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

[dan1100]

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.

I was hoping for a Red Panda schooling on how much R's testimony, which didn't go well according to dependable tweeters with cow avatars, opens the door to evidence of his crappy character and general prior shittiness.

[Maybenaut]

So is there any utility to potentially showing that a judge has bias? The objection seemed like it was more about trying to demonstrate that the judge is applying rules (and emotions) differently for the prosecution than the defense. Could this be for the audience rather than the court?

Utility to whom? It was the defense who objected, and the judge ruled in their favor.

But just because a judge rules against you doesn’t mean he’s biased. Bias, in a legal sense, has a specific meaning as it relates to trial participants, and it is really, really, really hard to prove. As a practical matter, one I or the other would hive to file a motion for recusal, which neither side is likely to do.

Maybe I don’t understand the question.

[Wendybird]

FWIW, I could only stomach a bit of the coverage of the defendant on the stand. I know he's been coached; I know he is lying; I know he should be held 100% accountable for his actions. But I am very worried about the overall effect of him on the stand. It's that baby face of his and his obvious immaturity. He is still in way over his head. I think the defense knows he is their best shot because white privilege is a real thing and that damnable baby face of his will do herculean work for his case.
I do not envy the prosecution's job. The evidence is very strong against him, especially the ME testimony. And the drone video - man, it just blasts the ridiculous "ambush" theory to smithereens - but I worry it will still not be enough to overcome the "I'm just a widdle boy who got a-scaird" image.
Hoping for a good rebuttal case.
Thanks again for all the legal clarity.

[neeneko]

Utility to whom? It was the defense who objected, and the judge ruled in their favor.

But just because a judge rules against you doesn’t mean he’s biased. Bias, in a legal sense, has a specific meaning as it relates to trial participants, and it is really, really, really hard to prove. As a practical matter, one I or the other would hive to file a motion for recusal, which neither side is likely to do.

Maybe I don’t understand the question.

Oops, sorry, I was not very clear.
I was thinking about the objection raised this morning by the prosecution regarding the expert testimony where they arguing that judge yelled at them for doing yesterday what they felt the defense was doing today.

[neeneko]

I do not envy the prosecution's job. The evidence is very strong against him, especially the ME testimony. And the drone video - man, it just blasts the ridiculous "ambush" theory to smithereens - but I worry it will still not be enough to overcome the "I'm just a widdle boy who got a-scaird" image.

Yeah, watching this from another angle and how the different parties are behaving.. the judge, defense, and deferent are all leaning heavily on emotive and narrative supporting behavior. Anger, sadness exacerbation, passion! They are telling a powerful and emotional story. On the other hand, the prosecution is being very calm, collected, clinical, he comes across as the adult in the room. These two approaches resonate with very different personality types, which given the charged nature of things, probably gives the prosecutor an uphill battle. As you say, I do not envy him.

[bob]

I missed the part about the prosecutor commenting on Rittenhouse’s invoking his right to silence, but if he did, the judge was right to ream him.

I wasn't sure if it was pre-arrest silence, post-arrest-but-pre-warning silence, post-warning silence, or post-filing silence.

* * *

So is there any utility to potentially showing that a judge has bias? The objection seemed like it was more about trying to demonstrate that the judge is applying rules (and emotions) differently for the prosecution than the defense. Could this be for the audience rather than the court?

A defendant always has an incentive to show the judge is biased against the defense, as the bias can be raised on appeal. But there's no appeal if the defendant isn't found guilty.

Legally, the prosecutor has no effective remedy. (In theory, a defendant-biased judge could lead to a mistrial that wouldn't bar a retrial.) So the prosecutor has to appeal to the judge's better graces, make a show for other prosecutors and judges (who are all regular players in the system; they'll all still be there once the cameras have left after this trial), or for the audience.

[Maybenaut]

Utility to whom? It was the defense who objected, and the judge ruled in their favor.

But just because a judge rules against you doesn’t mean he’s biased. Bias, in a legal sense, has a specific meaning as it relates to trial participants, and it is really, really, really hard to prove. As a practical matter, one I or the other would hive to file a motion for recusal, which neither side is likely to do.

Maybe I don’t understand the question.

Oops, sorry, I was not very clear.
I was thinking about the objection raised this morning by the prosecution regarding the expert testimony where they arguing that judge yelled at them for doing yesterday what they felt the defense was doing today.

Oh, I see. I missed that. In that case, I think there is some utility in reminding the judge that both sides are entitled to a fair trial, so long as you can do it in a respectful way that’s not going to alienate the judge. But I don’t think the government is playing to anyone other than the court.

[RVInit]

I have the same take as Maybebaut on the judges comments to the prosecutor. As to whether he was commenting on his fifth amendment I do not believe that is where the prosecutor was heading. I can't remember his explanation of where he actually was going because I had to watch it late at night after working extra long hours two nights in a row and I was pretty tired. I was sympathetic to the prosecutor on that one during the time I was listening to where he said he was going with that particular line of questioning. I can sort of understand the other issue as well, except that as experienced as he was, he should have known to clear it with the judge first instead of taking advantage of the open door. I do believe the defense opened the door on that one, but I'm saying that as a non-lawyer and it's just a layman's interpretation or belief, so probably not worth much.

All in all as a juror I would discount Rittenhouse's testimony. His responses to many questions showed that he is using information that he now knows from video and other witness testimony to color his responses. That has nothing to do with what he knew on that night and his decision making on that night. I did not consider him to have been a credible witness. I have every confidence that the prosecutor is going to show that not only did he lie on that night to various people but he also lied on the witness stand to the jury. That makes him simply not credible. I do not believe half or more of what he said.

[andersweinstein]

I missed the part about the prosecutor commenting on Rittenhouse’s invoking his right to silence, but if he did, the judge was right to ream him.

It was at the very start of cross examination of Rittenhouse. There was more anger ('reaming') after Bingers "second offence" on top of this (alluding to the other acts incident in a question without first clearing with judge).

I wonder if without that first question priming everybody, Binger couldn't have gotten where he said he wanted to go with the rest (Rittenhouse tailoring testimony to what he heard).

[RVInit]

On target:

[RVInit]

LOL, in the video above the guy even remembers to glance over at the jury to see if they are buying his attempt at showing emotion.

[raison de arizona]

I missed the part about the prosecutor commenting on Rittenhouse’s invoking his right to silence, but if he did, the judge was right to ream him.

I wasn't sure if it was pre-arrest silence, post-arrest-but-pre-warning silence, post-warning silence, or post-filing silence.

Basically as I read it the prosecutor was trying to say that Rittenhouse kept his mouth shut until he saw what everyone else testified, then tried to tailor his testimony to what had already been said as opposed to what he knew actually happened. Which he probably did, but...

P.S. Thx for that video Anders.

[pipistrelle]

LOL, in the video above the guy even remembers to glance over at the jury to see if they are buying his attempt at showing emotion.

Except for that, he’s more convincing.

[bob]

I have the same take as Maybebaut on the judges comments to the prosecutor. As to whether he was commenting on his fifth amendment I do not believe that is where the prosecutor was heading. I can't remember his explanation of where he actually was going because I had to watch it late at night after working extra long hours two nights in a row and I was pretty tired. I was sympathetic to the prosecutor on that one during the time I was listening to where he said he was going with that particular line of questioning. I can sort of understand the other issue as well, except that as experienced as he was, he should have known to clear it with the judge first instead of taking advantage of the open door. I do believe the defense opened the door on that one, but I'm saying that as a non-lawyer and it's just a layman's interpretation or belief, so probably not worth much.

It was an inartful attempt to note the defendant hasn't said anything until the trial. It wasn't an attempt to note silence in response to a specific statement or question. And as noted, the prosecutor was trying to suggest the defendant could have tailored his testimony while avoiding prior inconsistent statements (because there were no prior statements).

It is the type of question where an appellate court could dodge whether there was error and just conclude there was no harm.

But now I'm curious why the judge sent them to the library, and not the deliberation room or the hallway. What does the backstage area look like?

[RVInit]

I missed the part about the prosecutor commenting on Rittenhouse’s invoking his right to silence, but if he did, the judge was right to ream him.

