Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 5

LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 5

The defense has an opportunity since the prosecution made two blunders.

Live blog is currently running slow, but will be updated as soon as the problem is solved, so please check back soon!

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.

You can find our commentary and analysis of yesterday’s trial proceedings here:  Rittenhouse Trial Day 4: Two State Blunders Create Opportunity for the Defense

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.

LIVE STREAM

LIVE COMMENT

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.

Remember

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!

–Andrew

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.

 

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


Hands up Don’t shoot!

Interaction with a dead man. OMG.

I’m just amazed how many people Balch and Grosskreutz talked to.. Everyone with a camera, those two wanted their 15 minutes. Still seem to.

Mr. Bingham, your case is in the dumpster and Mr. Rosebaum has lighted it on fire. He seems fixated on a dumpster.

I kept expecting Chirafsi to pull out the Yellowjacket costume.

Seems like defense has abandoned their objections to militia, proud boys, boogaloo boys, etc. references. They need to be more forceful on that.

“If he says the wrong thing, this crowd burns you alive”

….

I don’t see how this line of questioning is doing much to help the prosecution. Further reiterating the chaotic nature of the street at that time while adding nothing to bolster the argument that KR was the aggressor (so far at least – while letting the jury hear profanities yelled by the protestors/certain defendants)

    Elzorro in reply to 59Apache. | November 8, 2021 at 4:13 pm

    Binger is trying to prove Kyle provoked the pack of rabid hyenas that were burning down the city in to attacking him for trying to save the city and therefor is not allowed to claim self defense when he put them down?

Turns out some rioters fucked around, found out…

Midfiaudiophile | November 8, 2021 at 3:56 pm

I don’t understand what Chirafisi is getting at with his “It was not like solid rocks, it was concrete” point that he’s brought up a couple times. Wouldn’t solid rocks be more dangerous as projectiles?

    No, he’s trying to point out that these weren’t some pebbles found on the side of the road, but big ass chunks of concrete they’ve broken up from somewhere. They aren’t trying to get someone’s attention with pebbles, but kill people with concrete chunks.

      Midfiaudiophile in reply to Smooth23. | November 8, 2021 at 5:00 pm

      Fair enough, but I would have thought that he would comment on the size of the rocks rather than their material in that case.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Midfiaudiophile. | November 8, 2021 at 4:00 pm

    It also points out intent of “peaceful protesters” to destroy property, both public and private.

These 3 members of the so called “squad” should be firstin line for defamation lawsuits.

https://imgur.com/a/VlIVmoE

Rewatching the Chirafisi cross of Grosskreuz, he should not have mentioned that there was a round in the chamber. If he’d instead asked Gaige whether he normally carries with one in the chamber, he could have caught him either supporting the “Gaige was ready to use the firearm” narrative, got him to say he loaded one into the chamber after drawing, or caught him in a lie somewhere in between. Either way, would have been a clean win-win for defense.

Binger doesn’t even know what to ask this guy..

Judge asks to talk to lawyers at sidebar for a moment.
What he should have said:
“Binger, you’ve yet to even attempt to proved any of the elements you need to prove in order to defeat a self-defense claim. I am going to issue a directed verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ on all charges unless you rectify your failure.
“Then I’m going to ask for you to be disbarred, because so far you’re presenting a case that no ethical ADA would bring to court.”

And now the jury get to listen to these people babble on again about what they already know about the evil gun.

‘I’m not an expert, but it’s nerve gas….’

Jeez this guy’s an idiot.

Don’t believe it is a short-barrelled rifle, do you?

No

Ok, just blew away the underage in possession of a rifle charge. Yay!

    zero_speed in reply to GregTCT. | November 8, 2021 at 5:49 pm

    Owning an SBR is different… it’s still a rifle but the barrel length is less than 16 in (IIRC). It requires a form 3, typically owned by a collector or law enforcement.

