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

[bob]

This appears to be in the Not A Good Idea, But Also Not Reversible Error bin. (Or the But Not Mistrial bin.)

[raison de arizona]

Something I didn't know- militia dude says Rosenbaum was 5'3" or 5'4". FWIW.

[Maybenaut]

This appears to be in the Not A Good Idea, But Also Not Reversible Error bin. (Or the But Not Mistrial bin.)

And, of course, you don’t get a mistrial unless you move for one, which neither side did. I supposed if he’s convicted Rittenhouse can raise a claim if ineffective assistance for failing to move for a mistrial (I don’t know how that works in the civilian world; in the military it’s part of the direct appeal).

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I Richie McGinnis's taped interview of Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse lied thrice:

1. He said he was an adult
2. He said he was a medic or EMT
3. He said he was from Kenosha.

You could say he exaggerated (lied) when he said all the guys on the lot were there to "protect him". (The prosecutor could definitely use this to show his hero vigilante thoughts that night along with holding his gun and saying he only used " lethal".

That can be used to challenge his testimony, if any, that he was afraid for his life.

One of the legal commentators, John Mobly, explained that the Wisconsin self defense statute is broader than that of many states.

[RVInit]

I finally had a chance to continue listening to the trial. Balch is now on the stand. He says Rittenhouse said he was 19 years old and said he had EMT certification. Now, two witnesses have indicated lies Rittenhouse told that night. Not good.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.courttv.com/news/prosecutor ... -protests/

PROSECUTORS SHOW RITTENHOUSE TRIAL JURORS VIDEO OF PROTESTS

Rittenhouse saying before the shootings that he was there to protect property and provide medical care to anyone who was hurt.

In one, the interviewer mentioned non-lethal weapons and Rittenhouse responded: “We don’t have non-lethal.” The man filming the video then asked if Rittenhouse was “full-on” ready to defend the property and he replied, “Yes, we are.”

[Maybenaut]

I finally had a chance to continue listening to the trial. Balch is now on the stand. He says Rittenhouse said he was 19 years old and said he had EMT certification. Now, two witnesses have indicated lies Rittenhouse told that night. Not good.

Especially not good if the defense was planning to put Rittenhouse on the stand to describe his state of mind.

[RVInit]

Holy shit. Balch just now testified that he would consider hollow point ammo to be more appropriate for "self defense" or "self protection". But he had FMJ ammo in his AR-15 which is mostly for "target practice".

This is really telling. So, he was were there with his big bad weapon to protect himself, but carrying target practice weaponry loaded with target practice ammo. Got it. Nice to know he admits that under oath. There is something really wrong with these people.

[raison de arizona]

This is really telling. So, he was were there with his big bad weapon to protect himself, but carrying target practice weaponry loaded with target practice ammo. Got it. Nice to know he admits that under oath. There is something really wrong with these people.

They're cosplaying. It's a prop for their costume anyway.

[AndyinPA]

I think I read somewhere that this is SOP for this judge. Time to go.

[bob]

I finally had a chance to continue listening to the trial. Balch is now on the stand. He says Rittenhouse said he was 19 years old and said he had EMT certification. Now, two witnesses have indicated lies Rittenhouse told that night. Not good.

Especially not good if the defense was planning to put Rittenhouse on the stand to describe his state of mind.

I was thinking that as well. And this seems like the kind of case in which the defendant could testify because ultimately his mental state (and, by extension) his credibility is on trial. (But see: George Zimmerman, who didn't testify and wasn't convicted.)

I'll defer to the IAACrDLs' opinion on whether counsel needs to/should have the defendant testify. (Remembering, of course, it is always the defendant's personal right to decide whether to testify.)

* * *

This appears to be in the Not A Good Idea, But Also Not Reversible Error bin. (Or the But Not Mistrial bin.)

And, of course, you don’t get a mistrial unless you move for one, which neither side did. I supposed if he’s convicted Rittenhouse can raise a claim if ineffective assistance for failing to move for a mistrial (I don’t know how that works in the civilian world; in the military it’s part of the direct appeal).

Ineffective assistance due to counsel's failure to request a mistrial is valid claim, but (IMO) one unlikely to succeed in this particular instance.

I don't know how post-conviction proceedings work in Wisconsin, but I presume if the defendant is convicted, ineffective assistance will be raised then, and with many specific instances of ineffectiveness.

