LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 10: Closing Arguments
Once the jury goes into deliberations, we will go into VERDICT WATCH mode, so keep your eyes right here for breaking news and analysis of the final verdict(s) in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
Welcome back to our ongoing live coverage of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle is charged with a variety of felonies, including first-degree murder, for shooting three men, two fatally, as well as for alleged reckless conduct on the night of August 25, 2020, in riot-torn Kenosha WI.
Today the court will instruct the jury, explaining to them how to apply the law to the facts of the case as they determine those facts to have been proven or disproven. This will be followed by the State’s closing argument, the defense closing argument, and the State rebuttal. At that point, the jury will begin its deliberations. Once the jury goes into deliberations, we will go into VERDICT WATCH mode, so keep your eyes right here for breaking news and analysis of the final verdict(s) in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
You can find our commentary and analysis of from over this past weekend here:
Rittenhouse Analysis: State’s Weak Provocation Argument Is Still The Major Threat to Acquittal (Sunday (11/14/21)
Getting Jurors To Imagine “Provocation” In Blurry Photo And Video – Rittenhouse Prosecution Endgame (Saturday 11/13/21)
As usual, you can follow our live streaming of today’s court proceedings as well as our live, real-time commenting of courtroom testimony and argument as it occurs, right here.
And don’t forget to join us this evening for our usual plain English legal analysis and commentary of the day’s proceedings, along with the courtroom video of it all.
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Judge should let Binger make his rebutle now or he is on the dark side.
Hocus Pocus out of Focus
I might end up on a 72 hr mental hold if I have to listen to another hour of Binger.
So Andrew thinks Richards messed up on the “active shooter” claim.
It probably would have been good to educate the jury that it didn’t matter if the mob believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. The only thing that matters is that Rittenhouse believed in that moment he was in danger of being killed or seriously injured.
Ahhh dunno maybe better to let this awesome close sink in overnight and let Binger start cold in the morning.
Sounds like Tubby is going to close it out.
Kraus with the “slow motion” replay argument.
Cant listen to Kraus.
Me neither.. he’s horrible
Not impressed with Richards. Fine on a lot of details, but did a substandard job in linking to the larger issues. Very poor windup. No overall summary of Kyle’s the defense.
The saving grace is that the prosecution is a train wreck.
Yep. That state suffered the most damage to their own case while they were on direct during their own case-in-chief.
Richards blew the lawyer mumbo jumbo out of the water. Jurors are not lawyers.
Tubby basically said that you have to let yourself get the stuffing beaten out of you before you have any right to defend yourself.
He doesn’t look like the sort that would endure a beating well.
I wasn’t that impressed with the close. Binger played a mis-direction, and Richards never addressed it. Binger argued that to all of the people that KR shot at, KR was the bad guy. It’s hard to accept wrt JR, but it does make sense with JKM, AH, and GG. Unfortunately, IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, and Richards never challenged it. The test is whether KR defending himself was reasonable, the motivations of the attacker have no bearing. Instead, Richards worked to paint them as rioters, but there wasn’t really evidence of bad behavior by anyone other than JR.
Tubby can’t count to 18
Sounds like the 2 seater clown car disagrees on theory of case for the state…can’t be good for them.
I would be surprised if it matters to the jury.
Does it take less that 3/4 of a second to fall down?
32 feet per second squared…
Tubby is going after the staying silent after the shooting. Move for mistrial
No Richards won the case.
“ADA Jim Kraus: Simply cannot be reasonable for someone to be holding an AR rifle with powerful ammunition, and be chased by someone who is unarmed, who is smaller, shorter, and the first thing that you do to defend yourself is put four rounds into them.”
This is just stupid. When that smaller person knocks you down and tries to take your rifle, you have to defend yourself or you’re the one who’s dead. Other than shooting, what are the options? Put the rifle down and try to fight? Again, you’re dead once that smaller guy gets your rifle. This argument makes no sense at all.
Liberals rarely do make sense…
Not in the real world to a person with an ounce of sense. But we’re looking at a Wisconsin jury. One woman at voir dire blurted out, “Why did he need a machine gun?” And for some reason she got on the jury.
