Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[andersweinstein]

Any ruling yet on first name usage v surname usage?

Yes:

Schroeder sided with Binger on the state's attorney's motion to prevent the defense from referring to Rittenhouse by his first name, saying anyone of age will only be referred to via honorifics and last names.

I don't know the defendant's birthday, but it is widely reported that he's 18 (i.e., "of age") now.

Judge Schroeder did go on about how it was his general rule since 1983 to insist on formal mode of address for all adults, but added "the only exception that I make is that the defense attorney is permitted to call his or her client by first name, and I've always employed that, and I don't see any reason to change that in this case ... Because people don't expect that kind of formality between the client and the attorney". Binger didn't fight this ("understood" was all he said). So looks to me like the news report missed this detail and Binger lost on that part of his request.

Discussion of that motion starts at 2:14:26 in this video:

[andersweinstein]

Only the worst kind of troll could start arguing that a hunters law would cover someone wandering around with an assault weapon in the middle of a city screaming "Medic!" That the kind of arguing that would have a lawyer glance over at the jury box and seeing all 12 of them making up and down fist motions.

Well the defense is certainly making this argument in a motion yet to be decided by the judge. It concerns a question of law, so not for a jury. I would think whatever ruling is made winds up appealed up to the WI Supreme Court.

[Dave from down under]

I agree with you..

Only the worst sort of troll would support such a pernicious position as to use hunting exemptions to be extended to hunting people.

[bob]

Well the defense is certainly making this argument in a motion yet to be decided by the judge. It concerns a question of law, so not for a jury. I would think whatever ruling is made winds up appealed up to the WI Supreme Court.

If the jury votes not guilty, there will be nothing to appeal. If the defendant is convicted but the judge had ruled in his favor on this issue, this issue cannot be appealed.

Regardless of the judge's ruling, the prosecutor during closing argument may (and likely will) rhetorically ask the jury, "Why did the defendant decide to arm himself (with this powerful assault weapon)?" And could rhetorically answer along the lines of, "Surely not to go hunting" or "To go hunting, not for animals, but for his perceived enemies, who he considered no better than animals." And any stray evidence even hinting about hunting will be pounced upon.

[andersweinstein]

Well the defense is certainly making this argument in a motion yet to be decided by the judge. It concerns a question of law, so not for a jury. I would think whatever ruling is made winds up appealed up to the WI Supreme Court.

If the jury votes not guilty, there will be nothing to appeal.

LOL, it never occurs to me a jury might acquit on the minor possession charge. My bad.

If the defendant is convicted but the judge had ruled in his favor on this issue, this issue cannot be appealed.

Can you explain this some more? Doesn't ruling in his favor on this issue mean dismissing the gun charge?

[edited to spell out: so then he can't be convicted on that charge, so I don't understand what possibility is being raised.]

[scirreeve]

LOL - I read this thread but don't usually comment on it cuz I don't know much about this case. This response from Anders made me laugh though - reading comprehension etc.

[jcolvin2]

If the jury votes not guilty, there will be nothing to appeal. If the defendant is convicted but the judge had ruled in his favor on this issue, this issue cannot be appealed.

If the judge rules in favor of the defendant, the prosecution may seek to appeal prior to the trial. I do not know Wisconsin procedure, but in other jurisdictions certain pre-trial rulings in favor of defendants (often those dismissing charges or excluding evidence) are immediately appealable.

[bob]

If the judge rules in favor of the defendant, the prosecution may seek to appeal prior to the trial. I do not know Wisconsin procedure, but in other jurisdictions certain pre-trial rulings in favor of defendants (often those dismissing charges or excluding evidence) are immediately appealable.

The prosecutor in that circumstance could appeal, but I doubt that would appeal happen.

If the gun charge is dismissed but the defendant is otherwise convicted, I doubt the prosecutor will cross-appeal.

[Phoenix520]

Our resident PandaBadger seems to have gone into hibernation a bit early. (Oh, wait, Pandas don’t hibernate; do PandaBadgers?)
Wondering what he has to say…

[raison de arizona]

Good AP article covers a lot of aspects of the case, a few highlights...

Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha protest shooting trial

When Kyle Rittenhouse goes on trial Monday for shooting three men during street protests in Wisconsin that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake last summer, he'll argue that he fired in self-defense.