[RVInit]

I think I read somewhere that this is SOP for this judge. Time to go.

Agree. He seems "off". As so many of the witnesses. Prosecutors can't control the fact that the people who were in Rittenhouse's proximity that night were mostly rwnj and are trying to inject rwnj talking points into their testimony. But the prosecutor is carefully asking follow up questions when that happens and those witnesses are having to modify their answers accordingly. So I think he's dealing with them very well. But what a challenge it is.

Balch is characterizing Rosenbaum as being violent. But he can't come up with a single instance of Rosenbaum actually punching, hitting, kicking, holding a weapon, causing any injury to any person. "Did you actually see Mr Rosenbaum physically injure any person that night?" Answer: no.

Oh, so now it comes out - one of the armed guys told Rosenbaum "Fuck around and find out". Sounds more like the armed people were doing most of the "threatening".

Did Rosenbaum try to reach for your AR? No, Your Glock? No. Your body? No. Did he ever make any physical contact with anyone? No.

So, yeah, Rosenbaum was "violent".

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I watched a bit of Balch's testimony in which he said, I think, Rosenbaum verbally threatened him, but not Rittenhouse though Rittenhouse was standing there. The words were bleeped out and I couldn't read his lips.

Mark O'Mara opined the prosecution had a weak presentation thus far. It wasn't "crisp". He said weak early presentation stays with the jury.

O'Mara thought the Huber case was stronger.

[Maybenaut]

I'll defer to the IAACrDLs' opinion on whether counsel needs to/should have the defendant testify. (Remembering, of course, it is always the defendant's personal right to decide whether to testify.)

The self-defense evidence *can* come in through other witnesses, but it’s tricky. They can’t say what was in his head, obviously, but they can describe what they observed, and the jury can make inferences from that. Once “some evidence” that he was acting in self defense is presented, the burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense didn’t exist.*** If he doesn’t testify, the jury will be instructed that the burden never shifts to the defense, that he has the right not to testify, and they can’t use the fact that he didn’t testify against him.

But seriously, the jury is going to expect to hear it from his own mouth. Otherwise, the defense will expect them to draw inference upon inference, which they may be unwilling to do. But the prosecutor has to tread carefully in making that argument, because he’s not allowed to comment on the defendant’s invocation of his 5th am rights.

Pros and cons for both sides, irrespective of what Rittenhouse ultimately decides to do.

*** Standard disclaimer: I don’t practice in WI, but that’s the rule in the military and in the two states where I am licensed.

Edit: The jury will be instructed that the burden never shifts whether he testifies or not.

[LM K]

https://www.courttv.com/news/prosecutor ... -protests/

PROSECUTORS SHOW RITTENHOUSE TRIAL JURORS VIDEO OF PROTESTS

Rittenhouse saying before the shootings that he was there to protect property and provide medical care to anyone who was hurt.

In one, the interviewer mentioned non-lethal weapons and Rittenhouse responded: “We don’t have non-lethal.” The man filming the video then asked if Rittenhouse was “full-on” ready to defend the property and he replied, “Yes, we are.”

Rittenhouse really bought into the "I'm one of them" ideas.

Philip Zimbardo would have a field day with this.

[RVInit]

Rittenhouse was not equipped mentally or emotionally to insert himself into this situation armed with a lethal weapon. If he gets away with these killings it will just convince other vigilantes to arm themselves and take it upon themselves to bring heavy weaponry to civil unrest situations.

I disagree with Mark O'Mara's take on the prosecutor. I'm not a lawyer, I listen to testimony and questioning the same way a juror would listen to this information. Certainly, different jurors may hear things differently, some things might stand out to some jurors, other things may stand out to others. But I think the prosecutor is going a very good job with follow up questions when witnesses try to Rittsplain. Hahaha. So far the Daily Caller white supremacist and Balch seem to clearly be trying to help the defense.

[LM K]

My assumption/perception is that putting Rittenhouse on the stand would be a really, really bad idea.

So far, Rittenhouse has demonstrated:

-a need to inflate his sense of importance ... even to himself.

-a need to be praised and recognized as "helpful" to groups that have or appear to him to have authority. (Police and armed militia types.)

-a need for recognition by strong adult men.

-a need to play a hero and be perceived as heroic:

People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business,” Rittenhouse told a reporter from the Daily Caller before the shootings. “And part of my job is to also help people. If there is somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle.

-a strong need for attention.

-fantasies about being the deliverer of "justice".

How does a defense lawyer prep such a young, insecure, and immature man for testimony? Rittenhouse's distortion of self is troubling. It's likely that he has matured a little in the past year. But Rittenhouse seems like he was immature for his age at the time of his shooting.

[andersweinstein]

2. So Rittenhouse was wandering around and then received a call from someone "sending" him to a specific location? Who called Rittenhouse? Is my understanding of your comment correct?

I believe Black testified it was Nick Smith. Nick Smith is his friend and former Car Source employee who he said recruited Black and Rittenhouse for the volunteer gig. I don't think the call sending him south is going to be disputed, but am not certain.

3. How was Black related to Rittenhouse? Did they meet that night? Did Black have Rittenhouse's phone number? Did Black call Rittenhouse to request Rittenhouse's assistance?

Dominick Black was Rittenhouse's close Kenosha buddy whom he'd become "like a brother" with over the previous year. Black is the one who bought the gun for him back in the spring. Rittenhouse had been staying over with Black near downtown Kenosha the night before, during which there was a tremendous amount of burning and property destruction. Black is the guy Rittenhouse called after shooting Rosenbaum.

[andersweinstein]

Your strongly asserted claim that Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse is 100% unsupported by evidence. Rosenbaum ran towards cars when nearby gunfire was heard and the entire crowd was running. A lot of people were running in the same direction as Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Ya know ... like the reporter.

Why do you ignore that a large group of people fled the area after nearby gunfire? Why do you ignore that a large group of people ran in the direction of the cars because they heard nearby gunfire? Why do I say large? The defense just said it

So Anders; where is the evidence that Rosenbaum intended to ambush Rittenhouse, esp when he was running behind Rittenhouse? How do you "ambush" someone in front of you?

It looks like you have some misconception about the timeline. People in the area did start scattering after the gunfire, but there was no gunfire before the pursuit by Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse arrived at the lot at a run, apparently encountered Josh Ziminski who we know often held his pistol in his hand (unsafely, with his finger on the trigger) and stopped, Rosenbaum emerged from his hiding place behind him, Rittenhouse bolts and Rosenbaum's chase began. Then Josh Ziminski fired the first shot into the air and screamed "you're not gonna do shit motherfucker". 2.5 s later Rittenhouse fired four times in quick succession, then another never identified protestor/rioter fired three more shots into the air from the south side of the lot.

So people did flee after the gunfire started -- more after the rifle shots than Ziminski's shot, I think - but were not fleeing gunfire before the pursuit. Some people were running at various times before the pursuit but we can't tell exactly why. Rittenhouse looks to have entered the lot on the sidewalk at a run, announcing "Friendly Friendly Friendly" as he had done earlier when entering groups of protestors to try to indicate he was not their enemy. He could have been rushing to get to a fire inside the SUV.

I personally am convinced the overwhelmingly best theory is that Rosenbaum with Ziminski ambushed a completely unsuspecting Rittenhouse in a wholly unprovoked attack. As I see it, it is the evidence that Rittenhouse did anything to provoke this attack that is lacking. But people who have convicted him in advance in their minds will project some imagined aggression of his into inconclusive data.

But whether the jury can be convinced of this view, who knows. There are incredible perspectival differences in how people interpret the same evidence in this case. I can't claim my own take is any more immune from bias than anyone else's, just that it doesn't come from right-wing, pro-gun, or anti-BLM political views in my case.

[RVInit]

Likely more bad news is coming for poor victim Rittenhouse. The prosecutor made a point to elicit testimony about who went into the gunshop on the night of the killings to buy the gun slings. Yep, it was our boy Kyle who bought those slings. Karnak sez that we are going to be hearing testimony from someone who is familiar with gun slings who will tell us all about the most important feature of a three point sling as opposed to one and two point slings. Hint: it goes to the reasonableness of someone being able to deprive our hero of his precious cargo. Yeah, those slings Kyle bought are going to be part of the testimony that tends to point to Kyle probably not having much reason to believe someone could actually take his gun and use it on him.

