure) the other side should have known they were going to use enhanced drone footage and that they had such? Is that what happened? But if it was due to their own equipment or staff, etc. looking at the footage on their own devices and it was not as clear as it was but identical files shared, that's their problem. Imo. Again, I don't know the details...

I also don't feel like I explained well... Quite the case clearly and now MSNBC barred, I wish I had followed it.
 
Tresir said:
I think that was a little different. I am not even sure they (Vallow and Morphew) had been charged with anything at that point, so fair game there. But intimidating a jury is against the law I think so deffo going to far.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. That's exactly what I meant but you put it far better. It is typical of say reporters to do that and understandable to a point before charges or talking to friends or employers or witnesses even, but interfering with a trial and jurors and the outcome is a very big deal and goes way too far. Seriously wrong.

However, if one was being hounded even before charges or as family, etc. (look at the Laundries if you followed Petito), I am sure it seems overly invasive and unfair when one is on that side of it.
 
daisy7 said:
www.chicagotribune.com

The Kyle Rittenhouse jury ends its third day of deliberations without a verdict

As jury deliberations dragged into a third full day, Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards came into the courtroom for a change of scenery. He has spent much of his time since closing arguments on a different floor of the stately…
www.chicagotribune.com www.chicagotribune.com
Click to expand...
I suppose they have a lot to go over but generally that means they likely are not in agreement or it is certainly not a slam dunk... Will we have a Friday verdict I wonder...

I know the jurors in Arbery or not but unsure in Rittenhouse--are the jurors sequestered?
 
I was listening to a podcast about this trial last night and from what I gathered with the limited amount that I listened, I think this is going to be a mistrial. The people on the podcast seemed to think it was going to be a not guilty verdict and didn’t even consider the possibility of a mistrial, which kind of surprised me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Forum statistics

Threads
3,279
Messages
297,760
Members
1,104
Latest member
G.R.A.
Back
Top Bottom