-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
And, the prosecutor appears to be too stupid and belligerent to have a clue. Glad to see the Judge is ripping him.
Prosecutor looked like a little boy during that. Add another tally to the body count from this case.
Even if there was a conviction, going into impermissible 404(B) evidence, especially in the area of propensity like he was trying to "make a record" about could result in a reversal of the conviction, and maybe even a prohibition on the State trying him again if the court believed it was serious enough. The judge also chewed his ass out for commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence, which I did not see but apparently it happened earlier in the trial. That sort of comment, depending on context, could alone cause any conviction to be reversed and for it not to be able to be tried again. Either one of those two things are amateur mistakes that any prosecutor with the experience to try felony cases would certainly know and be aware of; to do it in a murder case is a pathetic, amateur mistake, and that's putting it GENEROUSLY.
Prosecutor wants Kyle to explain the difference between HP and FMJ rounds. Kyle was using FMJ. Prosecutor is saying FMJ rounds are designed to go through multiple targets and HP are for self defense, so if the firearm was for defense, why was he using FMJ. Judge is about to lay the smackdown again.
I do not understand the question you're asking me.
The firearm was loaded with the ammunition provided to me.
I have no knowledge of any affect on any type of bullet on anything shot with that bullet.
The firearm was loaded with the ammunition provided to me.
I have no knowledge of any affect on any type of bullet on anything shot with that bullet.
All sound like great points about terminal ballistics 1) if we were talking about pistols and 2) if he was an expert witness on the stand. He's neither.
If this country doesnt unfuck itself those two dead will be the new Horst Wessels.
Commies and Nazis being equal.
I came into the part of the judge freaking out on the prosecution. Can someone please explain what was going on?
I will be doing some research on rule 404B.
Edit: As I am understanding 404B, you can’t use evidence from another wrong doing to prove a character trait. So, basically, you can not attack the character of a person to try and convict them. I am assuming in this case, the prosecution is trying to pin Rittenhouse as a violent person, using the video footage of weeks prior to the shooting of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot people as they were leaning a grocery store.
Am I understanding this?
Goat
I will be doing some research on rule 404B.
Edit: As I am understanding 404B, you can’t use evidence from another wrong doing to prove a character trait. So, basically, you can not attack the character of a person to try and convict them. I am assuming in this case, the prosecution is trying to pin Rittenhouse as a violent person, using the video footage of weeks prior to the shooting of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot people as they were leaning a grocery store.
Am I understanding this?
Goat
Last edited:
"Absolute immunity provides legal protection to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executive officials for actions committed in their official duties without malice or corrupt motives. Absolute immunity protects these individuals from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits."
So in other words "absolute" is not "absolute". There are qualifiers, as there are in this case.
Just adjourned for lunch and Kyle's lawyers look disgusted. I don't know if because of the prosecutor's line of questioning or they're sorry for their decision to put Kyle on the stand.
I just got back to the trial about 2 minutes before the adjournment and the prosecutor isn't making any points with the jury with this style of questioning. A kid isn't a ballistic expert. He just pulls the trigger and it goes pew, pew.
If the prosecutor wasn't doing such a bad job, Kyle's attorney would be objecting to this style of questioning. The prosecutor is in fact leading the witness in every question being asked. I see the prosecutor being brought in front of the court for an official admonishment.
I just got back to the trial about 2 minutes before the adjournment and the prosecutor isn't making any points with the jury with this style of questioning. A kid isn't a ballistic expert. He just pulls the trigger and it goes pew, pew.
If the prosecutor wasn't doing such a bad job, Kyle's attorney would be objecting to this style of questioning. The prosecutor is in fact leading the witness in every question being asked. I see the prosecutor being brought in front of the court for an official admonishment.
I can't speak to the specifics, but bottom line the judge excluded certain evidence in the pre-trial hearing, and prosecution was questioning Kyle and trying to bring it up. Prosecution said they misunderstood his earlier ruling and thought it was okay. Judge basically said he wasn't buying it.
(b) Character of victim. Except as provided in s. 972.11 (2), evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
Wisconsin Legislature: 904.04(1)
Rule 404(b) generally allows crimes, wrongs, or other "bad" acts evidence to be used for limited purposes, generally "such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident."