Midfiaudiophile | November 8, 2021 at 4:59 pm

I hope the defense doesn’t feel the need to put Kyle on the stand after this. Prosecution has showed ample reasonable sources of imminent deadly force threat in the Rosenbaum shooting (Ziminski’s gunshot in the air, Rosenbaum lunging at him, Rosenbaum grabbing for the rifle). If cross-examination can force Kyle to choose one of those threats to which he was responding, the prosecutors might be able to play games with that. “So you heard a gunshot in close proximity to you. Did you see a gun in Rosenbaum’s hands?” etc and make him look unreasonable in A. noticing that factor in a split second or B. responding to it. Divide and conquer, and that level of specificity isn’t necessary for the defense.

Investigator took advisement from DA and GK’s lawyers on not to execute a warrant.

Investigator testifies he signed an affidavit before the facts came in.

Steven Brizel | November 8, 2021 at 5:08 pm

So far, all of the prosecution’s witnesses have gone a long way to establishing a claim of self-defense. This case clearly is a politically motivated prosecution. Let’s see what happens at the close of the prosecution’s case . I can’t imagine that a judge would grant a motion to dismiss, but a jury was clearly presented with enough evidence for an acquittal.

The Binger they are… the harder they fall.

Cops/prosecutor decided early on who was “Guilty” and pursued Kyle only.
All the questions re: why was Kyle there, why did he have a gun, why was he taking the law in his own hands etc… apply to the other actors/rioters that were shot and their compadres, yet the cops/prosecutor never asked these questions nor charged them with any of these crimes. At the very least, you’d think they’d charge them with something as well to keep from looking like a malicious prosecution. This is clearly get the white guy/2a guy, let the anarchists and socialists off without even a slap on the wrist.

    Think38 in reply to stl. | November 8, 2021 at 6:48 pm

    All those questions apply to Grosskreutz. The difference is, Grosskreutz is a felon that is not allowed to carry a firearm, and didn’t shoot because he got interrupted before he could. Had he successfully shot Rittenhouse, he could be charged with the same things as Rittenhouse, but with a much shakier defense.

      henrybowman in reply to Think38. | November 8, 2021 at 9:43 pm

      Thank you, thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one in the world who cared that Grosskreutz was not just a felon-in-possession, but had been indicted for exactly that before.

      Now I’m wondering how Mister “I have a permit, woops, it’s expired” had a permit, unless it’s antediluvean. No way in hell that lying sack of shit was unaware his permit was meaningless after his first felon-in-possession charge..

      forksdad in reply to Think38. | November 8, 2021 at 9:43 pm

      How many antifa have been prosecuted for serious crimes? I’m inclined to believe the state would have simply accepted a claim of self defense from antifa

    gonzotx in reply to stl. | November 8, 2021 at 9:26 pm

    But but Support the blue

This Rittenhouse guy, what an amazing sense of composure and trigger control- only fired at actual threats or those who had already attacked him. His actions are the real life version of what actors/stuntmen attempt to show.

The detective has reviewed the relevant videos, doesn’t know where stippling is on body… do cops not actually prepare for testimony in big cases?

    brainy435 in reply to brainy435. | November 8, 2021 at 5:39 pm

    …hasn’t reviewed*

    Olinser in reply to brainy435. | November 8, 2021 at 5:45 pm

    Branca’s writeup from last week went through just how inexperienced and unprepared this jackass was to be lead detective. At the time of the case he had barely been with the department 20 months. The idea that you’d put such a ridiculously inexperienced detective in charge of a national media case is…. suspect, to say the least.

    This may legitimately be the first big case he’s ever been in court for.

    He was lead detective because he’s a yes man for the DA, and the DA quite obviously didn’t bother to prepare him for this.

      Tom Servo in reply to Olinser. | November 8, 2021 at 6:40 pm

      it’s worse than just being a Yes Man. Detective Antaramian had only been on the job for 20 months when he was promoted to Lead Detective. Which happened on the night of the shooting. And he was given that promotion by the city attorney, his Cousin Ed Antaramian, who talked it over with the Mayor – the one who allowed the riots to get completely out of hand – his Uncle, John Antaramian.