Legal experts say under Wisconsin law he has a strong case. What's less clear is whether prosecutors will be able to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse created a deadly situation by showing up in Kenosha with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle - and that in doing so he forfeited his claim to self-defense.

WHAT DOES WISCONSIN LAW SAY ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE?

It allows someone to use deadly force only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." And it sets a two-part test for jurors.

First, they have to decide if Rittenhouse really believed he was in peril. Hindsight may show he was wrong. But did he sincerely believe it at the time?

Next, they must determine if Rittenhouse's belief was objectively "reasonable." To make that call, jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.

WHAT OTHER LEGAL FACTORS COME INTO PLAY?

Wisconsin law doesn't require someone whose life is in danger to flee before shooting. But jurors can consider whether someone tried to move away from danger as they assess the reasonableness of a self-defense claim. Self-defense can't be invoked by someone if they were an aggressor.

Wisconsin doesn't have a so-called stand-your-ground law that grants wide-ranging rights for a person to stay put and fend off an attack no matter where it occurs.

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhous ... /11179928/

[andersweinstein]

If the judge rules in favor of the defendant, the prosecution may seek to appeal prior to the trial. I do not know Wisconsin procedure, but in other jurisdictions certain pre-trial rulings in favor of defendants (often those dismissing charges or excluding evidence) are immediately appealable.

The prosecutor in that circumstance could appeal, but I doubt that would appeal happen.

If the gun charge is dismissed but the defendant is otherwise convicted, I doubt the prosecutor will cross-appeal.

Well same issue applies to the felony charges against Dominick Black for providing a weapon to a minor that was discharged and caused a death. If it is judged legal for Rittenhouse to have possessed the rifle, it would be no crime for Black to have provided it to him, since exactly parallel exception language occurs in the sentences stating the providing crime (each sentence comes right after the sentences stating the possession crime). Indeed this whole issue is much more significant for Black than for Rittenhouse as providing is a felony which can carry a multi-year sentence (I have heard he is facing a potential 6 years, but am not certain of this). The Black case is also before Judge Schroeder but it was delayed until after the Rittenhouse trial.

So ... accepting the defense interpretation would effectively knock out that entire case against Black. Would that give him a reason to want to appeal such a loss, even if he doesn't care about convicting Rittenhouse on a misdemeanor? Or could he just defer the issue until there's a ruling throwing out Black's charges? I'd be very interested in information on the procedure relating the two cases with the same issue of statutory interpretation like this.

The bigger reason I thought prosecution might appeal a loss is just that a loss would wind up publicizing in a very prominent way that 16 and 17 year olds can legally openly carry ARs in WI. I would expect widespread outrage over that. So I could see taking a stand to challenge that principle even if they don't give a damn about whether Rittenhouse gets a misdemeanor conviction. And I personally believe Binger has an eye on the politics.

[andersweinstein]

Good AP article covers a lot of aspects of the case, a few highlights...

Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha protest shooting trial
...
WHAT OTHER LEGAL FACTORS COME INTO PLAY?

Wisconsin law doesn't require someone whose life is in danger to flee before shooting. But jurors can consider whether someone tried to move away from danger as they assess the reasonableness of a self-defense claim. Self-defense can't be invoked by someone if they were an aggressor.

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhous ... /11179928/

Seemed like a pretty good piece to me, but that highlighted sentence sticks out. I've mentioned this before, but one thing that's really interesting to me about the WI law is that even if you provoke an attack by unlawful conduct, you don't absolutely lose the privilege of self-defense. You can still exercise it to prevent death/serious bodily harm though you get a little bit higher burden (you have to have exhausted alternatives). And it also provides a way you can fully regain the privilege.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2

[pipistrelle]

Our resident PandaBadger seems to have gone into hibernation a bit early. (Oh, wait, Pandas don’t hibernate; do PandaBadgers?)
Wondering what he has to say…

Probably combo of new job and new house.

[jcolvin2]

Our resident PandaBadger seems to have gone into hibernation a bit early. (Oh, wait, Pandas don’t hibernate; do PandaBadgers?)
Wondering what he has to say…

Probably combo of new job and new house.