To use ANY 404(b) evidence in a criminal case, the prosecutor needs to tell the defense he's going to do it and give an explanation of what the evidence is and which reason or reasons he believes he will be able to use it for a permitted purpose.
Rule 404(b)(1) specifically prohibits using it for what we call "propensity," for example, prosecution can't use your past murder conviction to show that you regularly shoot/kill people with malice aforethought, or your past DWI to show that you're a habitual drunk driver. Propensity to commit crime is never a permissible purpose. Because every lawyer knows this, they routinely try to spin propensity evidence into some category that gets them into a permissible purpose.
Judges see through that crap and more liberal judges won't allow 404(b) evidence at all, or will greatly limited even permitted uses of the evidence. A more conservative judge might give lawyers more ability to drag this stuff into the trial, but it's a good way to get reversed, so judges generally don't like 404(b) evidence unless it's closely connected to a permitted reason for using it (for example, the person regularly wears a certain type of clothing, which he's also wearing in the robbery while wearing a mask, so we should be able to show that the person regularly wears that type of cargo pants in an effort to show he is the person in the surveillance video).
Ultimately it's an act of connecting a permitted purpose (identifying the defendant) to the evidence (he regularly wears coyote brown cargo pants with that logo on the side).
I'm curious if the defense will go out to get a ballistics expert to testify. Prosecutor was feeding them bullshit and judge already had to correct prosecutor's "exploding bullet" comment.
Then why are laws such as malicious prosecution and abuse of process still on the books?
(b) Character of victim. Except as provided in s. 972.11 (2), evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
Wisconsin Legislature: 904.04(1)
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
It looks like their 404 is similar to the one I'm familiar with, with exceptions for sex and domestic violence cases that wouldn't be relevant to this case.
Probably to go after private plaintiffs who file frivolous civil lawsuits ("prosecution" and "criminal prosecution" are not the same thing even though we use them interchangeably). Prosecutorial immunity is absolute; prosecutors generally cannot be sued for the performance of their duties.
They are under an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a case that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, but that is a pretty high burden in that 1) it's not as if the prosecutor is going to investigate the case themselves, so if the police lied to them or acted in bad faith, they're not going to "know" the evidence is bogus and therefore may rely on their LE partners and 2) probable cause is an extremely low standard, so even if the evidence is weak, knowing it's so weak that it doesn't amount to probable cause and choosing to prosecute anyway is, well, rare.
It's rare because most know not to do that.
None the less if any person uses a public office to threaten, menace, harm, hurt, or any of that other stuff and does so with a specific vested interest or even criminal intent they CAN be arrested and CAN go to jail.
"Absolute" is not "Absolute".
That said if a drunk gets in a fight with a cop outside of a bar and gets his elbow scraped up while they are taking him to jail---he has no basis to sue.
On the other hand a friend of mine where we grew up together his dad was a (very) public official. A cop (that just moved from another city) was known to make a TON of harassing comments directed at my friend's dad and was extremely public about his hatred.
After that cop learned where my friends lived at, the son of said public official got over 140 tickets in just a matter of a few months from that ONE COP. It literally became a ritual. Going to and from school he got tickets both ways every single day.
There is not immunity for that kind of thing.
Never had a ticket one in his life until that specific cop moved into his town.
I think I know why the defense put Kyle on the stand. They knew what the line of questioning would be from the prosecutor and it would be interpreted as bullying Kyle (the young, baby faced kid) and the jury would take sympathy on Kyle.
It may be working.
It may be working.
Damn that Judge is pissed.
How much cash did Nick Sandman get off CNN and WP?
How much cash did Nick Sandman get off CNN and WP?
since the prosecutors are ignoring the judge's prior rulings (he is pissed) i wish teh judge would allow the criminal records of the scumbags to be presented.
My suspicion is that this case was only prosecuted for one reason, despite being obviously a self defense case:
A citizen with a gun stepped up and did something against all this leftist communist bullshit. Look what happened...Kenosha burned for two days before Kyle was there. When shit got real and people started getting shot, many of the protestors left and the National Guard was called out into the area. Whether anyone likes it or not, Kyle effectively ended the riots in Kenosha. One man with a rifle. That's a huge problem for the left. To prevent other citizens from seeing what Kyle did and stepping up, they have to conduct an all-out crucifixion attempt whether evidence supports it or not. Because for them the message has to be "You stand up to us, even if you are justified, and we'll make your life hell."
they don't want anyone interfering with their brown shirt riot teams.
