LIVE: Rittenhouse Trial Day 7
Energized defense enters second day presenting its case of self-defense to the jury
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 6: State’s Autopsy Expert Supports Self-Defense Narrative In Another Disastrous Prosecution Day
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
Countdown to the start of today’s installment of my favorite soap opera, “Train Wreck”.
Following Mr. Branca’s reporting in real time is my new guilty pleasure.
Yesterday, we saw “The Tuesday Afternoon Massacre”.
Will today result in a “Wednesday Wipeout” for the state’s case?
It’s very interesting what the glasses have done to soften ADA Kraus’ image, although it isn’t nearly enough to overcome the generally snide impression he gives, IMO.
Before, he came off as a brutal, oafish bully, whereas with the glasses he presents more as just a clodding buffoon, certainly less ornery overall.
I wonder how often mid-trial image changes work for attorneys. I know we tend to give more weight to the opinions of those we consider attractive, but first impressions tend to stick.
I don’t know, I think the name “Fatlock” is going to stick around for a long, long time.
I don’t know what I’m going to do for entertainment while I work after this is done.
Ask your boss for ideas.
I kind of know this is stupid, but can’t the weapons charges be dismissed same as the curfew charge? They keep asking if anyone ID’d Rittenhouse, or how old he looked etc, and everyone has said they assumed he was 18+. They haven’t shown a scintilla of evidence that he was actually 17, though I’m sure that is also indisputable. I”m just not sure how that works.
I thought we were still waiting for a ruling on that, but also don’t recall the prosecution presenting evidence on that charge.
Motion to dismiss that count was denied yesterday about the same time as the curfew charge was dismissed.
So it was. I stand corrected.
Thanks
The reason the weapon charge should be dismissed because even at 17, he’s not in violation of the clear statutory text. It’s not against the law for a 17-year to carry a long-rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin, only a short-barreled rifle or handgun, neither of which he had on his person at anytime during his time in WI.
I agree wholeheartedly, but it seems that argument was denied by the judge. I guess I’d be trying EVERY avenue.
Has it been denied, or has it simply not been ruled on yet? I thought he had yet to issue a ruling on that motion. But, I could be wrong.
Since he is charged as an ADULT, being also charged as a MINOR in possession seems to be a tad moronic … but … considering the caliber of the ADA …. nuff said,
The defense has already won the legal case. Now it all depends on winning over the wokeist idealogs of whom there are almost certainly a few on the jury. It depends on how fully indoctrinated they are. Worst case for the good guys now is for they jurists to make a ‘deal’ and partial conviction. Best case is Not Guilty or a mistrial.
“It depends on how fully indoctrinated they are. ”
You misspelled “intimidated”. This is an absolutely clear case of that…. and it’s always been the DA’s go to.
Am I crazy to think it might be good for Kyle that they left the underage weapons charge? If the jury is looking for a compromise verdict to get one or more holdouts to vote not-guilty on the more serious charges, that gives them an out to convict him of “something.” Then he appeals that conviction because the law is written in such a way that a judge of 50 years admits on the record that its vague. Even if that fails its a misdemeanor.
The way I understand Mr. Branca, if KR gets convicted of the weapons charge, then he was unlawfully carrying and everything after that he is guilty of. It’s the lynchpin issue that would result in a complete “win” for the prosecution.
But I could be mistaken.
I don’t know if the unlawful carrying would immediately result in a complete win. He may have been unlawfully carrying, but I don’t think that would be an unlawful act that could really be considered provocation to his attackers. There’s testimony acknowledging that many people were carrying guns, AR-15s specifically. I don’t think a reasonable person on the street could look at Kyle and know based on appearance that he was actually 17 and not 18 like the others that were open-carrying. Even the highly-trained police officers he interacted with couldn’t tell that he was unlawfully carrying. So I don’t think that even if he was unlawfully carrying (and that statute is super vague), I don’t know if it is really a basis for provocation.
I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t matter what anyone else thought regarding how old he was. If he was unlawfully carrying (and I am *NOT* saying I believe he was), the he was unlawfully carrying. Period.
