There is quite a bit of precedent out there regarding self defense. Obviously, Kyle’s actions were self defense that night, but I think there will be some curve balls thrown. The defense will argue that Kyle was faced with several violent assaults and responded in a way that any reasonable person would have responded. That part is pretty cut and dry. The use of force expert will back up the reasonableness of Kyle’s actions. The videos will show that the police did not feel any threat from Kyle or the group he was with that night, and likely show that the rioters were their main concern. These are all good things. Now, the prosecutor will try to force a different angle on the jury. The big thing that will be raised over and over is that Kyle didn‘t have to be there that night. This was not Kyle’s neighborhood. They will say Kyle was looking for trouble. If they get the jury to bite on that angle, they will point out that self defense stops being self defense if you had reasonable knowledge that there would be trouble where you were going. They will say that Kyle should have known that there was a likelihood of something violent taking place that night, and with this knowledge he had an opportunity to not go. This is all going to hinge on how receptive the jury is to either side. In my many, many times in the courtroom, I have learned one thing, and that is the fact that juries are unpredictable. I have seen juries get hung up on the most minor detail, and I have also seen them acquit when there is overwhelming evidence. I think jury selection in this case will likely be the most important part of the trial unless someone one one side is sitting on a bombshell that will completely rock the other side.
abc7chicago.com