Oh it absolutely scares the left - when curve balls (events beyond their control) are thrown. This, Jan 6th, etc. When someone or a group acts outside of their cocoon of the media, politics - etc. Only took one kid (who bought a sling that day) to rock their world.
Additionally, I think the Defense Lawyers are being slow to "Object" because they are letting the prosecution take more rope. Hope it works in the long run.
These two statements cannot both be true.
Either immunity is absolute or it isn't.
If the prosecutor is acting in good faith it is absolute. But step outside those lines and immunity no longer applies.
So the immunity is not absolute.
The courts can only decide the questions before them, they cannot conceive of every imaginable set of facts that could apply.
The cases that have made it to the Supreme Court have been some unbelievably outrageous violations of people's rights, like deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence in death penalty cases.
Absolute immunity is so absolute that there are all sorts of people who think it ought to be abolished or curtailed and it hasn't been.
The king can't be sued.
There is no requirement they act in good faith. The immunity is absolute.
You must be thinking of qualified immunity, which other public officials enjoy, and prosecutors have for functions they perform outside of their traditional prosecutorial function.
For actions exclusive to judging and prosecution, those two have absolute immunity.
"Absolute immunity provides legal protection to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executive officials for actions committed in their official duties without malice or corrupt motives. Absolute immunity protects these individuals from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits."
I'm not a lawyer, but the above text seems to suggest that if a judge, prosecutor, legislator, or executive official acts with malice and or corrupt motives, then they are not immune...
I'm not a lawyer, but the above text seems to suggest that if a judge, prosecutor, legislator, or executive official acts with malice and or corrupt motives, then they are not immune...
If they have immunity from prosecution - how would you ever get it to trial to prove they did act with malice or corrupt motives to begin with?
I think if you look up the definition its just a picture of Mike Nifong.
So why was Mike Nifong charged, convicted, disbarred and jailed? Did he waive absolute immunity?
Absolute immunity doesn't protect prosecutors from the professional conduct consequences of violating those rules, it protects them from tort suits for their traditional prosecutorial functions of charging and presenting the cases in court.
Prosecutors can and have been sued when they act in their law enforcement capacity (where they have only qualified immunity) and I'm sure in other contexts where neither immunity would apply (e.g., employment actions, car crashes involving state vehicles, etc.).
But for the traditional functions and decisions associated with prosecuting a case or judging, both are absolutely immune.
Maybe the better way of putting it is: where absolute immunity applies, it is absolute.
It was quite enjoyable to watch live. That dude knows better and his smug attitude with the judge is atrocious.
That is a downright lie and you are a liar for even suggesting such a thing.
Here is a definition of what you call 'absolute immunity':
""Absolute immunity provides legal protection to judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executive officials for actions committed in their official duties without malice or corrupt motives. Absolute immunity protects these individuals from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits."
There is NO SUCH THING as the type of 'absolute immunity' as you are defining it. It is nothing more than an utter lie to suggest otherwise.
Recorded conversations where the DA says that the only reason that charges were brought was because he owed Rittenhouse money and with Rittenhouse in jail, the DA wouldn't have to pay?
I don't know, just spit balling.
The above listed officials act as instruments of the will of the gov't. And, we have already established "the king cannot be sued." Moreover, so long as these officials are working in good faith toward the ends of the gov't- even if playing "hard ball" and manipulating every law and rule to get the win- they cannot be sued. Even if they take a case they know they will not win. Even if they hide evidence detrimental to their case. Even if the admonishments from the bench come fast and hard at every utterance from the prosecutor. The prosecutor is not acting with malice- he is just trying to win. And, he doesn't have corrupt motives- it is the will of the gov't that the case be tried. But, the law- as written- does leave a bit of room to prosecute the 'lone wolf" that goes off the gov't reservation. That is my reading, anyway. Whether it ever works in practice is another matter entirely.
It isn't what "I" call absolute immunity, it's what the doctrine is called. I didn't coin the term, and your decision to shoot the messenger doesn't change that.
I maintain my claim: absolute immunity is absolute. Even more absolute than you might think in some pretty outrageous cases.
And now the defense move for a miss trial with prejudice.
Similar threads
