Rittenhouse Trial Mayhem – Courtroom Fights Over Videos and Mistrial As Jury Deliberates
Rittenhouse defense makes a third motion for a mistrial based on concealment of high definition drone video – Prosecutors stammer to defend themselves while Judge promises the prosecution “house of cards” will come down if video altered.
Today completed the second day of jury deliberations in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, with no verdict being achieved before the jury was sent home for the day.
The jury deliberations take place in private, of course, so we can only speculate as to what discussions are taking place amongst the 12 jurors. That doesn’t mean the day was uneventful, however, as the defense once again asked Judge Bruce Schroeder for a mistrial–notably, this time a mistrial without prejudice, meaning that Rittenhouse would be subject to a retrial on these charges.
This newest request for a mistrial is based primarily on the undisputed fact that the prosecution had provided a copy of the drone video to the defense that was 1/16th the resolution of the version that would be actually shown to the jury during the trial. With no way to know that the high-resolution version existed, the defense now tells the court that they would have shaped their legal arguments, and prepared their client to testify, different than they did with only the low-resolution version in their possession.
The drone video is particularly important because it is the only evidence offered by the State to support their argument that Kyle Rittenhouse has no privilege of self-defense in this case because he provoked the attacks upon himself, and therefore the State need merely prove provocation, rather than have to disprove self-defense itself.
The act of provocation–specifically, the claim that he pointed his rifle at others, provoking Josep Rosenbaum to chase him across the Car Source parking lot–is supported by no other evidence but for this video. Without the video, then, there is no act of provocation, and the prosecution would then have the unlikely-to-win task of attacking Kyle’s claims of self-defense directly.
The prosecution has a Constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the evidence to be used against the defendant in court and failed to substantively meet this obligation by providing the defense with only a low-resolution version of this video, rather than the high-resolution version actually used as evidence before the jury.
Assistant DA Kraus had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense ended up with only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, different file name version of this critical drone video, including blaming everybody but himself–indeed, both this colleague ADA Binger and lead Detective Howard were blamed by Kraus, as well (of course) as the defense itself.
The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred.
Interestingly, a photo purportedly of ADA Kraus’ laptop screen being projected onto the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom shows the presence of an imaging software named Handbrake. I lack any technical expertise or experience with Handbrake software, but apparently, a core purpose is to generate low-definition versions of high-definition videos. This has led to speculation that the provision of the low-resolution video to the defense was not an accident at all, but rather an intentional act of the prosecution. If so, this would be prosecutorial misconduct sufficiently grievous to not only warrant a mistrial with prejudice but certainly misconduct perhaps even malicious prosecution charges.
In fact, Judge Schroeder even cautioned the prosecution that he had warned them that there would be a day of reckoning about this drone video left on the prosecution’s doorstep mid-trial, and the very fuzzy “enhanced” still-image photographs pulled from the video that supposedly shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle in an act of provocation–the photos that defense Attorney Marc Richards referred to as “hocus-pocus, out of focus” during his closing argument.
Today was not to be that day of reckoning, however, as the judge simply took the defense motion for a mistrial without prejudice under advisement. He appears to be leaning towards not ruling on this third motion, or the two prior, before waiting to see if the jury will return a verdict of acquittal. If they do, then the whole mistrial issue becomes moot. On the other hand, if the jury returns any guilty verdicts, the judge can theoretically revisit these mistrial motions then.
That the drone video was playing an important role of some kind in the jury’s deliberations became clear this afternoon when they asked to be able to view the video as part of their deliberations, and on the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom. This was permitted by the judge, who had the courtroom vacated so the jurors could deliberate in privacy, as is the norm.
As for why the defense, which had been asking for a mistrial with prejudice, would today ask merely for a mistrial without prejudice, we can only speculate that the defense may be concerned that with the third day of deliberations rapidly coming to a close, and the prospect of a quick acquittal now only a fond and unrequited hope, that the jury might have begun leaning towards a conviction on one or more charges.
A mistrial without prejudice would be a better outcome than a conviction, despite the awareness that a re-trial would surely follow. With presumably adequate financial resources available for a second trial, Rittenhouse may be thinking that a second shot with a different legal defense team and more aggressive jury selection might better position him for complete acquittals on all counts the second time around.
Highlights of the Day
Here are the major highlights of the day, accompanied by their corresponding video clips from the courtroom, as they were tracked in today’s VERDICT WATCH post:
11/17/21: Discussion during jury instruction hearing (charging conference) on Friday, November 12, 2021, where prosecution reveals it has a higher-resolution version than what it provided to the defense:
The entire key to the prosecution’s theory of the case is the purported provocation of Rosenbaum by Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at another person. This video is the only evidence the prosecution has ever offered in support of this theory. The high-definition version which was used to support the provocation theory in closing argument was never provided to the defense, and particularly not prior to the defense putting Rittenhouse on the witness stand to testify–thus the defense was unable to properly prepare their client to testify. Naturally, the defense was also not properly able to prepare its own closing argument to counter the prosecution narrative of provocation as purportedly demonstrated in the high-definition version of this video.
11:05 a.m.: Jury sends a notice to the court saying they want to view some of the videos. The defense is concerned about the drone video. Also complaining about when received drone video. Also, defense attorney Richards tells the court that the manual for AMP imaging software apparently says methods used in this case are intended for investigative purposes only, not for forensic use in court. When Judge Schroeder asks Binger if that’s true, Binger’s response is that information is not in evidence.
12:55 p.m.: Parties back in court, the jury wants to see videos, hashing out the procedure, limits on viewing, especially “militia” video, and drone video are problematic. Prosecution explains away providing the defense with low-resolution drone video to apparent satisfaction of Judge Schroeder–Judge wants to take testimony from experts on this issue, doesn’t believe prosecution credible on this issue. The jury is to be given access to some videos, ones they requested that apparently do not include videos about which the defense has raised objections.
2:45 p.m.: Defense makes a verbal motion for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice. The prosecution makes a laundry list of excuses over the state not providing the defense with high-resolution drone video. Judge warns prosecution that he’d warned them there would be a day of reckoning over this drone video–and then says he’s not going to make a decision now, inclined to see what the verdict is going to be.
3:15 p.m.: The jury is allowed to view Exhibit 5, the drone video, in the courtroom. The courtroom was vacated so only jurors were present. Will be allowed to view drone video as much as they like.
4:40 p.m.: Court recessed for the day with no verdict, back at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
Verdict Watch Day 3
Be sure to join us tomorrow right here at Legal Insurrection for our ongoing VERDICT WATCH coverage, as await the jury’s determination of Kyle’s fate.
Until then:
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
Disbar the prosecution when the trial finally ends?
First sue them for civil rights violations and malicious prosecution and put them (and their staff) all under oath (as well as the Detective given the video by Mystery Man) and expose all the shenanigans with this video, as well as the “unidentified Jump Kick man” and manipulation of other prosecutions to make witnesses unavailable.
In OJ’s trial, Judge Lance Ito was pilloried for getting steamrolled on a daily basis by Simpson’s ’Dream Team’. In the Rittenhouse trial, this judge makes Ito look like a judicial Einstein.
Continuously refusing to timely rule on defense motions through either cowardice or sheer ineptitude, he is depriving Rittenhouse what each and every one of us is supposed to be guaranteed in our legal system: a fair trial.
Will he have the courage to grant a defense motion of mistrial with prejudice or will he allow the prosecution’s misconduct to prevail?
We shall shortly see…..
Well, hopefully we WON’T see, because hopefully the jury will come back with a full acquittal and it will be moot.
Yes!
I’m not holding my breath…
Even if this happens, (I”m not holding my breath….) Binger SHOULD still be heavily sanctioned. Withholding material evidence he attempts to use as a key tool of conviction is in clear violatioin of everything a prosecutor is supposed to stand for. Judge shuold let things slide until a verdict is reached. THEN go to work. If any charges upheld, dismiss them and reverse their decision, then sanction GInger. If full acquittal, release Kyle a free man (that is, IF he manages to run the gauntlet ahd get home safely) then turn to the corropt and unethical and law-breaking Binger. HE deserves to never see the inside of a courtroom again except when HE is in the dock.
Thoughts of Ito came to my mind too. Big trial, suddenly a pretty much nobody on the national scene is the big shot.
Now THAT would be justice.
👍
Content at the edge of an image is more distorted than content at the center of the image, even with very expensive lenses.
This is a drone video, not likely taken with an expensive dslr with an expensive lens slung under it.
What brand and model of drone was this? Can you bring the drone in as evidence and run test shots under similar lighting and conditions of a known scene so that you can show this distortion and loss of resolution?
The fact that the source of the video is unknown (the Evidence Fairy isn’t a legally validated source) means that the video is not subject to verification. Having a tech testify “Yup, that’s a video alright.” is not verification, nor is “The video seems to accurately reflect the situation on the street in Kenosha at the time and date “stamp” seen on the video.” The judge whould never have allowed this into evidence as the source can neither be proven nor subject to cross examination.
should never
Does the video actually show any pointing of the carbine prior to him casing kyle?
Why would 2 versions exist? It wasn’t dumped from source at the lower res.
SOMEONE SHOULD BE ASKING WHO MADE THE LOW RES.
Forensically cuz fuckall this looks very deliberate and every bit as stupid and inept as the prosecution has been to date.
I’m starting to side with the folks that say KR needs a better defense. That’s not how this shit is supposed to work. You are innocent until proven guilty… not innocent ONLY if your defense lawyers are top shelf in the industry. This is an abomination.
I can guaranteed you this is what happened.
Kraus played the video and recorded it off of the screen with his iPhone, which changed the filename.
It would have had high resolution, but recording from the screen would lose detail.
Then when he emailed it, it VASTLY lowered the file size (resolution). I recorded a 1 minute video on my wife’s iPhone and emailed it to my Android phone. The iPhone dropped the file size from 124 gb to 6.5 gb and I saw the smaller file size listed in large print on the screen in the email message while putting in the email addresses
IPhones send very small video files via email. It wasn’t gmail. When I did it today with my wife’s iPhone, it dropped a video file from 124 MB to 6.5 Mb
I think I understand what you’re trying to say? He had the video on his iphone and viewed it within the gallery, then used the “Share” button within the gallery and selected email as the message of sharing? That would explain why your filename was the same format (img_####.mov) and drastically reduced in size, much like happened with Kraus getting the file to Ms. Wisko.
That said… I don’t think it gets them off the hook for failing to provide potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense team.
The low res version is likely too big for email as well, so not buying that.
They are dumb, but they know you can’t attach a gig of raw video to an email… especially when they have video editing SW on their laptop.
Innocent or not- its a mistrial.
Why is the omission of jump kick man’s identity not being raised? That’s a big one.
All other Brady material (as I understand) provided to the Defense by the Prosecution was delivered by a drop box (or DropBox). This supposedly was the only emailed item. DropBox has no real file size limit other than how much you pay.
@ georgfelis is right.
Why is it – this – video is the ONLY one that was delivered via a different mechanism than the others ? It seems that all the others were delivered via Dropbox.
Also, the prosecution must have delivered a copy to the court too. I wonder what format that used?
How would this be even allowed as a means for transfer of evidence from the prosecution to the defense? Is there zero requirement for a chain of custody, no requirement for a receipt of transfer? Are there no hash files for the original and the transferred files for comparison? Where are the IT guys for the defense??
Why choose to email it with his iphone instead of his laptop? It’s been noted by AFB that someone’s observed Kraus has Handbrake software on his laptop. It’s not there to fill in space.
Also, just a technicality but correctly Handbrake isn’t the software used for transcoding videos, it’s the front end. But most importantly the amount of time necessary to down-sample a large video to a smaller one would be substantial on a low-power device like a phone. While more powerful, even a laptop would take a bit of time.
It all smells very rotten and I do not find Kraus a believable fellow at all.
It wouldn’t be 100% slam dunk proven but the media data of file should include software in question and usually version number’s of plugins used in some cases. That could indicate if prosecutor has same version installed.
Even simpler thing to check: What’s the file size of the video in the prosecutor’s ‘Sent’ folder.
I’ll put money on it being ‘smaller than the original’.
If Kyle Rittenhouse had not defended himself he would be dead.
And, no one would be on trial for anything.
Play the begging of the 2:45 p.m. video (starting at 00:45). Krause finally admits that he got two versions of the video from Detective Howard, one via dropbox (full size) and one via e-mail (which was compressed). Previously, Krause claimed that he just gave the defense what he got from Howard, which was the full size, and it’s the defense’s fault that they compressed the file on their end. But the defense’s counsel (Natalie Wisco) blew that up noting that not only did the file size not match, but the file name itself of what they got didn’t match what the prosecution played in court. That’s what caused Krause to go back and amend his story to admit he did, in fact, get two versions from Detective Howard.
So, the prosecution now essentially admits that there were two versions created by themselves and/or the detective, and that they seem to have only give the compressed file only.
Disgusted by everything in this trial. The defense doesn’t defend and the judge doesn’t judge. They both let themselves get steamrolled by two F-ing state-sanctioned lying pricks. Forgive my language but what’s happened all along is so wrong on so many levels.
Totally agree!
I have no personal stake in this, other than I carry every day. Now, I’m never going to insert myself in a BLM protest. But who cares. Political prosecutions are only increasing. One day, God forbid, could that be me in a courtroom?
So glad I’m a member of CCW Safe and have been reading Andrew’s stuff for years and others. I think I have a good foundation for what I’d need for a legal fight, if I were Kyle Rittenhouse at that table I’d be going nuts.
I’m not a criminal attorney but I am an experienced civil trial lawyer and I would say that, regardless of the case, every case is significantly about credibility: of the case, client and counsel. In this case, some of the collateral damage of the defense being provided the inferior quality video is how the defense framed the drone video as “out of focus hocus pocus”
Even if the clearer video doesn’t show much, the fact that the defense made such a bid deal out of “out of focus” (when the actual video the jury sees is much clearer) can only make them suspicious of why the defense was “trying to discount the video so much” –when they see it differently.
This type of damage is hard to quantify, but was entirely a creation of the sleazy prosecution tactics. In addition to renewing its motion for mistrial with prejudice, I think the defense should also make an application for a curative instruction: to expressly tell the jury that through summations only the low res video was provided by the State to the defense. The jury should know this; and if they make an adverse inference about the prosecution, I think it would be entirely fair.
To be clear, while the 4K video is remarkably good, the part of the video where it actually captures Rittenhouse is WAY in the upper-right hand corner of the image frame and some distance from where the camera was pointed. So, the video it captures of Rittenhouse is not great (and it’s a poorly lit area of the vid). To make matters worse, to get anything remotely useful from the video, the state cropped the video and screen-captured that cropped video image. They then used photo-enhancing/zooming software to ‘blow-up’ that image. It’s the magnification of that specific digital still image that was ‘hocused-pocused’ and looks like not much more than a blob of pixels.
I hope that makes sense. The overall video is very good. The part of the video that captures Kyle is poorly lit and a VERY small part of image in the frame.
That’s not the reason. The reason is the lateness of the video without sufficient time by the defense to counter it. Right now, the jury has a group of charlatans showing a bunch of way out of definable resolution spec pixels and claiming that it is proof of Kyle’s provocation. The counter argument to that wasn’t well prepared because the defense never had time to see the analysis from the “expert” during the typical evidentiary phase of the trial. The prosecution has thrown out a pile of excuses but the facts of the evidentiary chain and timing do not change regardless of shady lawyer tactics.
That’s WITH the HD video being butchered to hell. The problem is that in order to do their study and analysis of the video used the defense was given an even lower res version of it so didn’t see much use for it, the blur was even more blur if that makes sense. And you don’t want to leave a pile of blur to a jury to determine if they see something if you can avoid it, not without your side’s analysis of the same evidence.
It’s definitely grounds for a re-analysis of all evidence considering that it is pivotal to the state’s case. A mistrial would grant that re-analysis. The state is trying to downplay with the claim that they didn’t SHOW the video in closing but they mentioned provocation many times. They also were careful not to mention provocation in opening because they were sitting on this evidence and wanted to hatch it out as a surprise. If the video was so freely available to the state because Tucker Carlson had it, then they could have easily subpoena’d it and received it much, much earlier than they claimed to have done. I think they had it and knew about it and they can claim they didn’t because they just got the same version of it from the original owner…though they were standing at the ready with it the whole time (because they could just get it off the internet).
I think his reasoning was valid _as well_ as the points you’re making.
This does feel all by itself justification for a mistrial should a verdict other than ‘Not Guilty’ be returned. I can understand the Defence wishing to pursue ‘Mistrial with prejudice’ as their first option, but if that fails a mistrial would be a better outcome than a miscarriage of justice.
I do still think the judge is hoping the jury return a verdict that makes this moot. (I also think he’s planning to give the prosecution team a serious kicking either way).
Yes, the judge is hoping the Jury will return a Not Guilty verdict, but hope isn’t a plan. No matter what, a Brady violation is a VERY big deal. I once had to put myself between a defense lawyer and an Assistant US Attorney when the defense alleged disclosure was not complete and forthcoming (it was). The AUSA was about to do something he would regret because that claim pissed him off so.
The ‘hocus-pocus out of focus’ reference was to the computer AI enhanced blow-up of the scene with KR in front of the crowd at the beginning. It’s just a blob of shapes, like clouds in the sky an impressionable person could be made to imagine any sort of thing.
I completely agree that defense should have taken much stronger position with regards to introduction of that image at voir dire. And especially when it came out in testimony that he prosecutions ‘expert’ had never compared it to the original. I’m a complete layman on these things but I always thought that digital images had very strict forensic requirements to be met before they could be introduced in court and that had none of the trappings of it.
I’ve simply experienced plenty of civil litigation and regulatory investigations working for F-200 financial institutions + M&A due diligence and engaged a large town’s worth of consultants over the years….these folks seem to play awfully fast and loose with document controls.
So does the high resolution video support or disprove the prosecution’s claim that Kyle was pointing the rifle at someone in an act of provocation? Although I don’t agree that it would constitute provocation under the circumstances, just wondering if anyone knows.
It is still a huge blurry mess but the defense was unable to properly counter due to prosecutorial misconduct with the whole chain of evidence.
Neither. Even screen capture that is ‘blown-up’ from the original 4K course is nothing but a blob of pixels. The judge looked at the video, playing on a 4k monitor while sitting just a foot or two from the screen and after 20-minutes of staring, he said, “I can’t see anything.’
That’s their evidence of a ‘gun-pointing Kyle.’ It’s insane it was allowed in. They might as well have handed the jury a Ouija board.
It doesn’t support anything cause their whole claim he aimed the riffle is an image that is enlarged using an AI software that the company that makes it even states its not supposed to be use as center point of litigation. If you stretch any image eventually the AI or what ever it uses has to guess what pixel to add. The more you add the higher % chance of it being wrong throw on top of how dark it was in the scene the % chance is even worse.
To my mind, it disproves the prosecution’s claim. Looking at the blobs and shapes in the picture the only image I can form in my mind is of a man standing with his left elbow lifted as though shouldering the weapon on his left shoulder. I can’t imagine someone so obviously experienced at handling an AR-15 to want a mouthful of hot shell casings if he ever intended to actually shoot it left handed. And the gyrations flipping the hold with the weapon strapped to his torso and risk a shoot-ready losing control of it is definitely not something to do in a threatening situation.
The milquetoast defense attitude today almost rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.
They didn’t even try to pound the table. How could the judge allow the jurors go and review the “clear” video that is a Brady violation?
I think the judge has to let them view it. It’s already been introduced as evidence. And besides, the need to decide a mistrial comes only the jury finds him guilty on any of the charges.
And in my mind the high res video only supports defense and has nothing that could help prosecution. That’s why prosecution had to blow up and artificially enhance a portion to create the ‘hocus pocus out of focus’ image.
INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL
Why degrade your motion from Dismiss WITH prejudice to WITHOUT ?
>> Pound the table for dismissal WITH prejudice.
The latest Prosecution actions are one of a long line of deeds that clearly amount to misconduct.
One good reason to also submit a motion to dismiss without prejudice is defense reasonably expects to get NG verdicts on a number of charges. My guess as a layman, NG on the serious charges and the Huber, JKM, and Grosskreutz charges.
That would leave only a few charges (rosenbaum) to have to retry. It would be easy to blow away the provocation claim now that defense also has the 4k video with time to prepare arguments. An a new defense team to make it clear to a new jury why it’s inclusive at best, and illogical at worst.
Handbrake is a great open-source video processing program. It allows cropping and compressing video files and can also do useful things like change bit rate.
Extensive processing of a large video file could take 20 minutes.
The other oddity: I can’t imagine any modern drones saving videos in .mov format. I don’t own a drone, though.
The whole mess is just so obvious. I hope they do have a hearing and get Kraus under oath.
Get crushed under oath, and find out what’s going on. It would also be interesting to know if he’s done fraudulent things with other videos and other cases.
Bingo! Any person this tool of an ADA convicted using video is going to run screaming to a lawyer and have his/her case reopened. In fact, if the judge rules this was deliberate any person convicted by any member of this team will have the case be reopened to see if The State withheld any evidence. This is a big deal and a career ender for Binger.
Criminy…a judge should not HAVE to put an officer of the court under oath. ANYTHING they say while in a trial should be carry the same jeopardy.
You are correct and with so many options…no way to show 1:1 retention of resolution. Drones can use various formats. Sloppy approach for an important case.
it’s be a while since I used handbrake, but at the time it was used to brake DVD encryption
They DON’T use the .mov format. iPhones do. That video was created on the iPhone by recording a video off of a video screen
Incorrect. DJI consumer level drones all use the .MOV format.
They can be switched to .mp4, but the default is .MOV
“The other oddity: I can’t imagine any modern drones saving videos in .mov format. I don’t own a drone, though.”
DJI drones (the most popular brand of consumer drones) default to .MOV format. You can switch that to record in .mp4 if you wish.
OK – hadn’t seen a .mov file in a long time and thought the standard was dead. Now I know.
Thanks
We have a DJi Mavic 2 Pro. It records in MOV although it can record in MP4. I honestly can’t remember what the default format was when we first set it up.
I would be curious how long this video was. Even a short 4k video is pretty big, think GBs not MBs. The name of the video
I don’t understand. When is the provocation? When Rosenbaum is already chasing him and KR briefly turns around and points? Or sometime beforehand?
The provocation is allegedly pointing the A.R. 15 at Ziminski (who was also armed) just prior to Rosenbaum taking off on the final chase of his life.
The alleged provocation…pointing it towards the ziminski’s who were armed, had been brandishing their pistol openly, and had fired it off.
It’s not clear to me but I think all that happened while Rosenbaum is angrily yelling that he’ll take away KR’s weapon and kill him (KR) with it. That was the topic of another video that was taken from the backside of the crowd (with the Ziminski’s and Rosenbaum in it) where we were able to get audio.
Binger was also trying to confuse the jury with a common, everyday understanding of provocation and the legal definition. Merely showing up with the big bad assault rifle that the military uses with FMJ ammo that can pierce through police cars!!!!1!1! was provoking enough, therefore guilty.
Yes, he left out that rather important part where the provocation must be an illegal act, or the provocation must be an act performed with the specific intent of provoking an attack so that you can use deadly force.
I used to manage a digital forensics lab. One of the most important things when doing digital forensics was maintaining the integrity of the data being processed. You do this by making a hash of the specific file, and when relocated, checking the hash again to ensure it is the same.
The fact that this isn’t done with court evidence when a kids life is on the line is quite disturbing.
Moreover, I can speak from experience that gmail does not perform compression on video files. Kraus made that up. Some text functions do compression of image files, but it will ask how much compression to do.
Either way, all evidence should be transferred between parties with a hash performed initially to ensure its integrity once received.
Can run a simple test to debunk by emailing it to yourself through gmail
Also, I’m pretty sure all of these files are too large for gmail (limit of 10 MB I believe). Usually these would be shared through google drive or similar to stay within the constrained limits. The fact that he sent a 4MB video is very suspect because that’s almost tiny.
I use gmail and it never compresses anything too large without your knowledge. If sending from gmail it just gives you the automatic option to share through google drive instead of sending through email. I’d imagine a similar process occurs for receiving. Plus, iPhones are not known for being able to send very large files with ease. I think we know something fishy happened here, but Kraus is too afraid to back down now because he knows it would be more suspicious to do so.
I was pretty sure I’d sent larger than 10MG files with gmail so I checked, and according to google: “Attachment size limit: You can send up to 25 MB in attachments. If you have more than one attachment, they can’t add up to more than 25 MB. If your file is greater than 25 MB, Gmail automatically adds a Google Drive link in the email instead of including it as an attachment.”
So, they could have sent the full-size file if they’d wanted to. Which implies that they didn’t.
That is exactly correct.
I email video files regularly and that is exactly how Gmail works.
iCloud lets you do it — they sequester the attachment offline as a service to the subscriber, then send it as a link to the recipient.
Indeed, that is exactly correct from my experience. I’ve tried to send video a number of times only to be told it was too big and was sent to Google Drive to upload it.
Yes it is surprising that they didn’t include an MD5.
Actually, given this prosecution, it is not surprising, but it is surprising that it is not standard practice.
How could the jury be allowed to review any video other than the one introduced into evidence. The one marked as an exhibit an entered into evidence. Is the jury being show a video that was not entered into evidence?
the jury always saw the same video…this is a discovery violation, to go with other violations during trial like the 1st amendment rights violation.
I made a one minute video with my wife’s iPhone and emailed it to my Android phone.
The video was 124 Gb in size.
In the email program, it CLEARLY showed the size as 6.5 Gb.
So it wasn’t the defense team’s Android phone that did it, it was Lunchbox’s iPhone.
And the filename was img_6416.mov. DJI drones do not use that type of filename. IPhones do. For starters, they don’t record .mov file. I am pretty sure they are .mp4 files
I think Lunchbox used his iPhone to record it off of a video screen and emailed THAT.
they should have the drone to examine it, turn it on, make a recording and see what type of file type it generates.
Unfortunately, the drone is busy collecing surveillance video of irate parents planning acts of domestic terrorism over Critical Race Theory being taught in schools. As SOON as that is complete, the little airplace will be made available to the defense.
It’s not an FBI drone, it’s someone’s private drone
Not having the source of the video known, it isn’t possible to absolutely state that it is a privately owned and operated drone. But you are more likely than not correct that it was privately sourced and not the Bureau’s drone. But without the source being known and subject to cross examination, the judge should not have allowed the video to be entered into evidence.
According to articles on the internet you can choose several different codecs to include MP4 and .MOV for most drones, to include the DJI models. The biggest issue I read about is those 2 codecs are a lossy codec.
Lossy codecs – these lose a small amount of information during the decompression stage to reduce the file size. These formats are great for drone footage that needs to be uploaded to the internet or sent to someone via email.
Using a non-lossy codec for 4k video will fill a drone’s storage in a matter of seconds. I think it’s reasonable to assume there won’t be a non-lossy version of the footage anywhere.
It’s one reason professional camera teams (TV and Cinema) use expensive cameras on expensive drones, rather than the (otherwise extremely capable and moderately affordable) DJI options.
124 Mb and 6.5 MB, not Gb
I think you’re making what may be an unjustified assumption that he captured the video off of a television with the iphone. As I said in the previous comment, when you download a video from another source on your phone, it should play in the gallery/movieplayer/whatever. When you sent the video to your android phone, you probably sent it from within the gallery app itself, rather than actually going to the email app first and sending the email from within there. That’s why Kraus made such a hullabaloo about the “It’s because she didn’t have airdrop and so I had to use email”. I don’t have an iphone, so I know nothing about airdrop… but I assume that you get to airdrop from the video screen and there’s no separate “airdrop” app.
An experiment for you, rather than starting in the video app (if that’s in fact what you did), try opening the email app on your wife’s iphone and put the video in as a manual attachment. I think it might work correctly if handled that way.
Yes, I went to “Photos” and chose “Share” and then chose “Email” from that
Her email program has no way to add attachments from there that I can find.
Hopefully, Kyle will be acquitted on all charges and it won’t matter.
The jury is evidently wanting to verify for themselves if Kyle provoked the attack. We all know what their answer will be after watching that video…
Real question is would it do same compression to a file that is 12mb, It kinda expected when you have 120gb file but would it really apply same thing to a file that is small?
Not sure where to post this
On the Rekieta Law you tube video they mention a reddit video that is a compilation of the night of the EVENT – I saw a part of it on that youtube video discussion, and it seemed very good, clear and good definition – Can anyone provide a link for the whole thing ???
I would really appreciate it !
Thanks !
In OJ’s trial, Judge Lance Ito was pilloried for getting steamrolled on a daily basis by Simpson’s ’Dream Team’. In the Rittenhouse trial, this judge makes Ito look like a judicial Einstein.
Continuously refusing to timely rule on defense motions through either cowardice or sheer ineptitude, he is depriving Rittenhouse what each and every one of us is supposed to be guaranteed in our legal system: a fair trial.
Will he have the courage to grant a defense motion of mistrial with prejudice or will he allow the prosecution’s misconduct to prevail?
We shall shortly see…..
One of Kruass’ arguments re: the video is that the original attorney had been given a high def copy (the Tucker Carlson copy). If that was so, why then, after receiving it presumably that Friday, did the prosecution make a low res copy and forward to the defense, if they thought the defense already had a copy? Hmmm
Krauss kept hammering the “but his first attorney had the video.” My question is who said the attorney had the video? People showing up to do interviews on a news show don’t bring a thumb drive and tell the host to play it in the background. I think Fox got the video from the guy who shot it and the attorney never touched it. Maybe didn’t even see it unless he videotaped his interview and watched it later.
I’m interviewed on various media programs a great deal, and I have no idea whatever what they’re broadcasting out to the public beside my talking head image.
Richards also explicitly stated to the judge that he’d contacted the company whose people recorded the video ahead of the trial.
They said they were unable to provide it, and the company has since been dissolved. The video that the prosecution received apparently came from a former employee of the company.
Richards also said he has records of the request/response. I don’t think a claim of “the defence were already aware and had a copy” can hold up against that.
The past 3 days in this courtroom have been unbelievable.
In OJ’s trial, Judge Lance Ito was pilloried for getting steamrolled on a daily basis by Simpson’s ’Dream Team’. In the Rittenhouse trial, this judge makes Ito look like a judicial Einstein.
Continuously refusing to timely rule on defense motions through either cowardice or sheer ineptitude, he is depriving Rittenhouse what each and every one of us is supposed to be guaranteed in our legal system: a fair trial.
Will he have the courage to grant a defense motion of mistrial with prejudice or will he allow the prosecution’s misconduct to prevail?
We shall shortly see…..
Given the way Binger and / or Kraus have handled evidence in this case, will other cases that one or both of these people come under scrutiny. It is highly unlikely that this is the one and only time they have manipulated evidence or witheld evidence in a case.
Early in this trial I would have considered myself a supporter of Schroeder, as the days have passed my views of him have soured. I am not sure what his end game is, is he hoping for a not huilty verdict so he doesn’thave to make a call. If a hung jury comes back or a gulity verdict comes in Kyle will be on the hook for either another trial or has to pay for an appeal of the obvious errors made by both him and the state. I have serious doubts he has the guts to vacate a guilty verdict or throw the charges out with prejudice at this point.
Prove me wrong Schroeder.
I don’t think he’s evil, but he seems rather inept and prone to long mental lapses, confusion, and other issues that may mean it is time to retire.
Binger and Kraus work his courtroom on a routine basis, Kemosha County, I can’t confirm it but I heard he has somewhere in the area of 480 cases. They know what Schroeder is capable of and how to play him. Kenosha County has just eight judges. and 15 assistant district attorneys on staff building up a playbook on the judge would not be hard to do especially with his decades on the bench.
whatever video you choose, interpretation of the images is subjective/speculative at best–has there been ANY direct evidence that rittenhouse provoked ANYONE?–or is it just this da trying to SUGGEST that there was provocation? that someone(ANYONE) MIGHT have been provoked?–fine, mssrs da, prove it ! otherwise, the defendant, among other rights that you’ve deigned to dismiss/disregard/misrepresent, is presumed innocent
lord
the one guy ( Ziminski) who can testify as to whether Rittenhouse pointed his rifle or not can’t be called because the state has postponed a pending case against him. ( Isn’t that convienent), Supposedely they know the identity of jump kick man but won’t admit it becausehe wanted immunity on another charge in exchange for testimony, the ADA has refused that request.
It’s worse than that. The law does not give you the right to a deal in exchange for testimony. You may very well be offered one but you can be subpoena’d all the same. The 5th amendment also doesn’t protect you if you are testifying about actions that have nothing to do with charges you’ve already been convicted of.
That’s why Ziminski COULD have easily been tried first to avoid the 5th amendment issue in an honest court system. That’s why JKM CAN’T claim the 5th unless he is charged in this case, and he CAN be forced to testify deal or no deal because of a court-issued subpoena (however, he could plead the 5th if Binger files charges against him for riot night).
The prosecution had no interest in issuing said subpoena because he wouldn’t be helpful to them if they didn’t grant him this absurd deal he wanted. Therefore, they hid his identity…which is misconduct. If they had simply turned his identity over to the defense, then they would be in the clear. They took it a step further into an ethics breach.
I think we are far beyond an ethics breach at this point.
This is criminal misconduct / obstruction by the prosecutors.
They must be ideologically-driven. Only brainwashed ideologues risk their entire career and reputation to achieve an objective. It is reckless in the extreme.
Progressive Woke = go for broke.
What an embarrassment to justice and the law. Now I want the jury to take their good old time determining their verdict…maybe a week or two, make everyone wonder and show the MSM as the propagandists they have become, defuse the anarchists steam so they get bored (maybe have someone come and return to sender those brick stacks), and after a period of time come back with a full acquittal. Add the cherry on top of damages against the prosecution (hey, one can hope).
The low res version is likely too big for email as well, so not buying that.
They are dumb, but they know you can’t attach a gig of raw video to an email… especially when they have video editing SW on their laptop.
Innocent or not- its a mistrial.
Why is the omission of jump kick man’s identity not being raised? That’s a big one.
Simple answer…Richards. Binger disclosed it to the defense.
Do you know this, or are you making an assumption?
I’ve seen the reports that the prosecution were aware, but haven’t seen anything mentioning that the defence were. It would be surprising of the defence described him as ‘mystery man’ when they could have named him.
So all day people have speculated on why the video was a non standard height in both low and high resolution. The prosecution had no plan to use the known Fox video, until late in trial when case went south of their plan, so suddenly a “NEW” video showed up in last week. You can’t submit something you knew about, but magically if you crop off the top of the video showing it is from the original FOX obtained video it is new…. Jack P links the evidence from another twitter account, but it is clear they just cut out the evidence it was an old video to make it appear “NEW” to get it in for their new story. https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1461163476685148161
that rez they got of 1920 x 880 or something close to that. If you calc aspect ratio that is 16:7. That is very suspect and def lends to the creditbility of idea it was 100% cropped likely from fox hence how some random person came to just “Drop it off”
Yes. Origin of this video is a key factor. Something is weird is happening here.
It’s bizarre.
I guess it is feasible that someone else captured the video and cropped it. Then dropped it off at the prosecutor’s office.
Also, aren’t there video surveillance cameras in or near the courthouse that could have captured an image of the mystery drop-off evidence fairy.
> the manual for AMP imaging software apparently says methods used in this case are intended for investigative purposes only, NOT FOR FORENSIC USE IN COURT. When Judge Schroeder asks Binger if that’s true, Binger’s response is that information is not in evidence.
But. Isn’t it a duty of the prosecution to provide all the exculpating evidence?? Brady violation, again? And this time – on a key piece of the evidence…
See my post below.
Fatso is trying the Hillary I am stupid defense. Hey Fatso, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I heard the judge say it. 1. This video is Brady material.
2. Brady material must be suppressed if exculpatory.
3. Clear original evidence is exculpatory. Blurry copy not.
4. Under Brady it must be suppressed regardless of whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
5. Defendant has the burden to prove ‘reasonable probability the trial outcome would have been different if Fatso had sent the clear full image.
6. Judge has reopened the evidence because of this. A rare move especially while jury is in deliberations and specifically wanted to see the video.
Add it all up and I think the judge has no choice but to suppress the video due to Brady if only Richards can do this right or be reversed on appeal. he can not unring a bell or unsee a video.
Add in the other things this prosecutor has done…the 5th ammenment issues, the worming around judge’s ruling on propensity evidence, the obvious lying about the law in closing, the doctored image enhancement introduced as evidence.
Now also consider that these things have occurred only AFTER the entire case blew up on his own witnesses. And these are highly experienced prosecuting attorney’s and technical experts with years of trial experience each.
I think that makes a compelling argument that these things have been done intentionally, trying to draw a mistrial. Another kick at the cat, as they say.
IMO, they went to far…instead of the mistrial without prejudice they hope for, mistrial with prejudice if the the jury doesn’t find NG on all counts.
Regarding all the iPhone questions about the video…
DJI drones do indeed record in .MOV format, as do iPhones.
The video the defense got was titled something like IMG_158
That is an Apple name, not a DJI name.
What likely happened is the iPhone reduced the size and quality of the video when it was emailed.
As Kraus correctly pointed out, Airdrop always passes along the full-size video. It also includes all the metadata. However, email may or may not. It all depends on how you put in in the email. If you send it via the share button, it automatically resizes, although you can override that if you know how. If you “insert” it into the email, it will be full size. If you send it from some photo apps, it will allow you to choose… small, medium, large or original.
Lots of options and if you don’t know what you are doing, which these guys don’t, it’s a crap shoot.
I think it was an honest mistake on the prosecutors part, but does that matter? They are the one’s responsible for providing the defense with their evidence and they didn’t provide a pretty crucial piece in the proper format.
Everybody seems mad at judge for delaying rulings, but I can see an upside. If he delays his rulings, and the jury comes back with an acquittal, all is well, and no need to stir things up any further. Frankly, the only way the jury does not acquit on this evidence, even the problematic video, is if they are some combination of biased or stupid. That’s possible, of course, but if I were the judge, I would want to see what happens with that first. If they convict, then he can take action to call a mistrial, with or without prejudice. If I were the judge, I would base the question of mistrial with or without prejudice based on how egregious the prosecution misbehavior, and would investigate that vigorously with both prosecutors and perhaps other members of the prosecution team who handled evidence. Again, this gives the judge more ammunition to back up the mistrial call in the event he makes that call.
It looks to me like the judge is almost begging Richards to mention the Brady Rule but Richards is avoiding it like The Plague.
The judge has already hinted there needs to be hearings with experts concerning admissability of the video. What’s the likelyhood he WON’T mention Brady in such a setting.
Keep in mind, this whole sordid affair is a moot as mustard if the jury returns NG on all counts. IMO, the 4k video is no more likely to make a reasonable person believe the evidence presented denies KR the privilege of self defense.
Can delayed rulings be grounds for appeal ?
I don’t know the law in Minnesota, but if there is a hung jury, is the judge permitted to interview the jurors and determine the nature of their disagreements and the weight they assigned to evidence?
It does not matter if it is honest or inadvertent or if the defendant would have received a different outcome it only matters if the confidence in the outcome was undermined.
By definition a Brady violation can not be treated as a harmless error.
I have not heard Richards mention Brady, Anyone? He has to bring it up I think.
Smell anything here? I think it may be a fish market nearby this court.
So…focusing on “it only matters the confidence in the outcome was undermined”.
The judge letting the jury see the video is reasonable since it was introduced in evidence. Prosecution even wanted to let them see it as many times as they wanted..the judge let them do that too.
IF the jury comes back NG, it’s all moot. But if they come back guilty on anything it’s IMPOSSIBLE to say it could not have undermined the outcome since they had express interest in it (asking for it) and had not only that could watch it as many times as they wanted BY PROSECUTIONS REQUEST.
Prosecution must want this thing retried. How can I NOT come to that conclusion?
I will not fault the Judge for being cautious here. He is trying to avoid any chance that the Prosecution will appeal due to anything he does. This does not mean that this stunt will go well for Binger as evidenced by the dropping of the misdemeanor. Remember that the Judge did not make an aFainitial ruling on that but ultimately dropped it?
‘This prosecution team has been so sleazy that I am convinced this video thing was on purpose to get a mistrial as was the numerous other incidences. The Judge should sanction the entire team and send it to the bar for review with a recommendation to remove the Licenses to practice. Watching this entire thing is why American’s have lost faith in the judicial system
This American lost faith in our judicial system a while back. The Rittenhouse Trial has only added to an overwhelming sense of anger, disappointment, and even betrayal. There are a few exceptions,, I see them here.
When dismissing the case – either with or without prejudice – the state can only appeal the decisions of the judge if he dismisses AFTER the jury has reached a verdict. If he would have dismissed the case last week the moment defense objected the after they realized what the state did to them – as he should have IMO – then that’s it. That decision to dismiss would not be reviewable by an appellate court.
What he’s doing by refusing to make a decision is actually guaranteeing that the state has a greater chance of getting an appeal heard. While his rhetoric has seemed damaging to the state’s case, in reality, just about every decision he’s made has benefited the state, not hurt it. The only real win the defense has received was the Count 6 (weapons charge) dismissal, as you noted. Because that was dismissed after the state rested, they are also foreclosed from appealing because that dismissal came after jeopardy attached.
He reopened the evidence. Now back to The Moaning Binger masterpiece produced by the state crime lab guy. Which version did he ‘enhance’? The evidence Binger found at the last minute is nothing more than Fox/Tucker TV video with the crawler and Fox logo at the bottom cut out. Ahhhh nothing lije the sweet smell of Fish in the morning.
What about the judge’s ruling on the propensity evidence?
I am confused about a few things:
1) A version of the drone video was in possession of KR’s original defense attorney (Pearce?) and was played on Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Was that an HD version? If so how can it be said that the defense was not given the HD version of the drone video? When they switched attorney’s was it the job of the prosecutors to give all evidence it had provided to the original attorneys to the new team?
If not and the video given to original defense team was in HD then it seems the defense had a copy of the HD version of the drone video all along. Why are they claiming the opposite? What am I missing? If the defense received the HD version from the previous attorney how did they get caught so flat-footed with this low-definition video?
2) Why is this drone video given so much importance? Even with the HD version you cannot see the initial confrontation between KR and Ziminski.
Fortunately a VERY CLEAR video of the encounter was taken FROM THE GROUND within a few feet of the men and can be seen here at this link https://youtu.be/9-SKkvH_AUc?t=427
At 7:30 in the video we can see a much taller Ziminski confront KR. Ziminski’s girlfriend is motioning towards KR. At no point in this video is KR seen to provoke Ziminski – just the opposite! We can see KR take-flight away from Ziminski – did Ziminski brandish his handgun?
A few seconds later we see a gun flash as Ziminski fired into the air as KR is being chased by Rosenblum. Ziminski fired the FIRST gunshot not KR!
This one video proves that KR did not provoke Ziminski – You cannot watch this very clear video and think that KR provoked Ziminski (was this covered when KR was on the stand by Richards?).
What about the FBI IR HD video (I suspect taken from a fixed wing platform – not a drone) What does the FBI HD video show? These infrared camera systems provide incredible detail as can be seen from this product video from leading EO/IR digital imaging supplier WESCAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRDV3cxO_G8 .
Why has everyone forgot about the FBI IR HD video that was “lost”?
3/ why did the judge allow the prosecution to show the drone video to the jury? Neither the HD or low-def version’s of the video show in any meaningful detail what happened between KR and Ziminski. For that – as already noted – we have this very detailed video taken at ground level. https://youtu.be/9-SKkvH_AUc?t=427 The encounter can be seen in detail at the 7:30 mark.
4/ Why is the defense so bloody incompetent? Asking for a mistrial without prejudice? How would that be a win?
“A version of the drone video was in possession of KR’s original defense attorney (Pearce?) and was played on Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
These are two different things. I’m frequently interviewed on TV where the studio runs some video clip beside the image of my talking head, and I neither necessarily ever see that footage (my view of the proceedings is often different than the broadcast view) and certainly don’t possess it myself.
Here is the relevant part of the first one, slowed down to 1/6 speed.
https://youtu.be/dxfGam-Q7EU
Thank you for this clip. Why didn’t the defense show this to the jury? I is clear from this clip (and the clip I linked to ) that KR did nothing to provoke Ziminski. It is a shame that the drone footage – which is useless in showing the interaction between KR and Ziminski has taken center stage
Here is the relevant part of the first video, slowed down to 1/6 speed
https://youtu.be/dxfGam-Q7EU
This judge is not gonna grant a mistrial after a guilty verdict…he knows that doing so would give the rioters all the excuse they need to loot burn and create mayhem, possibly even at his house. This judge is a clown and if there is reason for a mistrial he should say so before deliberations, no issue the lame excuse that he was too busy to think about it
Agree with this completely. The absolutely best thing Rittenhouse can hope for if convicted of anything is the the judge allows him to remain free on an appellate bond because of the constitutional infirmities with the case he’s already acknowledged. I’m just not certain if such a bond is available in the state of Wisconsin for murder convictions.
He’s free on bond now. Why wouldn’t he be free on bond pending appeal?
But you’re wrong. The best he can hope for is complete acquittal, any reasonable person would find him not guilty based on the evidence presente. The next best would be mistrial with prejudice, that since the prosecution so clearly tried to get a mistrial once their case blew up with their own witnesses. The least best is mistrial without prejudice. The unlikely is appealing it.
Your question made me curious, So, I attempted to look up the answer.
A partial answer to your question is found in Section 969.01, entitled “Eligibility for release,” as follows
(2) After conviction.
(a) Release pursuant to s. [ . . . ] 969.03 (entitled ‘Release of defendants charged with felonies’), may be allowed in the discretion of the trial court after conviction and prior to sentencing or the granting of probation.
(c) In felonies, release may be allowed upon appeal in the discretion of the trial court.
So, in theory, it’d be within the discretion of Judge Schroeder, in the event of a conviction, which is unlikely, but, not outside the realm of possibility.
Since I don’t practice in Wisconsin, I don’t know how often it happens in the real world that a defendant who is convicted of one or more felonies involving the violent deaths of fellow human beings, is released, pending sentencing and appeal.
It will be a gut-check moment for Schroeder tho’.
Generally, the bond that covers your pre-trial/trial bail will not cover bail granted post-conviction. Why? Risk. You become a much greater flight risk for bondsman if you’re convicted. So, if post-conviction bail is possible, you’re likely going to have to obtain a new bond. In any event, talking to a family member who’s a criminal defense lawyer, he tells me post-conviction bail is never granted for murder convictions. In fact, it’s almost never granted in cases where the sentence is potentially longer than the appeals process. It’s designed for defendants who might only get a year or two which would likely be shorter than the appeals process could take.
Also, I said, ‘IF CONVICTED, the best he can hope for…’
So assuming rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, was it before or after Kyle was threatened with the ‘if I get you alone’ language? And, was the pointing done willfully and in a threatening way, or because he had a moment of laziness. Turning, and swinging the gun, or actually putting it to his shoulder and aiming it? to me it matters.
the allegation is KR pointed it not at Rosenbaum, but the Ziminski’s who’d just discharged the pistol they’d been brandishing. There’s nothing in the video itself to really suggest why KR would have pointed it. Prosecution had to enlarge and enhance an image to even draw this conclusion with the fuzzy pixels added by the enhancement process.
If Ziminiski actually discharged it – then it is Ziminski who was the provocateur. It begs the question – if Rosenbaum was supposedly triggered by the presence of a gun and with a desire to protect the crowd from a deadly weapon – why was he not charging at Ziminski to neutralize the threat Ziminski might – in theory – have posed ?
The answer is obvious. Rosenbaum was not chasing Kyle because Kyle had a gun. He chased Kyle because Kyle was deemed by rioters to be an adversary.
that’s what I wondered…and wondered where’s the ziminski’s? why are they not at trial giving testimony?
it turns out the prosecutors are essentially shielding them since they were up on charges themselves with trial pending. it’s fishy sounding to me.
and to be clear, IMO kyle did everything he had to to retreat by running across the parking lot. I think he was even yelling ‘friendly, friendly’ as he did so. Rosenbaum was in a rage though, he just wanted to kill someone and this fresh-face kid was his target.
And, even if it was pointed, how do we know Ziminiski or Rosenbaum actually saw it pointed in Ziminski’s direction ? There was a lot happening all around them. It was the middle of a riot.
Second, I get provocation if a gun is being pointed – but it seems that argument fails as soon as the gun is lowered and the person with the gun retreats.
>> Kyle was not just retreating – he was running away. There was no need to chase him. Rosenbaum made a choice to give chase.
Jurors have to be asked – “if you were unarmed – would you chase a man with an AR-15 in the middle of a riot ?”
If the “theory of the case” for the State (on claim of “provocation”) was that KR pointed a gun at Ziminsky, then even IF the video showed a moment in time of pointing a gun at person A, I would think as a matter of law there is insufficient proof to show that this provoked person B to then go after KR, unless there was some “completely obvious” circumstance, e.g. someone brandishing a knife to a child a foot away, and someone else jumping in to save the child. If the Judge had properly demanded an offer of proof on provocation, and the “drone video” was all the State had, then the whole theory of “provocation” should have been dismissed and never gone to the jury.
Initially I liked the “let it all in and let them try their case” mentality of the judge. But he pushed it way too far here, and the pooch is screwed. This is a mistrial (should be with prejudice).
For the record, Handbrake is an open source transcoder. You can use it to change the format of a movie object from one form to an other. For instance, you have a movie in mov format and need mp3 format, Handbrake can do that. It also can resize and change the frame rate of the video. It is likely the software that was used to turn the prosecution video into the defense video. Somebody has to choose the parameters when you recode.
A question to the lawyers…
If mistrial is granted an they start a new trial, what we’ve been reading is it will be only on those charges the jury does not find NG. Is that right?
Second…is the second trial a complete fresh start by any set of rules? Such as: new prosecution, new defense. An do they do their own investigations and selection of witnesses and evidence gathering to support their cases?
I think most/all posters on this board are not facing reality. . .all the talk of a mistrial with prejudice or directed verdict, etc. It should be obvious to anyone and everyone that none of that is going to happen. The judge has shown no interest in actually doing anything. He yells and complains but has at least 3 major reasons to act but does nothing.
He will do nothing. Repeat that. The judge will do nothing. If he were going to he would have already done it.
Whatever the jury comes back with is what will be. . .and I suspect based on the delays and questions that Kyle will be found guilty. He isn’t, but the judge has enabled it by allowing bogus evidence (chain of custody anyone) and the incompetence of Kyle’s lawyers.
But, the judge will not overturn anything. Prepare yourselves.
One of the things that’s so maddening about the entire provocation concept is that there was so much going on in such a short time that how can anyone be reasonably certain which events were provocative, and to whom. Clearly, Ziminski fired the first shot. Was everything after that a reaction to that event? Or was Rosenbaum’s chasing of Rittenhouse into the corner the beginning of the provocation? Kyle’s supposed pointing of the gun (which likely didn’t happen) occurred between the initial chase and Ziminski’s shot into the air.
Yet, the defense seemed to be completely flummoxed by the the whole provocation idea and focused solely on the quality of the video. It was rightfully challenged, but why did it come at the expense of challenging the reasonableness and timing of the provocation itself?
IMO…Ziminski’s first shot was designed to set off the events that followed. It was presented as in testimony that the Ziminski’s and Rosenbaum had been walking around together all night. I BELIEVE…pure speculation…the Ziminski’s manipulated a person they saw to be unhinged (he WAS off his med’s…a fact testified to) and knew him to be enraged. I BELIEVE Ziminski let off his shot to ellicit a reaction from Kyle…not the one he got as he takes off in retreat but the enraged Rosenbaum takes off in pursuit. Much to the glee of the Ziminski’s.
My point by the above: even though it’s speculation it’s a REASONABLE description of events that fit the evidence I’ve seen in the videos. In a trial where you have to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that’s one. Just one and by this point it’s apparent that at least one juror has his/her own reasonable doubt.
am grateful for the learned discourse here regards trial/criminal procedures–given that, appears that rittenhouse’s hopes for freedom may now rest in the hands of a major player who(according to some here)seems more concerned with the safety of his own ass than with his clear responsibility for a young man’s life–jesus man, do your duty–if rittenhouse is innocent(which believe the evidence or rather lack thereof makes obvious) and there has been prosecutorial misconduct(again, rather obvious)then do what is right, call this charade for what it is and free this young man
I infer your talking about the judge.
He may be open to criticism from the lawyers, but I like him still. I believe, as he does, in the jury. His decisions up to this point has been all directed at managing the trial by keeping it on the rails and getting it to the jury. He’s succeeded at that, and the evidence they have to decide over is overwhelmingly in favor of an NG verdict. Everybody seems to agree on that..except CNN and we know why that.
The test to his mettle is only how he proceeds should the jury come back with a guilty verdict. He has ample proof that it was influenced by evidence that shouldn’t be there…the lawyers call it ‘Brady’. Alo by prosecution’s statements that go against decided courtroom proceedings even a 1st year law student should understand. Let’s wait until then to pillory the judge.
There are layers of irony here.
The type of “provocation” claimed by the State (that Rosenberg supposedly “provoked” to attack KR because KR allegedly pointed a gun at Ziminsky) is not only without proof. But the actual, “poster child” for this type of “provocation” (person B rushing in after person A threatened) was when the police officer shot Jacob Blake –which set this whole Kenosha riot in motion. That police officer, in fact, had immediate reason to intervene with deadly force when Blake, who was a known violent offender, was attempting to evade the police in highly emotional situation, and then brandished a knife feet away from, and heading to a young child in a car.
The defense couldn’t say it, but in reality if you feel KR “provoked” Rosenbaum here (without evidence) then surely you must accept that the Blake shooting was, proven, 100% justified.
Great Maker, when is Judge Schroeder going to take responsibility for his court and the total fustercluck he’s made of this trial by putting off decisions time and time again over the prosecutions shenanigans. It’s time to put an end to this farce. Judge Schroeder simply cannot wait for the verdict. He must make these decisions now.
In actuality, the judge MUST wait for the verdicts. This isn’t a Hollywood TV trial with actions scripted for drama, it’s real world. The jury is the decider of the facts and a reasonable jury will see through the charade the prosecution as put on and decide for NG.
It they don’t find NG there is ample reason to find they were unduly influenced by it all. THEN is the time to agitate for decisions.
He absolutely does NOT have to wait for a verdict. That is just stupid. No reasonable person would assume that just cause bad evidence is in the hands of jury deliberations NOW doesn’t mean the judge can’t rule on a motion NOW. Being in deliberations ain’t some special get-out-of-responsibility card for the judge.
I think it’s unreasonable to stop a jury in it’s deliberations, especially since the deliberations have every likelihood of coming back not guilty. That’s the best possible outcome for this trial, and not just for KR.
Since the evidence is so clearly in KR’s favor it gives the judge reason to say they decided on unreasonable grounds and a mistrial is justified…along with all the rules of law and process that the will constitute the legal justifications he’ll cite in his judgments. That’s not nearly as good as NG, but the best to hope for.
And I want to add something else on a personal note.
I dearly want the opportunity for the NG verdict to come back. I want the moral authority that lends to arguments he acted in self defense. A judges decision now, even if he’s inclined to do so, takes that away.
But I don’t want to jeopardize KR. The judge’s authority to grant on any of the motions are not affected by delaying until the verdict is in (at least from what the lawyers have been saying). So he MUST wait.
I think we agree that it is probably a good idea to wait to declare a mistrial, but that he COULD legally do so.
There was a rixed point in the pretrial activity in this case where ALL the evidence, witnesses, tesimpney, etc, had been proffered exanined, and agreed upon. This is tandatd proceedure. This video was NOT included in that body of material, therefore MUST be EXCLUDED. It never shold have been shown the jury, as it was NOT agreed upon and “vetted” before the trial proper began.
Were I the Defense counsel I’d have raised a stink about this fact.. this video, now being proffered as “evidence”, had NOT been examined and vetted prior to the trial commencing. Thus I, as defense counsel ,had no opportunity to examine it, prepare for it, or anything else. Further, ANY evidence MUST b esupported and verified as authentic. As Defence counsel I DEMANd the opportunity to examine the maker of the video, what equipment was used, anddetails about alttitude, time of day/night, interpretation of the meta-data accompanying each frame, etc. and to view the original footage as obtained directly from the recodrding device attached to the drone. Further I’d be asking bout his experience, trainilng proffessional qualificatioins, etc, I’d want every detail about the provenance of this video footage.
Having been denied this RIGHT on behalf of my cleint, I’d demand the video NOT be admitted into evidence, and NOT shown the jury. End of story. As to the low res not being provided my Defense team prior to the close of testimony/evidence, agai, I’d move for the original and al copies te be held inadmissible, and stirken from the record, never to be seen by the jury. Not part of the trial, as not agrreed upon beforhand, and my inability to examine the evidence and its sources.
And BInger shuold be heavily sanctioned (disbarred?) for pulling such a stunt in a high stakes high profile trial. He should be ashamed of himself, but it is plain he has no shame. Maybe some hunger would be a good substitute. How well could he continue to live once he can no longer practice law? Maybe he’d think about a few things for a second or two. Maybe……
Binger might face consequences after the trial a lot of judges do consequences afterwards to avoid prejudicing the jury.
buried in bullshct, america has already lost the war.