These are the people Kraus and Binger are trying to influence to get a hung jury so they can prosecute Kyle again. And again. And again. And again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Well if an unarmed person who is at a physical disadvantage decides to chase after an armed person I do believe that the unarmed person is right to assume that person is willing to attack them because they think they can gain an advantage and disarm them. The reason for doing that in this circumstance is not public protection but to make a successful attack on the now unarmed person more likely.
What would motivate that? Determination to inflict great bodily harm even to the point of death. JMHO.
Errata to above. “I do believe that the armed person is right to assume that person is willing to attack them…”
How can you *know* the person chasing after you is at a physical disadvantage? How do you know their physical abilities? Admittedly, if the attacker is 90 years old and maneuvering his electric wheelchair, it would make sense, but….
“Oh, my. A young adult who previously threatened to kill me is running at me with obviously hostility. I shall put my trusty rifle down and engage them in the manly art of fisticuffs.”
— Nobody Ever, Anywhere
Just so. The only thing that can be known is that a threat to your personal safety is imminent and the whether you have the ability to stop it.
“If I see you alone, I am going to kill you.”
Finds Kyle alone. Ambushes Kyle. Chases Kyle. There is a gunshot in close proximity to Kyle. Kyle has unknown object thrown at him. Traps Kyle. Lunges at Kyle while proclaiming F YOU as he grabs the barrel of Kyle’s weapon.
No! Wait! Stop! Let me unsling my weapon, set it on the ground, that you and I may do manly man0-to-mano fisty cuffs! Okay?
Here comes the mistrial…
This fat tub of lard Kraus is making some stupid arguments. How the hell did he and Binger graduate law school?
Kraus went there! Chew out coming!
Kraus is such a clown. Did he really want this rebuttal assignment? Binger is at least better at concocting a fake narrative that is capable of duping someone.
Desperate and pathetic.
Ouch, for the first time, ADA Krauss had made a semi-cogent fact based argument that may score some points with the jury. He is asking the jury why Kyle had to go to his gun immediately against a man smaller than himself who came at him only with hands and feet.
If the jury doesn’t understand that Rosenbaum was trying to get control of the weapon, and was therefore a deadly threat, this might influence some jurors.
Oops, Krauss just stepped in it by raising Zaminski’s Fifth Amendment rights. The judge just sent the jury out. We’ll see what happens.
That’s not even close to cogent by the law. You are right that it could sway a dumbass juror or two but the hope is that they are corrected by at least one that knows the law does not require both men to be armed for legal self defense with a firearm…or they could ask the question to the judge during deliberation if they aren’t sure.
He should be the bowsprit on the Graf Zepplin. Talking Blimp.
Ah, not what I was expecting.
MOVE FOR THE MISTRIAL!!!
Gong him! This guy is in Gong Show zone. Bat Country.
Thought I’d post this here
Maybe the Professor will join the University of Austin?
I’m hoping good news like this will snowball with positive waves for Kyle
We must change and destroy the woke
They are coming for all of us…
MOVE FOR THE DANG MISTRIAL
Dunno I think Richards won the day with help from upstairs.
But if it’s mistrailed, they can retry Kyle right?
Obviously no legal mind here
There is an unruled upon motion for a mistrial WITH prejudice. That would preclude further prosecution at the state level.
That’s been left open on purpose to get the prosecution to behave but it isn’t working because they want a mistrial…it’s much better than a loss and gives them campaign/career fodder as activist politicians.
I’ve been wondering about that. Is that in the pocket for a dismissal disregarding verdict?
I still suspect the judge is waiting until the jury comes back with a verdict before ruling on that one.
These 5th amendment shenanigans from Kraus cannot leave a good impression with the jury.
Binger begging for mistrial now.
I went to dinner – what did I miss that would move for a mistrial?
Richards is on it and I know hw has help from upstairs.
Tubby is like Heel’s Up Harris to Binger’s Brandon
This argument over the Ziminskis was impossible for me to follow.
I swear, we need to stop allowing DA’s to offer or deny immunity, and establish a neutral 3rd party that makes all such decisions, balancing requests from both prosecution and defense.
The Gist is their both trying to say “It proves my point” that Ms. Zaminski [the “‘Provocation'” (in Triple quotes for sarcasm)] wasn’t called to testify that Mr. Rittenson pointed a gun at her.