As an example, many (15+) years ago there was a truck driver going down the highway in Ft. Worth around 1 or 2 AM. A guy on a motorcycle (with no working headlight), ran into his trailer going 100+ MPH. The truck driver didn’t even notice until someone got his attention and he pulled over. He called the cops and did everything 100% right. He was charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Why? Because he was operating outside of the hours of service. The DA’s reasoning was that if he had obeyed the HoS, then he wouldn’t have been there and the accident wouldn’t have happened.
Likewise, *IF* the ADA can prove unlawful carry by KR, then everything that follows *could* be said to have never happened if he wasn’t carrying. Therefore he’s responsibleculpable.
IANAL (Thank G-d!).
Pretty sure I have been made aware of cases where a felon exercised his right of self-defense using a handy firearm, and was never charged beyond “illegal possession,” and sometimes not even then (in cases where the firearm was someone else’s, and not one that he “owned” illegally).
I’ve been wondering the same thing. It seems that there could be jurors that do believe he acted in self-defense, but are so set in their belief that he should not have been there to begin with and was inviting trouble upon himself, that they feel they have to convict on something.
Argument there is that he had the same right to be there that the “demonstrators” did. To argue otherwise cedes the street exclusively to rioters. I’m sure the let would love that, but I’m also pretty sure it isn’t the law, and we should never cede that point to the Marxists.
*…sure the LEFT would love that…
An eye-opening view of inept and substance-challenged prosecution. I am stunned at the poor performance of the governments lawyers.
The witnesses are much more credible than the prosecutors and their leading and far-fetched questions.
You’re looking at the future of law: the “equity-qualified” lawyer. Binger seems a little old to be the leftist product of a “woke” law school, but what you see here is what you will be seeing everywhere in the next decade or two.
And if you want to know where it ends up, watch the sadly prophetic film “Idiocracy.”
So it appears to me that the prosecution rested without making any specific claim that they disproved any single element of self-defense. Is it up to the defense to call an expert on self-defense law to spell it out for the jury, or does it all come down to jury instruction and closing arguments?
I believe they do have a use of force expert on their witness list.
I’m pretty sure Andrew B covered this in one of his posts on the pre-trial motions. If I recall correctly this was another comedy gold moment when Binger tried to get a ruling that if the prosecution didn’t call a self-defense expert then the defense should be *prohibited* from calling one. The Judge wasn’t buying it at all and basically told Binger he could either call his own or stipulate to the testimony of the defense expert, and Binger backed down.
A question still to be answered is whether Binger and Det. Armatrainan (whatever) get their identical coifed hair styled at the same salon.
I think they actually style each other’s hair after their morning intimate session.
I can smell the combo SEB MAN and Axe Body Spray all the down here in Florida.
Caught a few minutes of the Arbery case this morning. Prosecution spent a bunch of time with a detective reading portions of Greg McMichael’s statement, then getting mad when the defense used other portions of the statement she introduced to counter the bits she had the detective read.
The snark back from the defense is entertaining. The judge keeps knocking down her objections and in just 20 minutes she came across as trying to sell an incomplete story to the jury.
Is there a non-MSM feed for the Arbery case? All I can find is CNN/MSM generally etc and I simply cannot trust them to tell me what’s actually happening. We have been fed the line by BBC over here that this is a slam dunk and that anything less than life for the shooters will be a travesty. This is the first I’ve heard that there might be another side.
PBS is streaming it on youtube. Day 4 is the current video.
I would love to know a good feed and commentary similar to this one, but I don’t. Praying this ends quickly in acquittal. Then Mr. Braca can return to the Arbery case.
Professor, I’m having a lot of trouble keeping access to this article today. I get virus warnings covering the page. Is the blog under attack today?
You probably caught something. Clear your cache and check ur add ons to make sure you did not install something that was not suppose to be there. Consider going in a private, safe browsing mode. I get slammed with ads with the apple browser but I am fine with Firefox. Firefox has been crashing alot, so I am starting to look for a different browser. With active blogging and ad refreshing, it might be causing additional problems but it sound more like you have adware or a virus on your system and fix that. Malwarebytes has been around for a long time. Not promoting it for I only have run it occasionally. Check out the tech sites, this is the wrong place for your response.
Brave browser
After this fiasco the free states must tighten up their self defense laws. Even go so far as to include defense of property. Law abiding citizens must be protected from leftist lawfare being used against them.
Texas already has.
