If you're interested in learning more about the Rittenhouse trial, Rekieta Law on youtube is a lawyer who had a panel of lawyers analyze the case live with him. Absolutely awesome to get live strategic analysis on a criminal trial.
I assumed it was similar to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea, where you admit you committed a crime but there are special circumstances (that you have to prove) that mitigate it. You can't just stay silent the entire time and force the prosecutor to prove you were insane - you have to actually provide some evidence you were insane.
Is this not true?
An alternative equivalent would be if Arbery was successful at taking away the firearm and killing his attackers.
People claim self-defense all the time, it rarely works. In this case, where the clear, legally defined standard of self-defense was met, Kyle walked.
There is the concept of malicious prosecution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution ), but that only applies when the prosecutor pursues a case without proof of even the basic elements of the crime. If they filed charges that they were incredibly unlikely to prove (which is what I heard from all the commenters on this case: “the prosecution has a hard case to make” or something similar), then they spent a lot of time and money, caused somebody to spend a lot of money for the defendant, etc., but they didn’t cross the line into malicious prosecution.
Unfortunately, for this specific case, I don’t think it qualifies. The judge only dismissed the charge because he couldn’t write clear jury instructions for it ( https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhou... ). I think that could be enough to say “we brought the charge because we honestly thought it applied; the confusion wasn’t malice, it was just difficulty understanding a convoluted law.”
I don’t know about Wisconsin, and I don’t know if Rittenhouse has some way to afford bringing a malicious prosecution lawsuit or some other lawsuit against Kenosha. I get the feeling that kind of reaction (followed by a negotiated settlement) is more common in some parts of the country than others.
Should the state have even pursued that charge? Probably not, but that has nothing to do with that testimony blowing anyone away.
> For example, the dude who was shot in the arm testified and everyone was like "big win for Rittenhouse, he admitted he got shot only after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse".
This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. The other party in said videos being trapped into admitting that Kyle was right to shoot him was vidicating, both legally and personally for everyone who was rooting for Kyle.
Before anyone gets horrified at my views on the case, Kyle was a good kid, being dumb and idealistic, trying to help, and protecting himself when that went south. I wish he hadn't stayed out that night, I wish his assailants had valued their lives more highly, and I hope that this will be a good example for everyone: don't put yourself in danger unless you're prepared for the consequences, and secondarily, fuck around and find out.
I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so.
But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.
Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
The self-defense standard explained by the judge is simply that the defendant must believe that the level of force used was necessary to terminate an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and the defendant's belief must be reasonable.
However, "a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use.. self-defense against that attack." The judge ruled that it was legal for him to be carrying a gun that night, so while carrying a gun might provoke others, it's not unlawful conduct that provokes others.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhous...
So now people on social media are the standard? People on social media are not objective. They see what they want to see, based on the team they are rooting for. There is a video showing the exact moment of the shooting and facts are facts.
I agree with your last paragraph.
Neither are juries. Trials are about feeding the Jury the story they need to come to a specific conclusion. Removing any possible doubt from that story is vital.
"You have a mobile device, right?"
"And a mobile device can record images, right?"
"And you were present at the scene, right?"
"And while you were present at the scene you had a mobile device, right?"
"And your mobile device is capable of recording images, right?"
"And you used your mobile device to record images, right?"
Like, fuck, you could have compressed that all into 1 question. I guess lawyers get paid $900 an hour so maybe that's part of it.
So you binary search the damn thing, and you find the logical culprit in log(N) time if N is the number of clauses, instead of searching linearly.
Like, if they agree what a phone is, you don't need to drill down all the details of what constitutes a phone.
If they disagree, only then traverse the sub-nodes of that.
"Effective Deposition Strategy and Dealing with the Evasive, Non-cooperative Witness"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29123830
This section, and the example that follow it, are particularly relevant:
> Second, don’t go immediately for the killer question. Take the time to build toward your ultimate question with multiple questions, each question about one fact.
> Questions that include one and only one fact is the technique that gives you the most control of a witness.[4] You must ask about facts, not conclusions, when you want to control an evasive, non-cooperative witness. The witness will never agree to your conclusions, and their disagreement with you on any point may seem completely reasonable unless there has been the proper “set-up” (see the following questions and the next section dealing with “set-up”). The advantage of the “one fact – one question” technique is that when a witness “runs”, i.e. they try a long non-responsive narrative; the question can be repeated easily again and again. Each “run” makes the witness appear less credible and frequently results in the witness admitting the fact imbedded in the question. Stringing together multiple questions that are “one fact-one question” allows the jury to derive larger, case-critical conclusions that are inescapable, even if unstated.
Their legal analysis was excellent. You disagreeing with their views doesn't change that.
I got the impression that Barnes would have also made a very good defense for Rittenhouse, but at a very great expense to the Rittenhouse family. To me, it looked like he was an ambulance chaser looking to make a lot of money on a very high profile case. Spend spend spend, then ask for more donations to cover what was spent.
Some of the others were more distracting when trying to hear what was said during the case.
Barnes is obviously extremely smart, worth the big bucks, but definitely requires big money to hire.
Nick Rekieta himself is a fun guy, and I'm really glad he took off. He's re-sparked my nascent interest in criminal law, and it's great to see a lawyer dad who's up on his memes.
The rest of the panel is fun, not always super helpful, but the value of the panel was great. Good to see something new in the world of streaming.