Tubby was trying to make the point that the defense did not call the Ziminskis. Richards, rightly pointed out that the defense could not call Mr. Ziminiski because he is pending trial – which it seems has been strung out by the prosecution to shelter Mr. Ziminski from testifying at this trial. Further, Richards points out that ONLY the prosecution could offer Mr. Ziminski a free ride that would eliminate his 5A argument. Mrs. Ziminski was incidental to the conversation.
Fatso is gonna do it again odds.
Is Blimpo on the defense team?
This jury is now going to end up hating both of the prosecutors.
Uh, oh. Mr. Judge is going to rip someone again.
Do we really believe jumpkick man is that hard to find? I think the state didn’t want him because he is problematic for them. They had GG in their pocket, know he is cooperative with their narrative, and know his record is what you would call manageable risk plus the EMT helper narrative to boot.
I’m willing to bet they know who he is, but he has huge credibility issues because of his criminal history.
Yep, but on the off chance the FBI doesn’t know his identity, we could start an internet rumor that he stole Ashley Biden’s diary, or has a copy of one of Hunter Biden’s laptops, and then the FBI would be upp his azz in a heartbeat!
It doesn’t matter if Armstrong put in 20 hours of work on crappy video. You still can’t see anything definitive in it other than supposedly Rittenhouse became left handed for a split second.
Tubby’s video shows that the first shooting, first shot was substantially closer than 4′ from the gun.
I’ve probably commented this like 10 times, but neither Kraus nor Binger is able to describe what a good use of force would look like, and so they are unable to offer any theory about how Rittenhouse’s failed. He just says “Did not satisfy his duty to retreat” which is only applicable to the simple provocation instruction and he doesn’t give any theory about what it would look like to satisfy that duty to retreat.
I also think Richards could have done a better job of discussing reasonableness, totality of the circumstances, slowed down videos not showing things in the proper context, etc.
I believe the prosecution asserted KR would have had have retreated for an hour. But maybe he didn’t in assert that in front of the jury.
Is it too late to get Schroeder to instruct the jury that there is no duty to retreat in Wisconsin and to disregard anything the prosecution has said concerning the law since the end of the last ice age to date because they have been making it up as they go along?
Or, here’s a thought! Declare a mistrial with prejudice and refer these rabid lunatics to the state bar association for disbarment.
Binger will stand up after Fatso and beg….please clap.
Wow, Kraus admits that the drone footage shows up in the middle of the trial and becomes their star piece of evidence. Good job introducing doubt.
Give Tubby a right handed AR and let him shoot it left handed. Then give him a left handed AR and let him shoot it – bet he would figure out there are left and right handed guns.
Not a left hand or right hand gun…BS.
Let’s see – counsel says don’t turn over your phone. Cops have a signed warrant – guess what – bye bye phone – unless the DA does not want to know what is on it.
LOL…guns are not left or right handed. I guess all those makers provide reversible charging handles for fun.
Your time is up Fatso.
Why does the prosecution get to make two closing arguments?!
I think it’s stupid, but it’s because they have the burden of proof.
Kraus is going on 40 minutes with stoppage time for objections…can’t be more than 15 minutes of those though right?
Judge has already said he won’t cut him off. Wonder what his tolerance will be.
The more he goes the worse it gets for the state.
If the jury has Richards home run ball they should now throw it back at the talking blimp.
Kraus: “Guns aren’t right- or left-handed”
Uh, yeah they are. More importantly, though, is PEOPLE are right- or left-handed.
exactly what I was thinking. For no apparent reason KR goes from carrying righty to lefty ONLY at the time of this super fuzzy picture when only the prosecution can see the gun pointed in a general direction.
Kraus is arguing that a babe in a bikini is begging to be raped.
“Defense is asking you to guess what Rosenbaum and the others were doing”….
What? I thought that’s what you were doing with this whole ridiculous “hero” narrative.
Gotta love being a prosecutor. You get the last word and can impugn anyone’s character in search of a “win.”
They have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the EXCLUSION of any other reasonable hypothesis. People miss this.
Hey dipstick – an unspent shell casing is a live round. Idiot has no idea what a gun is or how to operate one.
Hmm. What’s the difference between an unspent shell casing and a love round? 😂
Sheesh… live round
Umm, A little blue pill?
Unspent shell casings???
It amazes me how little these idiots know about guns.
Blimpie is just wasting time now.
Is the prosecutor really attacking a witness’s character off the stand?
Chalk up another mistrial request.
Get ready…El Blimpo is going to step in it.
