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

[Kendra]

Haven't seen a link yet, but CNN is reporting Fox had a film crew embedded with R during the trial.

[tek]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kyle-rit ... 9a42a13367


I'm sure he protested. Not.

[Suranis]

This is a pretty good overview about what happened in Kenosha that night.

https://www.gq.com/story/72-hours-in-kenosha

[andersweinstein]

Curious: is the judge's dismissal of the gun charge the same as an acquittal wrt double jeopardy? Or is it something the prosecution could in theory appeal?

[Dr. Caligari]

Curious: is the judge's dismissal of the gun charge the same as an acquittal wrt double jeopardy? Or is it something the prosecution could in theory appeal?

If the dismissal was after the trial started, then double jeopardy would bar an appeal.

[Maybenaut]

Curious: is the judge's dismissal of the gun charge the same as an acquittal wrt double jeopardy? Or is it something the prosecution could in theory appeal?

It would depend on why he tossed it. I listened to that part of the trial and I couldn’t really tell.

If he tossed it because the evidence was legally insufficient (that is, the government failed to present evidence on an element of the offense), then the State cannot appeal.

If he dismissed the charges because he concluded that the Wisconsin statute does not prohibit a 17-year-old non-hunter from carrying a long barrel rifle , that can be appealed. I *think* that’s why he tossed it, but I don’t know for sure.

[John Thomas8]

The stupid is real in North Carolina:

https://www.wral.com/construction-sign- ... /19993059/

[John Thomas8]

[Volkonski]

[Kendra]

I know it's hard for 60 Minutes and the like to get controversial interviews on air, but PLEASE main stream media don't do it, don't give him air time.

[Dr. Caligari]

If he tossed it because the evidence was legally insufficient (that is, the government failed to present evidence on an element of the offense), then the State cannot appeal.

If he dismissed the charges because he concluded that the Wisconsin statute does not prohibit a 17-year-old non-hunter from carrying a long barrel rifle , that can be appealed. I *think* that’s why he tossed it, but I don’t know for sure.

It's been a long time since I tried a criminal case, so my recollection may be faulty, but I believe that, once the trial starts, a dismissal on any ground bars a re-trial.

[Maybenaut]

If he tossed it because the evidence was legally insufficient (that is, the government failed to present evidence on an element of the offense), then the State cannot appeal.

If he dismissed the charges because he concluded that the Wisconsin statute does not prohibit a 17-year-old non-hunter from carrying a long barrel rifle , that can be appealed. I *think* that’s why he tossed it, but I don’t know for sure.

It's been a long time since I tried a criminal case, so my recollection may be faulty, but I believe that, once the trial starts, a dismissal on any ground bars a re-trial.

I don’t think that’s right. If the judge dismisses a charge for failure to state an offense, the government can appeal that, even if the dismissal comes after they start taking evidence. The government cannot appeal if the dismissal is the equivalent of an acquittal.

[LM K]

This is the face of a young man about to be devastated when min 15:30 hits.

IMG_21112021_184242_(600_x_600_pixel).png (457.3 KiB) Viewed 751 times

I hope KR's friends and family are able to steer him away from extremist groups. He is especially vulnerable to their attention right now.

We've previously discussed KR's relative immaturity* and apparent lack of a strong male figure in his life. These factors make KR more vulnerable to extremist groups than the average 18 year old.

*This ordeal might have helped him grow up a tiny bit.

I had hoped KR would follow his lawyer's advice. "Keep your head low.". In some ways, that's impossible. Fox is dangling serious $$$ towards Rittenhouse and likely his mother. I don't doubt that that money could help them out. Fox was already mid-documentary at the time of the verdict. KR must have a contract of some type with Fox. But give him a week.

The Fox documentary is 100% against KR's best interest. Many people would be able to recognize KR on the street. But a Fox documentary harms his ability to redefine himself as an adult. Schools and future employers will see the post-trial KR. Post-trial KR has one opportunity to define himself as someone other than that KR. That opportunity is flying by him at tremendous speed. Sadly, he doesn't recognize that.

If I were Wendy Rittenhouse, I would encourage my son to take some time away from cameras and anyone he doesn't know well. Sleep. Eat junk food, play video game, read comic books. Sift through offers thoughtfully. Decide who you want to be. Stop letting the tv and internet define KR.

That's not going to happen. And when I see KR in the above photo, I see how vulnerable he is to predators of all kinds.

[pipistrelle]

I see a man who shows no remorse over killing two people and maiming a third.

[AndyinPA]

[Uninformed]

I’ve obviously always misunderstood the saying “whiter than white”.

[tek]

Pretty sure RWNJs, with the help of the media, are gonna completely trash finish completely trashing this kid's life. He'll willingly take part.

Other than the collateral damage, I'm fine with this.

[bill_g]

Let the razzing begin.

[Fortinbras]

My opinion: The Kenosha jury was so pissed about a riot in their hometown that they would bend the rules for anyone who seriously discouraged rioters.

[andersweinstein]

I had hoped KR would follow his lawyer's advice. "Keep your head low.". In some ways, that's impossible. Fox is dangling serious $$$ towards Rittenhous and likely his mother. I don't doubt that that money could help them out. Fox was already mid-documentary at the time of the verdict. KR must have a contract of some type with Fox. But give him a week.

Fox has said it did not pay Rittenhouse for interview or access. Might they have contributed to his defense fund and not him personally, so that this is technically truthful? Richards' statement to Andrew Cuomo on CNN suggested he didn't approve of the camera crew but it came about due to "donors" he had no say over.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crim ... 885c07.htm

[Maybenaut]

Fox News lied? Heaven forfend.

