Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[Yehuda57]

Second motion is "without".

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1460816537812668425

The heading is "with prejudice"

ETA: And this was filed before they had the conversation in court yesterday where the prosecution admitted they sent a different file and didn't have a reason or explanation

[zh cohen]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1460816537812668425

The heading is "with prejudice"

ETA: And this was filed before they had the conversation in court yesterday where the prosecution admitted they sent a different file and didn't have a reason or explanation

They made a verbal motion for mistrial without prejudice in court yesterday (as part of that discussion).

[CountValentine]

The defense asked that if the judge doesn't declare a mistrial with prejudice, he should at least declare a mistrial without prejudice.

In the second motion?

[avromie7]

They made a verbal motion for mistrial without prejudice in court yesterday (as part of that discussion).

It's basically a fall back, if the jury brings back a guilty verdict and they can't get a mistrial with prejudice they want a mistrial without prejudice. If you believe the prosecutors that it was not intentional, that wouldn't be grounds for a mistrial with prejudice but it would be grounds for a mistrial without prejudice.

[avromie7]

In the second motion?

I heard the defense yesterday clearly ask for a mistrial without prejudice.

ETA: The judge basically said he would consider it if the jury brings a guilty verdict.

[YitzyS]

I don't think Rittenhouse's testimony that Rosenbaum grabbed his gun necessarily implicates him. While the video seems to show that he shot first, he can still claim that he perceived it that way in the heat of the moments, and the jury can still weigh if it is a reasonable perception. Obviously, it's much less compelling, but it is still a potential argument.

[as2]

[tweet]1460816537812668425[/tweet]

The heading is "with prejudice"

ETA: And this was filed before they had the conversation in court yesterday where the prosecution admitted they sent a different file and didn't have a reason or explanation

This is what I posted on the first round. I haven't seen the second motion yet, I believe it was only verbally requested, but it will be formally filed soon.


Would recommend following this twitter account for (as far as I've seen) unbiased, no opinion, updates of the trial.

[CountValentine]

They made a verbal motion for mistrial without prejudice in court yesterday (as part of that discussion).

Now I get it. It court they asked "without" but the motion they filled contains both issues. The first was the issue "with".

[aygart]

Ok I am confused (for real). Didn't he say they couldn't pinch and zoom? Why didn't they object because they were never given the high resolution video?

That is what this motion filed within days is about. Give them a bit of time to figure it out. The prosecution didn't tell them they used a higher resolution video than was given they figured it out.

[Yehuda57]

They made a verbal motion for mistrial without prejudice in court yesterday (as part of that discussion).

They verbally said they will be filing a motion for mistrial (really, strengthening the original one). The verbal statement is not actually a motion for mistrial, but you need to say you are going to file the motion when you make your objection, or when the misconduct occurs, otherwise, if you just file for a mistrial after the verdict, the judge will think you are just making up stuff and likely will not grant it.

[avromie7]

What happens if the jury brings back a guilty verdict on some charges and not guilty on others and the judge declares a mistrial without prejudice? Does the state get to retry the not guilty charges?

[CountValentine]

They verbally said they will be filing a motion for mistrial (really, strengthening the original one).

Didn't on the first one it was asked on the spot for a mistrial?

[CountValentine]

Has anyone changed their mind at this point what the jury will decide?

[Yehuda57]

Didn't on the first one it was asked on the spot for a mistrial?

No, they object and say they believe it is grounds for a mistrial, but the motion was only filed a few days later. IINM, the prosecution also needs time to respond to the motion.

[CountValentine]

No, they object and say they believe it is grounds for a mistrial, but the motion was only filed a few days later. IINM, the prosecution also needs time to respond to the motion.

I don't think that is correct. IMHO if they pulled that first stunt again the judge would grant it on the spot.

[aygart]

What happens if the jury brings back a guilty verdict on some charges and not guilty on others and the judge declares a mistrial without prejudice? Does the state get to retry the not guilty charges?

Pretty sure not

[Yehuda57]

I don't think that is correct. IMHO if they pulled that first stunt again the judge would grant it on the spot.

Oh, I believe the judge *can* grant it immediately, but then again, can't he can also declare a mistrial without a motion or objection from the defense?

[CountValentine]

Can we all agree that this is now one big mess? 

[YitzyS]

Can we all agree that this is now one big mess? 

And now we know another reason why the jury is not allowed to watch the news...

[CountValentine]

And now we know another reason why the jury is not allowed to watch the news...

...but they do. I was on a one day deliberation jury and they talked about the case over lunch.