While red pandas do not hibernate, they do slow metabolic activity between meals:

In very cold temperatures, red pandas can become dormant, lowering their metabolic rate and raising it every few hours as they wake up to look for food.

https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/red-panda

[p0rtia]

Our resident PandaBadger seems to have gone into hibernation a bit early. (Oh, wait, Pandas don’t hibernate; do PandaBadgers?)
Wondering what he has to say…

Put down your Halloween beverage first.

[Phoenix520]

Ahahaha!

[Suranis]

Looks like a plastic pumpkin.

[Dave from down under]

Ewok alert!!!!

[andersweinstein]

This looks to me like one of the better journalistic treatments focused on issues of the WI self-defense law. It's by Bruce Vielmetti, legal affairs reporter for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, from which it is reprinted. Quotes Michael O'Hear, professor of criminal law at Marquette Law School. Includes discussion of the provocation issue, "an interesting and complicated part of the law" per O'Hear.

[neeneko]

Oof. Lot of rather specific language in that piece that points out that it is really going to come down to how the jury sees a white man with a gun vs a black man who might get a gun.. even touching on 'the gun should have protected him by simply being there' and thus it being the fault of the person shot.

[raison de arizona]

Oof. Lot of rather specific language in that piece that points out that it is really going to come down to how the jury sees a white man with a gun vs a black man who might get a gun.. even touching on 'the gun should have protected him by simply being there' and thus it being the fault of the person shot.

IIRC everyone shot was white. FWIW.

[bob]

IIRC everyone shot was white. FWIW.

In this instances, yes.

The larger point being gun laws often have racial undertones.

California, for example, used to have open carry until the Black Panthers actually did just that.

[neeneko]

IIRC everyone shot was white. FWIW.

Ooops, my bad. For some reason I had it in my head that Rosenbaum was a PoC.

[andersweinstein]

In an all-day session that ran well past dark, 20 people — 12 jurors and eight alternates — were selected. The court did not immediately disclose which ones will actually serve as the jury. The 20 consist of 11 women and nine men.

Jurors were not asked to identify their race during the selection process, and the court did not immediately provide a racial breakdown of the group.
...
Opening statements are set to begin Tuesday morning, with the trial expected to last two weeks.

[bob]

During the day, about a dozen prospective jurors were dismissed because they had strong opinions about the case or doubts they could be fair. Some also expressed fear about serving on the jury because of public anger but were not immediately let go.

Among those dismissed by the judge were a man who said he was at the site of the protests when “all that happened” and a woman who said she knew one of the potential witnesses in the case well and would probably give more weight to that person’s testimony.

Another woman who said she watched a livestream video of what happened was dismissed because she wasn’t sure if she could put aside what she saw. One person was dropped from the case after she said she believes in the Biblical injunction “Thou shall not kill” even in cases of self-defense. A man who said he had “been commenting consistently on news feeds and Facebook” was also excused.

A man said his son is friends with the person who bought the gun that Rittenhouse later used in the shooting.

Under questioning by prosecutor Thomas Binger, some prospective jurors said they left town during the unrest. Others took precautions by moving vehicles or boarding up businesses. One said she got a gun to protect herself and her family.

“After all of that — neighbors yelling that I shouldn’t have my flag hanging, my United States of America flag should not be up for whatever reason — I left it up and I got a gun,” the woman said.

The prosecutor also moved to dismiss a woman who said that she has a biracial granddaughter who participated in some of the protests and that she could not be impartial. Rittenhouse’s attorneys had no objection.

* * *

Rittenhouse’s attorney got a prospective juror dropped after she said she would find Rittenhouse guilty of all charges just because he was carrying an assault-style weapon. “I don’t think a weapon like that should belong to the general public,” the woman said.

Two prospective jurors said they would be nervous about serving, though the judge assured them precautions would be taken to keep them safe.

It sounds like there were no motions that the other side attempted to use peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner.

Bonus:

The start of jury selection was briefly delayed in the morning for unexplained reasons. During the delay, the judge played a mock game of “Jeopardy!” with prospective jurors in the courtroom, something he sometimes does as attorneys get organized.

I'm curious whether the judge had told the attorneys about this intention, and whether the defendant's attorney objected.