Kyle Rittenhouse - guilty or not guilty?

[Essen est zich]

Is anything in this article incorrect?

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse?r=wp3y4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=

[CountValentine]

Is anything in this article incorrect?

Besides being 100% slanted and omitting facts that don't support that slant?

[aygart]

The most important one is when did you have possession of the high resolution video?

Typically there are procedures to deal with evidence discovered mid-trial. It definitely is not to just present it as if it was the same thing provided to the defense and hope nobody notices.

It also seems that the video they provided to the defense was the same video that they used only in a lower resolution. That does not seem like it was a new discovery and the prosecutor did not make that argument either.

[aygart]

There's one point that you allude to but has to be spoken out clearly.

People see the claim of "the prosecutor has to share all testimony and he didn't so let's declare it a mistrial" as a technical loophole to have the case thrown out. But it's not. It's a fundamental issue.

If the defense is not equipped with all the testimony prior to the trial, and they don't fully understand what they are being accused of, they cannot possibly defend themselves properly. If the defense was not aware that they were charging him with provocation, they naturally won't bring witnesses to counter that claim. Meaning, that if someone is convicted of a crime when the evidence was not disclosed prior to the trial, they essentially were convicted without having a right to defend themselves.

I've seen this clearly with Rabbi Eisemann, where the judge altered the jury instructions after the defense rested their case, opening up the option of conviction on the very counts he was subsequently convicted of.

Provocation is not a charge it is an argument to void the self defense claim. They are not obligated to disclose how they will be using the evidence they provide, only to provide it.

[CountValentine]

Typically there are procedures to deal with evidence discovered mid-trial. It definitely is not to just present it as if it was the same thing provided to the defense and hope nobody notices.

It also seems that the video they provided to the defense was the same video that they used only in a lower resolution. That does not seem like it was a new discovery and the prosecutor did not make that argument either.

Is it correct they only used the video in closing arguments? So I think it is important to know when did they get this evidence. Is it also correct the defense had this video to use in there closing arguments?

ETA: Is the low resolution video the one they wanted to pinch and zoom but were denied?

[YitzyS]

Provocation is not a charge it is an argument to void the self defense claim. They are not obligated to disclose how they will be using the evidence they provide, only to provide it.

But if that argument stems from evidence that they defense was not aware existed, and therefore cannot prepare a defense against it, it strips them of their fundamental constitutional rights.

[zh cohen]

Is it correct they only used the video in closing arguments?

No. They used zoomed in frames from it earlier.

[Yehuda57]

Personally, I doubt KR takes the stand if they have the high res. There is pretty clear video of all the shooting, no need to risk that to make his case. The more I think, even without intent, this has to be a mistrial. The only question is with or without prejudice.

One of the lawyers on the Rekieta stream said, "this is why I'm against the death penalty. Imagine someone being killed after a case like this". I would add, this case is not half as bad as many other capital cases.

[CountValentine]

No. They used zoomed in frames from it earlier.

So why didn't the defense bring it up then they didn't have that video. It would have to be in evidence to use, no?

[CountValentine]

Personally, I doubt KR takes the stand if they have the high res. There is pretty clear video of all the shooting, no need to risk that to make his case. The more I think, even without intent, this has to be a mistrial. The only question is with or without prejudice.

The prosecution did a terrible job. If there is a retrial they need a new prosecutor and IMHO KR is in trouble.

[Yehuda57]

So why didn't the defense bring it up then they didn't have that video. It would have to be in evidence to use, no?

That's the whole point. They did object. Remember the whole "logarithms" thing that everyone was making fun of them for? Well, turns out the zoom was into a high res pic. If the zoom was into the low res pic that they knew of, it would be a complete blur, like you see in the zoom corner of the video above. So if the prosecution had any clarity at all in the photo, it would have to have been artificially produced.

[Yehuda57]

The prosecution did a terrible job. If there is a retrial they need a new prosecutor and IMHO KR is in trouble.

I think the defense also did a terrible job. I'm not familiar with how retrials work, and what can be used from the first trial. Like for example, if they call a witness who provides contradictory evidence than the first trial, can the jury be shown the lies? If KR pleads the 5th in the second trial, can they use his statements from the first trial when he waived his 5th rights?

[CountValentine]

That's the whole point. They did object. Remember the whole "logarithms" thing that everyone was making fun of them for? Well, turns out the zoom was into a high res pic. If the zoom was into the low res pic that they knew of, it would be a complete blur, like you see in the zoom corner of the video above. So if the prosecution had any clarity at all in the photo, it would have to have been artificially produced.

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?

[zh cohen]

So why didn't the defense bring it up then they didn't have that video. It would have to be in evidence to use, no?

They were told that the video in evidence which was used to make the zoomed in frames was the same as what they had.  They only realized that wasn't true when the prosecution tech guy didn't show up, so the defense offered to put up the video for them to show the judge. This was after evidence had closed.

[Dan]

I think the defense also did a terrible job. I'm not familiar with how retrials work, and what can be used from the first trial. Like for example, if they call a witness who provides contradictory evidence than the first trial, can the jury be shown the lies? If KR pleads the 5th in the second trial, can they use his statements from the first trial when he waived his 5th rights?

If it's dismissed with prejudice they can't try it again.

[zh cohen]

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?

Because they didn't know that anything higher than what they got existed.

[CountValentine]

I think the defense also did a terrible job. I'm not familiar with how retrials work, and what can be used from the first trial. Like for example, if they call a witness who provides contradictory evidence than the first trial, can the jury be shown the lies? If KR pleads the 5th in the second trial, can they use his statements from the first trial when he waived his 5th rights?

I am going guess if he doesn't testify nothing he said in the first trial can be used. If he does testify everything is fair game and he will be in big trouble.

[CountValentine]

If it's dismissed with prejudice they can't try it again.

Second motion is "without".

[Yehuda57]

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?

They didn't know the high res video existed. They thought the prosecution was going to pinch and zoom on the low res video, in which case you would see absolutely nothing. Obviously, the prosecution wasn't going to do that, and they must have had some sort of visible image that they were zooming in on. If that was the case, the zoom would have had to add to the image artificially n order for there to be anything to see. As it turns out, the zoom wasn't adding anything, it was just a different high res image.

[zh cohen]

If it's dismissed with prejudice they can't try it again.

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