[bill_g]

Okay. Word for the day: forfend.

[noblepa]

Curious: is the judge's dismissal of the gun charge the same as an acquittal wrt double jeopardy? Or is it something the prosecution could in theory appeal?

It would depend on why he tossed it. I listened to that part of the trial and I couldn’t really tell.

If he tossed it because the evidence was legally insufficient (that is, the government failed to present evidence on an element of the offense), then the State cannot appeal.

If he dismissed the charges because he concluded that the Wisconsin statute does not prohibit a 17-year-old non-hunter from carrying a long barrel rifle , that can be appealed. I *think* that’s why he tossed it, but I don’t know for sure.

Wouldn't double jeopardy apply, because a jury had been empaneled on that charge, even though the judge dismissed the charge? IANAL, but I always thought that jeopardy attached when the jury was empaneled.

[LM K]

I had hoped KR would follow his lawyer's advice. "Keep your head low.". In some ways, that's impossible. Fox is dangling serious $$$ towards Rittenhous and likely his mother. I don't doubt that that money could help them out. Fox was already mid-documentary at the time of the verdict. KR must have a contract of some type with Fox. But give him a week.

Fox has said it did not pay Rittenhouse for interview or access. Might they have contributed to his defense fund and not him personally, so that this is technically truthful? Richards' statement to Andrew Cuomo on CNN suggested he didn't approve of the camera crew but it came about due to "donors" he had no say over.

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/crim ... 885c07.htm

Thanks, Anders.

Richards, to the AP and in similar remarks to CNN on Friday night, said it was arranged by those who were raising money for Rittenhouse, though he did not say that Fox paid Rittenhouse.


Justin Wells, senior executive producer of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” said no payment was made for access, footage rights, legal fees or any other purpose to Rittenhouse or his family.


David Hancock, a spokesman for the Rittenhouse family, said any potential payment by Fox “was never offered and it was never asked for and it was never discussed.”

The intention of the documentary, which is to be shown next month on the Fox Nation streaming service, is to memorialize the experience that Rittenhouse had during the trial and to show people who he really is, he said.

Supportive audience
In choosing Fox, Rittenhouse's family is putting the story before an audience most likely to be supportive. Conservatives paid his $2 million bail after his arrest last year. A website devoted to defending Rittenhouse and raising money for him greets visitors with a quote attributed to James Monroe: "the right of self-defense never ceases."

Carlson was chosen to conduct the first post-trial interview with Rittenhouse because he “was honest. At the very beginning he saw what was happening and he pointed out that Kyle was defending himself,” Hancock said.

The spokesman said Rittenhouse plans to do other interviews with other news organizations, although they haven’t been set yet.


“For the authoritarians among us, this is a disaster,” Carlson said. “They can’t let it go. Why? Because they understand the Rittenhouse case is a referendum on the most basic right of all — the ancient right of self-defense. If Kyle Rittenhouse can save his own life from the mob than you can, too, and that drives them insane.”

Speaking to CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday, Richards said that Rittenhouse “is going to have some hard choices in his life about the direction he goes and what he stands for. These will have to be made by Kyle eventually. ... He needs to learn how to take responsibility and to tell people ‘no.’”

It's certainly possible that those funding Rittenhouse's defense are requiring Rittenhouse to do a Carlson "documentary". Outside of the courtroom supporters made it clear that the case wasn't about KR for them. KR was simply a poster boy for a social movement.

Richards is correct. KR has some difficult choices to make in his like to redefine himself. His cooperation with Fox is not a smart decision.

KR's supporters are throwing him to the wolves. Rittenhouse doesn't realize that.

[Maybenaut]

Curious: is the judge's dismissal of the gun charge the same as an acquittal wrt double jeopardy? Or is it something the prosecution could in theory appeal?

It would depend on why he tossed it. I listened to that part of the trial and I couldn’t really tell.

If he tossed it because the evidence was legally insufficient (that is, the government failed to present evidence on an element of the offense), then the State cannot appeal.

If he dismissed the charges because he concluded that the Wisconsin statute does not prohibit a 17-year-old non-hunter from carrying a long barrel rifle , that can be appealed. I *think* that’s why he tossed it, but I don’t know for sure.

Wouldn't double jeopardy apply, because a jury had been empaneled on that charge, even though the judge dismissed the charge? IANAL, but I always thought that jeopardy attached when the jury was empaneled.

Not exactly. And it’s complicated. The question we were talking about was not whether he could be retried, but whether the government can appeal. And that’s all statutory.

I don’t know anything about government appeals in Wisconsin, but in federal court the government can appeal when the judge grants a motion for acquittal. In such a case, the accused may or may not get a new trial, depending on a bunch of complicated factors. If the jury convicted the defendant before the judge granted the defense motion, any successful appeal by the government reinstate the conviction.

The federal rules also allow for a new trial so long as the defense makes a contemporaneous motion for a new trial in the event his motion for acquittal is reversed on appeal. The reason double jeopardy isn’t implicated is because the judge, in deciding to grant a motion for acquittal, is limited to questions of law, and Congress thought (rightly, IMO), that the government ought to be able to appeal erroneous pronouncements of law.

In the military we have a “motion for a finding of not guilty.” The government cannot appeal. The accused can appeal the denial, but the government cannot appeal if the motion is successful.