Rittenhouse Trial

liberal media now attacking the judge

EzQok7vm.jpeg
 
I didn't see the defendant's direct examination but this cross makes me wonder if they went too far with his direct. He should have been called ONLY for the purpose of establishing the subjective element of his self defense claim and his lawyer should have sat down (and objected to anything as going beyond that scope).

He's submitted himself now to full cross examination, and when that happens, none of the other witnesses or evidence will matter now, the jury will only really care about how Rittenhouse presents, which looked good to me, but it's not up to me--it's absolutely up to them.
 
Maybe the better way of putting it is: where absolute immunity applies, it is absolute.

I maintain my claim: absolute immunity is absolute. Even more absolute than you might think in some pretty outrageous cases.

So now we have absolute immunity and "even more absolute" immunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka
The police do not have absolute immunity, they have qualified immunity.

Prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity, and the courts have repeatedly affirmed this, no matter how outrageous their conduct is.

What if they were appointed by Donald Trump? Would you believe that all crimes committed by the state are absolved if they are done by Republicans in an effort to stop socialists and communists from destroying America?
 
2 thoughts, only 1 serious.

First, I have never seen a judge admonish someone so badly. That was a pretty epic smackdown as courtrooms go.

Second, is it even possible to get a fair trial as an Illinois man in Wisconsin? (i kid, i kid....damn FIBS)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downzero
Have not been following this all that closely but I have to say I think that Judge going off on the prosecutor is certainly helpful to Kyle.

Litigation prof and all the guests always said jurys look to the judge for cues even when they don't understand the technicalities. Hence the often cited rule number 1 of the court room, Don't piss off the judge. When its this obvious the the Judge does not like the prosecutor it might be enough to hold a Juror back from agreeing with his side.
 
Jury
Have not been following this all that closely but I have to say I think that Judge going off on the prosecutor is certainly helpful to Kyle.

Litigation prof and all the guests always said jurys look to the judge for cues even when they don't understand the technicalities. Hence the often cited rule number 1 of the court room, Don't piss off the judge. When its this obvious the the Judge does not like the prosecutor it might be enough to hold a Juror back from agreeing with his side.
Jury was sent out before he admonished the prosecutor.
 
Have not been following this all that closely but I have to say I think that Judge going off on the prosecutor is certainly helpful to Kyle.

Litigation prof and all the guests always said jurys look to the judge for cues even when they don't understand the technicalities. Hence the often cited rule number 1 of the court room, Don't piss off the judge. When its this obvious the the Judge does not like the prosecutor it might be enough to hold a Juror back from agreeing with his side.
That's an interesting point. I have definitely been in front of some judges who clearly did not like the other attorney. I never really thought the jury would care though--often judges get irritated based on things attorneys do that have little to do with the case before them.
 
Looks to me that the judge thinks/believes Kyle is getting shafted by the government.
Looks like small town good ol boys running roughshod on this kid for doing what they failed to do. Kyle made them look bad and they are hell bent on making him pay for it.
The fact of the matter is, if the elected officials had kept this situation under control none of this would have ever come up.
 
That's an interesting point. I have definitely been in front of some judges who clearly did not like the other attorney. I never really thought the jury would care though--often judges get irritated based on things attorneys do that have little to do with the case before them.

My profs point as he explained it was that objections and technical legal rulings often go over the jurys heads but they will still look at the judge and lawyers reactions and come to a conclusion. Even if as you said it has nothing to do with the case. He also said to thank the judge after having an objection overruled so to appear you were happy with the outcome for the same reason. I can say having personally done so that both the other lawyer and judge are usually thrown off the first time you do it.

Ultimately his opinion was that jurys latch onto weird stuff sometimes and if they view one of the lawyers as a bully/idiot/incompetent based on how the judge treats them or they conduct themselves it can bias (even if its subconsciously) a jury against them which is never what you want. In my limited experience I don't feel its ever won/lost a case but then again you never know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BufordTJustice
My profs point as he explained it was that objections and technical legal rulings often go over the jurys heads but they will still look at the judge and lawyers reactions and come to a conclusion. Even if as you said it has nothing to do with the case. He also said to thank the judge after having an objection overruled so to appear you were happy with the outcome for the same reason. I can say having personally done so that both the other lawyer and judge are usually thrown off the first time you do it.

Ultimately his opinion was that jurys latch onto weird stuff sometimes and if they view one of the lawyers as a bully/idiot/incompetent based on how the judge treats them or they conduct themselves it can bias (even if its subconsciously) a jury against them which is never what you want. In my limited experience I don't feel its ever won/lost a case but then again you never know.
That's also an interesting point. I guess I'm modest enough to recognize that a judge always could rule against me and I try to pick my battles in areas where I really believe I ought to win, even if I know it could go either way. Being truthful enough to recognize that the ruling could go away with you and recognizing the court's authority to rule goes a long way in gaining the respect of the judge.
 
Arguing whether or not to admit a digitally zoomed image is admissable. Judge wants prosecution to prove that the digitally zoomed image is not fundamentally altered. Surprised something like this hasn't come up before.

The prosecutor didn't object earlier in the trial. The defense was again, smarter than the prosecutor. I doubt he can get something to prove it as admissible within the confines of this trial. Also, isn't he in a catch 22? The defense could then ask to find their own witness to prove their argument? Then what does the judge do if both teams have opposing witnesses on this matter?
 
That's also an interesting point. I guess I'm modest enough to recognize that a judge always could rule against me and I try to pick my battles in areas where I really believe I ought to win, even if I know it could go either way. Being truthful enough to recognize that the ruling could go away with you and recognizing the court's authority to rule goes a long way in gaining the respect of the judge.

I have never seen a prosecutor so "brazen" with the judge. He's just asking for trouble.
 
It is a mistake to view prosecutors as "politicians." The ADA assigned to this case is not a politician in any sense of the word and would have nothing to gain from a conviction. It's not like we're talking about the Enron people here. The only people who care about this case are the families of the deceased and gun rights activists like us. Nobody else cares.
You're a fucking moron and a liar. He, like all city prosecutors, is a fucking politician, and a radical leftist one who was being massively pressured to prosecute a clear case of self defense by the Democrat machine that runs Kenosha. Like Detroit, it was a blue collar manufacturing hub full of good, loyal, FDR, union Democrats. No longer.

You've just lost all credibility here. You don't live in our shared reality.
 
You're a fucking moron and a liar. He, like all city prosecutors, is a fucking politician, and a radical leftist one who was being massively pressured to prosecute a clear case of self defense by the Democrat machine that runs Kenosha. Like Detroit, it was a blue collar manufacturing hub full of good, loyal, FDR, union Democrats. No longer.

You've just lost all credibility here. You don't live in our shared reality.
The person prosecuting this case does not work as a "city prosecutor." I suggest you learn to load your brain before you shoot off at the mouth. Maybe if you're going to accuse someone of being a liar, you should consider getting your facts straight instead of going straight for the personal insults. I'm not a citizen of Wisconsin and never have been; I have no axe to grind with their government or influence on who the elected DA is there. All I know is the guy on the screen isn't the elected; he's a civil servant and bureaucrat.
 
The jurors must be thinking this prosecutor is an idiot. He's being beaten by an 18 year old kid.
Some days it's practicing law, but most of the days, it's just practicing facts. He doesn't have the facts in his favor and hasn't for the entirety of the trial. That kid is facing life in prison and still has more composure than the prosecutor when he interacts with the judge (who clearly can't stand him).