I think defense of property is a non-starter. I believe Texas is the only state with such an arrangement, and then only in limited circumstances.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-use-deadly-force-to-defend-property/
HAHAHA! as I predicted. LOL! 20 million at stake.
Marshall – hostile witness – disputing what he posted on twitter?
Don’t think calling Marshall was a good idea.
Marshall, luckily, answered in a really stupid way. It would have been much more believable to say “My friend was heavily medicated and in a great deal of pain at the time, I don’t think he knew what he was saying” rather than trying to pretend that he hadn’t said it at all and that he was posting inflammatory things in an effort to dissuade people from saying mean things to them.
Can’t believe Defence missed this: “he was posting inflammatory things in an effort to dissuade people from saying mean things to them”
That speaks volumes to the sorts of people that he’s trying to dissuade….
Simple follow up – chap who stopped short. Does he get threats for not having kicked KR when he was down?
None of his rationale makes any sense.
Disagree, it allowed the jury to see the post, which is damaging.
Were you lying then or were you lying now.
He missed that but a smart jury will note it
Didn’t Binger object yesterday to a witness referring to principals by their first names — Kyle, Gaige, etc. instead of using Mr. xxx?
And here he is now on cross of this dude calling the one armed bandit Gaige?
In some ways, I think Marshall made it worst by trying to cover. It is like a double train wreck.
Gee they can speak English.
Not sure why they recalled Anmol either… thought he was sufficiently impeached by Grambo and Smith.
AAAAACK!!! Nooooo.
Oh shit….
Kyle to take the stand!
Oh, here we go with KR
So on that date, he wasn’t able to accurately estimate the cost, thought it was $2.5 million, but now, he has decided that it was only $400,000?
400k for 137 cars. That’s less than 3k per car in average value.
And all the other expenses that he used to explain the $2.5m number (damage to buildings, computers, asphalt, etc., etc.) just … vanished?
what is the sister-fight video?????
WOW Showtime! This is crazy!
How stupid. Go sit back down Kyle. GO SIT DOWN
I cannot believe they’re doing this.
Binger will need his “Darth Binger” lapel pin, and all the force he can muster!
This strikes me as really unnecessary, and an attempt to spike the football.
“Spike the football?” Come on, man. The kid’s life is on the line. He’s patently innocent and he wants to tell his side of events. I don’t blame him. He has nothing to hide. Yes, a defendant going on the stand is always a risk, and, for that reason it’s a rare event, but, it’s not entirely without precedent. You act as though it’s never taken place in the history of criminal prosecutions, which is totally absurd.
“The kid’s life is on the line. He’s patently innocent and he wants to tell his side of events. I don’t blame him. He has nothing to hide.”
Ever watch this?
The same reasoning applies to taking the stand. It’s a tightwire walk.
I can’t believe he’s actually testifying. It seems like a HUGE risk.
I concur. They’ve had a concrete defence throughout, and the prosecution have proven none of the charges.
Quite how this can improve their position I don’t know. How it can weaken it? So many ways.
Bewildering.
Kyle’s choice, not theirs.
Holy shit. Bless you, child.
oh Andrew, that was cruel. Very cruel.
This kid is a hero. Tear down every Saint Floyd statue and replace it with a General Rittenhouse statue.
How to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
“Richards on direct of Kyle.
Came to Kenosha to look for trouble?
Yes.
Would you have shot Rosenbaum if he hadn’t chased you and fought for your firearm?
Yes. ‘
– incorrect: he said no, and the 2nd question was not asked (objection- leading)
Whew! When I read that, it was a true WTF moment.
What’s the strategy here? Limit the direct so as to limit the scope of cross examination?
According to Mr. Branca, Wisconsin does not hold to that rule. There have been a couple of times when “out of the scope of direct” has been objected by the Prosecution while their witnesses were being crossed, so there’s clearly a discretionary element, but the Judge has overruled the objection in most of those instances.
Suspect he will be Defense’s last witness, correct?
You don’t think they’re going to call the use of force expert?
I can’t imagine them calling someone after him. They’d want him fresh in their minds.
I actually believe they would prefer to have someone who’s an expert in self-defense explaining what legal self-defense is.
That’s what I was thinking as well… UoF expert explaining the reasonableness of Kyle’s fear for his life might be more impactful after actually hearing Kyle explain his thought process, rather than just trying to manufacture reasonable doubt.
AFAIK, it’s a nonconventional approach, but it could work (especially if jurors believe for whatever reason that the burden of proof is on the defense for [unspecified reason])
andrew: one of your summaries says: “Richards on direct of Kyle.
Came to Kenosha to look for trouble?
Yes.
Would you have shot Rosenbaum if he hadn’t chased you and fought for your firearm?
Yes.”
???
Mistaken transcription. He said no.
What kind of trouble was Kyle looking for?
Hear that train coming
Coming down the line
“Richards on direct of Kyle.
Came to Kenosha to look for trouble?
Yes.
Would you have shot Rosenbaum if he hadn’t chased you and fought for your firearm?
Yes.”
Wait. WHAT?!?!?
Mistaken transcription. He said no.
As with everyone else, I think this is a huge mistake, but it is one made by the client. I think we know that his lawyers have strongly advised against testifying. He wants to talk to the Jury face to face and tell them his own story. This is the “wisdom” of a teenager…the same “wisdom” that brought him armed to Kenosha. He believes that all he has to do is tell the truth. The clumsiness of the prosecutors may have lulled him into a sense that he will be fine. But I think he may regret this.
Prosecution: This outsider with no medical training.
F’ing Kyle: I’m hella tied to kenosha and check out my medical training.
KR does have a weird speech pattern though…
he’s just from Wisconsin
Touche
Against advice of counsel. This is now on Kyle.
Robert Barnes claimed about an hour ago that it was Richards’ plan from the start to put Kyle on the stand. Barnes’ disagreement over that is part of why Banes is no longer a part of Kyle’s defense.
Why did they put KR on the stand??? The potential risk outweighs any gain.
Kyle has the right to testify and is doing so against advice of counsel. He now has a fool for a client. Himself.
He is not doing so against advice of counsel, where’d you pull that out?
I can’t imagine a lawyer would tell him or advise him to.
His lawyer literally told the judge (away from the jury so appearances don’t matter) that Kyles decision was consistent with advice. During opening the defense also suggested that Kyle was going to testify.
I’ll throw out a contrarian opinion that may be wrong.
The facts of the case have been long since settled. It clearly should never have been brought and was only brought to appease the rage of the mob, not out of any sense of justice. The Jury has seen the evidence, and should understand that by now if it is even possible to do so.
So, the facts are not what this verdict will be about. Instead, this verdict will be entirely about whether the 12 on the panel are willing to sacrifice him to the mob to save their own skins.
It may be making them look him in the eye before they slide in the knife is the only way to make them reconsider.
Man, I don’t know. On one hand, the prosecution has made such a mess of their case I don’t think Rittenhouse taking the stand can help them.
On the other hand, it’s REALLY asking for trouble.
Nervous, that’s me.
This could take awhile, and curious how long and painful the prosecution will try to drag this out. I can only imagine that the scope of Kyle’s testimony will fill in a lot of blanks and add color to the events leading up to the attack on him. And it will undoubtedly demonstrate that a lot of people either lied or were not questioned on elements the prosecution hoped to hide. I’m assuming they didn’t expect KR to testify, so he must have some nails for the coffin.
Not a lawyer here, so I defer to those who say he shouldn’t testify. If this case was about cold hard facts, that would be the best advice.
Unfortunately, this case has never been based on the facts. I think that Kyle is taking a chance and hoping that by humanizing himself to the jury he will make it harder for them to rationalize throwing him to the mercy of the mob.
Unless he totally screws the pooch and admits to wilfully shooting one or more of his attackers without being in fear for his life, I think his decision to testify is a good choice. Not exactly a good thing, but the best available given the atmosphere.
I would expect that this decision was not sudden, and Kyle should be well-prepped on what to expect from the prosecution. Still, those guys are slimy, sneaky dogs, and it’s hard to prepare for some of that. On the other hand, all the facts are on Kyle’s side, so sticking to honest answers doesn’t present much danger. And while it might not be necessary at this point, Kyle describing in very emotional terms how he feared for his life, not once, not twice, but three different times in a very short period is incredibly powerful.
I think we were both posting essentially the same thing at the same time. Good to know I’m not the i one seeing that.
This whole trial has been just evil, but up until now, in that clinical surgical way that makes gas chambers. Maybe this turns things around, shows people what’s really been going on here and what’s really at stake?
I just don’t know. I sorrow for our country and our people.
Great minds think alike, and apparently so do I.
Testifying is a gamble, but he’s doing well so far. Hope cross examination goes well for him.
Right or wrong to have him on the stand, so far, the kid is money.
Why does Rittenhouse testify? Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Poor Kyle wish they not do this to him.
Oh man, his crying..
I wonder how the jury will take his crying: as someone who is basically a child traumatized reliving what is presumably the worst night of his life or as a cynical attempt to garner sympathy?
That was a PTSD flashback. I remember Al Gore doing that to ADM Stockdale (He wasn’t as animated, but was visibly deeply shaken) on a debate stage. Most disgusting thing I ever saw in the context of politics.
I know testifying was Kyle’s choice. F the prosecutors hard for putting him through this.
I get why he’s on the stand even if it makes me nervous. I’m not a lawyer and I haven’t spent the past year prepping him for this moment.
No honest answer he can give will improve the States case, plus he is currently destroying a lot of the emotional narratives. He wasn’t a tourist that night and he wasn’t a punk looking for trouble. He is providing a coherent account of events that fits with even state testimony. This also isn’t the MO of an active shooter, he’s crying on the stand and appears very genuine. His honest disposition stands in stark contrast to Grosskreutz and the jury is going to notice that.
Lord he just broke down and started sobbing
God I’d love to know how the jury is responding to all this.. How is their body language, etc. Any hand wringing, head shaking, etc..
Yep. You just never know. They could be furious the state brought the case or they could be chomping at the bit to send this Trump white supremacist to prison for life. I’m PRAYING there are more people on the jury who were like yesterday’s last witness, someone who was distraught over the burning, looting of his hometown.
Binger and Kraus must be salivating. Their case was flailing, and now they have a chance to bully Kyle.
Oh my! You can’t fake the emotion KR is showing. This is not the killer some want us to see, but badly traumatized kid.
Always a ballsy move to put defendant on stand, but the image of this young man sobbing is a powerful one.
If only Zimmerman had stayed in the car.
If only Kyle had stayed home.
True. But predicting the future is really really difficult. Especially if you’re 17.
If only Cannon Hinant hadn’t ridden his bike.
If only she hadn’t dressed so sexy …
Fuck off.
If you want to ‘if only’, then ‘if only’ the pieces of shit hadn’t rioted burned and looted the city. ‘if only’ the the city had done their jobs in the first place and had the police arrest and prosecut the rioters instead of ignoring them.
The point went right over your head. Similar themes in similar persecutions.
Well, you get an upvote from me. I guess people didn’t catch the sarcasm of this post. Consider the “/s” next time😆
So Kyle did turn around while he was running across the lot.
What does this mean?
Nothing that I can think of. He briefly tried to ward off an attack by a display of force.
My impression now is he just was checking his six oclock. I only brought this up because his turning around during that part of the pursuit had not been mentioned or commented on. No big deal as it turned out.
Correct. He looked back because he saw the throng forming where he was headed, where he needed to get past to get the police to turn himself in, and wanted to see what his options were.
Fuck PBS, worse than Court TV
Judge is bringing out the hammer. Sends jury out.
Cross examination time!!
Jesus Christ.
Is Binger TRYING to get a mistrial? I mean this entire trial has been so catastrophic for him that he may be, but sweet Jesus what an unprofessional clownshow!
I wonder if after lunch, the judge will have had time to review the questioning of the DA and rule a mistrial – or even better, drop the charges with prejudice.
“You might be over the line. It needs to stop” … moments in to cross. BInger can’t really be this terrible, right?
Binger is vile — utter scam. As patently dishonest and unethical a prosecutor as I’ve ever seen. He engaged in brazen and blatant witness tampering/intimidation (as Mr. Branca referenced, yesterday).
And, of course, an honest, ethical and competent prosecutor never would have brought charges and participated in/tried this case, given the total absence of factual and evidentiary supports for the charges alleged. Total violation of the prosecutor’s ethical obligations and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
KR: I’m here on the stand to school the prosecution on the law.
Video games? WTF is going on?
“Video games? WTF is going on?”
******
I was wondering last night whether Kyle is a “gamer”. Kyle’s use of defensive force in a totally nightmare environment was amazing, especially that he had no “training”. If he is a gamer, did that experience serve as simulation training for what occurred that night?
There is no benefit to playing video games to combat skills except for perhaps reaction time. There’s no correlation between holding a controller and using a weapon. As far as Kyle’s performance, i.e., hitting his targets, I put it down to essentially point blank ranges and pure fucking luck.
KR: I’m here on the stand to explain to the prosecution the difference between video games and real life.
“So Kyle, isn’t it true that you are from an icky homeschooling family , i.e. a Domestic Extremist family? ” (what he implied). Horrific.
When Binger asked, “So you weren’t actually in school in person” I thought “Neither was anybody else this past year.”
Binger is not good at thinking on his feet. He pulls questions (and they are not relevant) out of his butt.
It needs to be clear that in 2020most kids were not in-class schooling.
What is Binger doing????
Dies Binger know what he’s doing?
Binger is a total screw up. He is working to get a mistrial as fast as he can. The judge is excusing the jury for the second time. Should be fun…
Judge is yelling at Binger – fun it is.
Is Binger trying to demonstrate that Kyle didn’t commit a crime? good grief.
Can Bunger get to the point? He’s gonna bore the jury who already must see him for the fraud he is.
Binger won’t even look up …
Wow…Binger tried to introduce a CVS video.
Wow…putting Kyle on the stand just might be a correct decision…Binger is really screwing up his case even more.
I think Binger is trying to get a mistrial.
As a non-attorney spokesman for Dumbarses are us, I cannot help but wonder why our group hasn’t received an application for membership to our organization from this clown faux-hawk wearing DA! I believe he must be awarded an honorary lifetime membership with special consideration for possible board membership!
Binger has a shovel in hand and can’t quit digging.
Sounds like judge is verging on mistrial
Judge mad
What does “impeach the defendent” mean?
Basically to prove his statements are inconsistent or lies.
Can Binger keep his line of questioning within bounds? I get the impression that with one more screw up, the Judge will toss the charges with prejudice.
IMHO, I do not think he can.
I am beginning to wonder what his next line of questioning is and how many more lines of questioning does he have remaining.
Judge taking Bunger to the woodshed was the highlight of my day. You sense he’s fed up with the prosecutor.
why would Bingerwant a mistrial? to leave the charges hanging out there? refile them differently? have another trial so he can improve his performance and that of his own witnesses?
> have another trial so he can improve his performance and that of his own witnesses?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That one.
Looks kike we are seeing the first case of Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome. Binger has lost his mind.
Now he’s resorting to driving without a license?
Something he was not even charged with.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he asks him whether he plays Grand Theft Auto between sessions of Call of Duty.
He might have even jaywalked a few times.
Useless and looks petty
Wow, I’ve never seen anything quite like that prosecutor Bungler. I was expecting the Judge to jump off the bench and knock some sense into him (after he beat the living crap out of him).
There’s something refreshing in hearing a judge dress down a smarmy prick like Binger.
That said, I thought it interesting that the defense commented on the idea the Binger is intentionally trying to get a mistrial. IANAL, so any comment on this as a strategy would be welcome.
It’s a really, REALLY stupid idea.
Intentionally getting mistrials frequently comes with holding the offender in contempt of court, possible sanctions, and at the extreme, grounds for disbarment.
PARTICULARLY the case for prosecutors, who could just dismiss charges and end the trial if that’s what they wanted.
Binger is so desperate he’s going to provoke a mistrial.
Ok. I’m now convinced that Binger is trying to throw the trial by leaving the judge no option but to dismiss with prejudice, instead of leaving it up to the jury
Given the jury photos/intimidation and the total lack of a case presented by the state, I am not sure why the judge didn’t declare a mistrial with prejudice to keep the jury from harm when they are really not needed.
I think the Judge is bending over backwards to let this be a case where he isn’t seen as deciding it personally. But Binger is sure trying to push him into ending it.
Not a lawyer here, so I have no perspective from experience, but it sure looks like the prosecutor is on very thin ice.
driving without a license! he must be a cold-blooded killer
A mistrial with prejudice is a win for Kyle. It is over and none of the charges can be brought again. Richards say one more time he will file a motion for mistrial with prejudice.