Wouldn't it be juicy if the very person who sold Kyle his sling testifies to the questions Kyle asked about slings and what may have been said to Kyle as to why he might want to buy the slings he bought as opposed to the other styles of slings. Oh, this trial might not be so fun for our poor little guy.

As it is, he seems to be completely unaware that he's facing serious charges. I think our cosplay cowboy thinks this trial is just all part of the fantasy. If he's convicted I think he's in for a hugely rude awakening.

[Foggy]

There's only one thing a prosecutor wants if Kyle testifies - you want him to lose his temper and show some real anger in front of the jury. It's psychological warfare in court, and that is your goal, because the jury needs to see just how much of an angry little self-important punk ass he really is.

I would piss him off from the very first question.

Facts help, too. You lied three times that night. Oh, but I'm telling the truth today!

I put a shit ton of defendants on the stand. If their story holds up, and they don't lose their temper, it's powerful. The jury WANTS to hear your story.

But I would never risk in a mazillion years putting this little punk asshole pissosito on the stand. He'd lose his temper in five minutes and you'd see the real Kyle, the murderer, in the room.

And remember ... angry people make mistakes. It is ALWAYS, INVARIABLY, 1000% INCREDIBLY TRUE that you are better off when the other guy gets angry and you keep your cool. Did you know anger is physically painful? But you're too pissed off to think about it. But it hurts.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

The three attorneys on Vinnie Politan's show think the prosecutor made the self defense case for Rittenhouse with Richie's and Balch's testimony and Rittenhouse doesn't need to testify.

Does Rittenhouse qualify as a "reasonable" person given his lies displaying his delusions and that he chose to put himself "in harm's way"?

[Maybenaut]

The three attorneys on Vinnie Politan's show think the prosecutor made the self defense case for Rittenhouse with Richie's and Balch's testimony and Rittenhouse doesn't need to testify.

Does Rittenhouse qualify as a "reasonable" person given his lies displaying his delusions and that he chose to put himself "in harm's way"?

Well, the question isn’t whether Rittenouse was a reasonable person, but what a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position would have done under those circumstances. I think Rittenhouse’s lies are only relevant if he testifies. And you can put yourself in harm’s way without losing the right to self defense.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thanks, Maybenaut. What about his subsequent shootings when folks were chasing him to take away his gun? Someone on TV pointed out the oft present question when there is a mass shooting - why didn't someone take his gun?

Also, how does it affect the self defense equation that he ran away rather than rendering medical aid?

McGinnis's testimony was powerful about Rosenbaum after the shooting. His father was an ER doc. He was the one who took off his shirt and applied compression. He was the one who helped put Rosenbaum in the vehicle. He was the only one in the vehicle with Rosenbaum traveling to the ER. He also saw the guy whose arm was shot by Rittenhouse while at the ER.

If nothing else, his testimony displayed the seriousness of the matter.

He also testified that Rittenhouse stood by him briefly while McGinnis was rendering aid. McGinnis asked him to call 911. Rittenhouse never did.

[Maybenaut]

Thanks, Maybenaut. What about his subsequent shootings when folks were chasing him to take away his gun? Someone on TV pointed out the oft present question when there is a mass shooting - why didn't someone take his gun?

Also, how does it affect the self defense equation that he ran away rather than rendering medical aid?

Personally, I don’t think it affects his self-defense claim *as to Rosenbaum* one way or the other. Rosenbaum’s down, he’s no longer a threat, and Rittenhouse was under no obligation to render aid.

His running away *might* strengthen his self defense claim regarding the subsequent victim because it could show that he was in fear. BUT I haven’t really been watching the trial so I don’t know what the evidence actually is.

McGinnis's testimony was powerful about Rosenbaum after the shooting. His father was an ER doc. He was the one who took off his shirt and applied compression. He was the one who helped put Rosenbaum in the vehicle. He was the only one in the vehicle with Rosenbaum traveling to the ER. He also saw the guy whose arm was shot by Rittenhouse while at the ER.

If nothing else, his testimony displayed the seriousness of the matter.

He also testified that Rittenhouse stood by him briefly while McGinnis was rendering aid. McGinnis asked him to call 911. Rittenhouse never did.

I think that fact cuts slightly against Rittenhouse’s self defense claim - not because Rittenhouse was legally obligated to do anything, but because one could infer that Rittenhouse bore some animosity toward Rosenbaum.