Blimpie – “we are grasping at straws”. Yes you are
Kraus has surely charged people with using objects such as skateboards as weapons.
There he goes again. 🙂
Kraus needs to go back to his accordion playing job with the Kenosha Kickers. This ignore what you saw on the tape crap is getting old.
I hope not. Playing the accordion requires coordination, dedication, talent, and the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time… and I don’t see Kraus exhibiting any of those virtues.
Someone tell Kraus more people are killed with glocks than AR15s
well, to be accurate and balanced I should say “pistols” vs “rifles”
Guaranteed that both of your statements are true.
I think the prosecution has changed their story on Kyle 3 times in the last hour. One minute he came to town to kill kill kill, the next he’s an in-ept wanna-be fireman/cop and the next he’s a chaos tourist who went trigger happy when shit blew back at him. Jesus- pick a lane.
Defense should have brought up that if you are acting in defense of another, you step in the shoes of the other. Now, none of the latter shootings were actually in defense of the first, but that is what the prosecution is depicting.
I use GPS to travel throughout my own city all the time.
Especially when you expect streets to be arbitrarily blocked. GPS software accounts for this in real time.
is this level of sheer disrespect and personal attacks between prosecution and defense normal? because I’m starting to be more worried about a total meltdown of our legal system than I am about the actual result of this particular trial…..
And I was already pretty worried about the result of this particular trial.
No kidding. No matter which side you’re on, this is unseemly to put it mildly.
According to DA, you should be allowed to chase someone down and beat them into submission if someone else tells you that they shot someone.
Death Spiral. When you got a big fat Tuna on the line and they can’t get away they go in to a death spiral. As you reel em up to gaff they are done. Fatso is in a death spiral.
Krause: Richards is a mean guy who impugned my character!
Using a weapon IS using physical force.
This is getting ridiculous.
Could the DA’s office have chosen two attorneys more cringeworthy than Binger and Krause?
Fatso – “every life counts, every life matters” – go try the abortionists if you want credibility.
Now it’s take a beating or run to some mythical safe place….which is it?
I forgot Binger’s leave the gun behind and run option…that’ was a real winner.
He is going for a world record stupid rebuttle.
I think it will be a hung jury.
Unfortunately I agree. This would be a clown show if juries weren’t so susceptible to this kind of inane rhetoric. But the odds that we’ll have one jury member who won’t acquit seems very possible to me.
Do they poll the jury for a hung jury? I figure the case for prejudice is stronger if it’s like 10 to acquit and 2 holdouts than if it’s 6:6.
Depends on the state. Most states do poll them – in particular the judge has to know so he can determine whether its worth it to tell them to keep deliberating or call a mistrial – but it won’t necessarily be publicly released.
Half hour turn around.
If it is a hung jury then the court should enter a verdict of accquital.
We are at over an hour with maybe 10 minutes of stoppage time. That was double what he was told he had left to argue with.
correction more than double…he was told 25 minutes
Nooooo don’t stop!
Did anyone else’s audio just go out?
True story ; I was listening to Krause yammer on and thought: Please God make him shut up – and instantly my audio went out! hahaha!
So you’re the one.
“A skate board is not a dangerous weapon”
Ok, I take a 32″ piece of wood, attach steel fittings to one end making it’s total weight 4.5 pounds. What do I have? A weighted club. Those are also the specs for a random skate board I found on Amazon.
What does Mr. Kraus charge me with if I swing said skateboard at a cop or a prosecutor?
It’s so useless as a melee weapon that Huber hit KR with it, it went flying off, and he went to retrieve it before assaulting KR again.
By that logic neither is a fire extinguisher, then. So why are the J6 “insurrectionists” being held without bond and still being falsely accused of killing officer Siknick with such a non-deadly weapon?
Sarcastically speaking, I wouldn’t cry if someone takes after Kraus with a skateboard to the head and a boot to the face.
Krauss rebuttal may have done some damage to the defense, if the goal was to influence at least some impressionable jurors. Krauss tried to represent that Kyle, if he felt threatened by an “unarmed” Rosenbaum, should have tried to defend himself by lesser means instead of his gun, even if it meant perhaps taking a beating.
This might well resonate as a reason to vote to convict if they catch either a naive juror, or one that is already ant-Kyle in the final jury selection. Remember, all the prosecution needs is one juror to refuse to aquit and they have the hung jury they need.
I thought one weakness of the defense case was their lack of any expert testimony that addressed the danger of an opponent wrestling your weapon from you. The moment Rosenbaum grabbed the weapon, he was armed.
Yes, my understanding is the use of force expert would testify to this, and the judge disallowed it. Inexplicable to me why the defense could not get some of evidence admitted to this effect.
That’s fascinating. I can’t imagine why that testimony wouldn’t be admitted. I’ve seen testimony exactly like that in other self-defense cases. Was this a pre-trial decision or a decision made before defense began their presentation?
Kyle was in the street, surrounded by angry, hostile rioters, but he’s supposed to drop his weapon and get into a fist-fight with Rosenbaum? How long before the other rioters came to pile on? A matter of seconds. Then Kyle would have been overwhelmed, and soon dead. Or else he would have had to shoot a lot more people than he did.
Or someone picks up his gun and shoots him with it.
is there a written transcript of closing arguments, in their entirety, anywhere? I’m starting to think I need to review them just to determine how much of a disaster this day was for everyone.
I was wondering the very same thing.
Kraus is all speculation.
Ahhh Dunno but I don’t think any points by lawyers are what the jury of the local yokels are telling. They ain’t lawyers. I am comfortable with their decision. Good or bad. Guess that is the way it is.
“Only imminent threat was Rittenhouse. He’s guilty. ”
What a revolting ride in the clown car. Truly disgusting.
So, what happens if the twelve come back with self defense on all counts but the endangerment count and they go guilty there? Their instructions preclude that, but…
The defense would ask the judge to set aside the guilty verdict, and there would be a not-trivial chance that he would do so.
My knowledge of American courtrooms doesn’t go farther than Hollywood movies, Tv shows and a couple of Scott Turow’s books, but I need help with this. I thought the defense had the privilege of the last word. How comes that here the State is allowed to make a sandwich of Richard’s argument?
The prosecution gets the first and last word since they, in theory, have the burden of proof.
Yes, I think it’s unfair, as well.
“Kraus: Those bad people could have been prosecuted. Not executed.”
The governor could have ordered the national guard to stop the riots. The mayor could have ordered the police to actively stop the riots. So, I’m curious. How many of the Kenosha rioters did this malevolent clown prosecute? I’d bet none. I wouldn’t be surprised if instead of prosecuting these violent rioters they were contributing to Kamala Harris’ bail fund.
None, I’m sure. And that’s the reason KR was there. Because none of these “authorities” would do their jobs.
I despise these prosecutors.
I probably missed this in the beginning but was there ever any consideration of trying Kyle as a minor since he was 17 at the time?
Homicide charges will do this. It’s not uncommon. I don’t know what the laws of Wisconsin are, but I’m in Texas and a capital felony charge can put a 14-year-old in adult court if the juvenile court waives its jurisdiction.
By statute, criminal courts (courts for adults as opposed to juvenile courts) in WI have exclusive jurisdiction for all criminal defendants age 17 or older. WI is one of only a handful of states that have this statutory language.
1) Almost a certainty there is -0- chance ALL 12 jurors vote to convict.
2) Almost a certainty at least ONE juror votes to convict.
Nicely put, it’s hard to argue with. The only chance of acquittal is if a sizeable majority of the jury start swinging skateboards around.
One item which I have not seen addressed (maybe I missed it) is whether the jury has been sequestered during the trial or are they going home every night? If not sequestered thus far, will they be sequestered while deliberating?
They’re not sequestered and it doesn’t appear they’re going to be sequestered moving forward.
Such a big mistake
I understand people have lives. But I personally can’t understand why juries are not sequestered on trials that have national coverage. Any insight from trial lawyers?
Would seem to me that it would be really hard to avoid hearing about or at least sensing the murmur and tension in town that a ” wrong ” decision will put them and the whole town in peril
Always been a big fan of the Targa models. I never understood why they weren’t more popular. They always struck me as the perfect compromise between coupe and cabriolet.
Me too. I bought myself my first new Porsche a couple years ago and chose the Targa GTS. It’s just about a perfect car. Historically, they haven’t sold great. But from what I understand, the 992 Targas (which just came out this year), are impossible to find. When they do hit dealer lots, there’s a considerable markup over sticker.
Not Guilty of all charges. IMO