I wasn't sure if it was pre-arrest silence, post-arrest-but-pre-warning silence, post-warning silence, or post-filing silence.

Basically as I read it the prosecutor was trying to say that Rittenhouse kept his mouth shut until he saw what everyone else testified, then tried to tailor his testimony to what had already been said as opposed to what he knew actually happened. Which he probably did, but...

P.S. Thx for that video Anders.

Now you are reminding me - yes, that is what I believe the prosecutor was explaining. And really if a juror is seriously listening and paying attention there were many times in Rittenhouse' testimony that he testifies to things he could not possibly have known on that night. He definitely used all the information plus rehearsal to come up with his BS testimony. I did not find his testimony credible for that very reason. He clearly was using information from others and video.

[filly]

Yes, as I said yesterday, good lawyers plan out their cross carefully and a DA, I would think, has to be very careful. That said, it was "true" that yesterday's woodsheded performance was the first time the Little Vigilante told his story and it is true that it was after he had time to view all of the evidence. So, it was inartful but I don't see it as an attempt to comment on his right to remain silent.

Meanwhile, this intemperate judge :

[neonzx]

LOL, in the video above the guy even remembers to glance over at the jury to see if they are buying his attempt at showing emotion.

Except for that, he’s more convincing.

Was he directed by his defense counsel to do that fake emotional outburst in front of a jury? --- that has now been seen world-wide.

[bob]

If this had been a prosecution witness, competent trial counsel would have made a record so competent appellate counsel could raise it on appeal. Judges shouldn't praise or disparage a witness, especially in front of the jury.

[neonzx]

If Kyle was a Black 17yo, he'd already be in prison. White privilege -- Wisconsin

[pipistrelle]

Roof also looked young. Doesn’t change the fact he’s a murderer.

[Maybenaut]

I missed the part about the prosecutor commenting on Rittenhouse’s invoking his right to silence, but if he did, the judge was right to ream him.

I wasn't sure if it was pre-arrest silence, post-arrest-but-pre-warning silence, post-warning silence, or post-filing silence.

Basically as I read it the prosecutor was trying to say that Rittenhouse kept his mouth shut until he saw what everyone else testified, then tried to tailor his testimony to what had already been said as opposed to what he knew actually happened. Which he probably did, but...

P.S. Thx for that video Anders.

I went back and watched the video. I think the prosecutor’s connecting his testimony to the events of that night was wrong (he first asked something like, “you’ve had since 25 August 2029 to tell your story.”) I personally think that was improper.

And he asked (I’m paraphrasing), “you’ve heard 30 witnesses, and this is the first time since August 2020 you’ve told your side if the story.”

I think part of that question is OK, and part isn’t. I think the prosecution is allowed to elicit that the defendant sat through the trial and heard all the witnesses and is tailoring his testimony. He’s *not* allowed to elicit anything like, “why are we just hearing from you now,” or anything else that might suggest he had some obligation to talk before the trial.

[filly]

Maybenaut I mostly agree with you and that's why I keep posting about careful/bad lawyering. None of that justified the hysteria of the Judge, IMHO. The Judge has his fat thumb on the scale. That's wrong. It's bad for the judicial system.

[neeneko]

The Judge has his fat thumb on the scale. That's wrong. It's bad for the judicial system.

I am noticing that every time the prosecution tries to impeach a witness or call into question potential bias, the judge shuts them down. The 'journalism' of that last one was pretty damn important since he was not exactly a neutral observer. I am a bit disappointed that the prosecution did not push that, or point out how he was singling out his political enemies involvement in the riots but passing on everyone else.

[Foggy]

The Judge has his fat thumb on the scale. That's wrong. It's bad for the judicial system.

The weird thing is, he's very conscious that he's being video'd the whole time, and that clips of what he does are playing on national Tee Vee and across the Intarwebz with millions of views, and he still can't manage to act like a real judge. How'd you like to be a judge, a supposedly sober and responsible member of society, and suddenly you're nationally famous and your nickname is "Judge Crazypants"?

I think that would bother me, but no.

[Frater I*I]

I think that would bother me, but no.

He'll have his own show on Fox News by the end of next month....