Stippling and also what about blood spatter too. Spatter can shed a lot of light on a crime scene.

WAPO cut it when they started screaming Lets Burn The City

IndividualFreedom | November 8, 2021 at 5:52 pm

Live feed quit working

An ethical prosecutor seeking justice would drop it.

    amwick in reply to Elzorro. | November 8, 2021 at 6:05 pm

    An ethical prosecutor would not have charged this child.

      Elzorro in reply to amwick. | November 8, 2021 at 6:17 pm

      Absolutely. We can see what he is. I hope the jury can too. The only people who think Kyle guilty at this point are scheme team principals and those who have not watched the trial and rely on msm media coverage

AnAdultInDiapers | November 8, 2021 at 6:16 pm

After the jury left the judge spoke with the sheriff for a few minutes, following which the ADA approached him and discussed something with him.

Not sure if the two conversations were connected but the ADA turned away from the judge looking like he’d just been told his child had been run over. Meanwhile, the bald defence lawyer broke into a smile.

Anybody have insight into what was being discussed?

    Dunno but something is up. I think they might have all headed to chambers to discuss something but not sure. I thought I saw one of the Bunko Brothers used car dealers to but not sure.

    Capsaicin_Addict in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | November 8, 2021 at 6:22 pm

    Twenty bucks to St. Jude’s that there’s talk of dismissal or directed verdict.

      Dunno but something. Is it possible a states witness is wanting to recant the testimony or has been arrested for something related to the trial.

      How bout the state subourning perjury out of the commie with the 10 million lawsuit. Is Bingers butt in a wringer and they trying to get him out of hot water? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode tomorrow. Anything can happen in this fiasco.

    Another possibility. I wonder if Binger might have interviewed a witness w/o a LEO present? If so he is a material witness subject to being called to the stand by the defense. I would just ROFL if he did. A prosecutor is not a LEO and can’t investigate anything w/o a LEO with him.

    thad_the_man in reply to AnAdultInDiapers. | November 8, 2021 at 7:29 pm

    I think Ziminiski has fled. He was in court today then left.

But for the batting order for the lawyers would have sworn this was the defense case

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to SamlAdams. | November 8, 2021 at 7:17 pm

    I would love the to see the judge thank the prosecution when they finish calling witnesses, ask the Rittenhouse’s lawyers to begin the defence and get the reply (in front of the jury) “Begin? We’ve just had a week of it.”

I saw this movie! It was called Sleepers…where the prosecuting attorney played by Brad Pitt was trying to lose.

3 things… 1. Grosskreutz says he has this moral code that wouldn’t allow him to shoot someone… Yet carries a loaded pistol with a round in the chamber? Seems like an odd pairing for a pacifist. 2. Both investigating detectives have a year on the job and are selected to get the biggest case in their city’s history??? 3. Both the prosecution and defense sure bring up (the lovely) husband and wife duo Ziminiski’s… It sure seems like they are setting up these two to be superstar witnesses, I’m now thinking it’s the defense that will introduce one (or both).

Saint Floyd’s nephew has put out a threat on Twitter that he is going to fix the jury and has pictures of them so peope ie BLM, can harass them or burn down their houses if they say he’s innocent

Why is he not in jail?

So no more daily summaries. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Here is Grosskreutz’s criminal record

http://www.kenoshacountyeye.com/gaige.pdf

    TargaGTS in reply to darwin. | November 8, 2021 at 10:19 pm

    That’s…fascinating. How does a guy who is legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm admit under oath that he was carrying a concealed firearm and not have any fear of being prosecuted himself? Has Branca addressed this…or the defense for that matter?

    fogflyer in reply to darwin. | November 8, 2021 at 10:48 pm

    Wow! Thanks for that!!!
    Now, can someone explain to me how he was able to testify in court that he had a CCW, but that it was “expired”!?!? This guy has been a felon since 2012. Seriously, how was this statement allowed in court?


Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend