Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH Day 4: Jurors Continue Deliberating After Taking Instructions Home

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH Day 4: Jurors Continue Deliberating After Taking Instructions Home

How much longer?

Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial! This is our VERDICT WATCH post, where we will share any fast-breaking news on verdicts and other events around the jury deliberations which begin today.

Live Stream 

For those who missed the closing arguments, or our prior VERDICT WATCH and end-of-day jury deliberation analysis, here is the coverage:



(refresh page for updates; most recent on top, all times Central time)


12:05 p.m.: Jury being brought to courtroom, Judge tells court they are coming with a verdict.

12:03 p.m.: Parties coming into the courtroom.

12:02 p.m.: Hearing that Kenosha emergency services being put on alert.

12:01 p.m.: Hearing maybe 30 minutes, verdict will be given.

11:55 a.m.: Reports that Huber family is coming into courtroom.

11:54 a.m.:  Law & Crime reports that family of those killed are being asked to come into courtroom.

11:53 a.m.: Seems like a false alarm, that court was coming back in.

11:49 a.m.:  Some rumors possible verdict, doesn’t seem very solid. But looks like court may be coming into session in live stream above.

10:13 a.m.: Hearing that State has filed responses to the defense motions for mistrial, and the matter will be argued today.

9:40 a.m.:  Nothing happening yet.

8:31 a.m.: I see FOX News is reporting that yesterday Rittenhouse defense told them that the prosecution always knew who “jump kick man” was and withheld that information.  More grounds for a mistrial?  Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Identity of mysterious ‘jump kick man’ revealed

8:18 a.m.:  Expect deliberations to begin again at 9:00 a.m.

6:28 a.m.: Gearing up for day 4 of deliberations!

I encourage you to bookmark or just leave open in your browser, but you will have to refresh for updates.


Until next time:


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

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


At this point, a hung jury is the most likely outcome I suppose?

    jim_m in reply to Othniel. | November 19, 2021 at 8:02 am

    If a mistrial due to a hung jury the question then becomes if the judge finally rules on the defense motion for a dismissal with prejudice. My guess is that he expects an acquittal but may be prepared to dismiss with prejudice in the event of a jury hung 11-1

      lmartinjr in reply to jim_m. | November 19, 2021 at 8:28 am

      I hope you are right. But I lost faith in this judge while jury instructions were being argued.

        Johnson85 in reply to lmartinjr. | November 19, 2021 at 12:05 pm

        I don’t think this is what is happening, but occasionally, on a bench trial, when the judge starts ruling against one side consistently, it means they have already made up their mind and don’t want to provide the losing party additional grounds for appeal. If the Judge is leaning towards a mistrial (which I don’t see how you could do anything else with the games the prosecution has played, although I guess there could be an argument over whether it should be with or without prejudice), he may be taking the position that the prosecution has made their bed and he’s going to give Rittenhouse a free bite at the apple so to say while allowing the bad conduct of the prosecution.
        The damage was basically done on the video before it was made clear the prosecution hadn’t shared it, and it’s hard to tell the jury now that it shouldn’t have come in without declaring a mistrial. So possibly he’s letting it play out now knowing that there is going to be a mistrial at worst for Rittenhouse.

      REDACTED in reply to jim_m. | November 19, 2021 at 11:59 am


      no way, jose

      the judge is all talk

    NGAREADER in reply to Othniel. | November 19, 2021 at 9:40 am

    I suspect they could reach a verdict on two of the shootings and that those would be not guilty. Then hang in the first one.
    Then the judge would have to decide if he declares a miss-trial on what’s left.

    VioletJanes in reply to Othniel. | November 19, 2021 at 11:58 am

    So many trials and tribulations all at this moment in time: Kenosha, Arbery, Parkland school shooting, Charlottesville civil trial, illegal alien Billy Chemirmir nursing home murders, death row inmate Julius Jones’s (murderer of Paul Howell) grant of clemency by the Oklahoma governor, probably more of which I’m unaware.

Karen is lobbying judge to go back home and vote by mail then let Binger count the votes.

Jonathan Cohen | November 19, 2021 at 8:24 am

There are five counts. It is hard to believe that the jury won’t be unanimous for acquittal on 2-5 (all but Rosenbaum). The prosecution case involving Huber,jump kick man and Groscruetz were essentially arguments for not charging JKM and Groscruetz with assault for attacking Rittenhouse.

I think it is likely that the holdouts for conviction are worried about what their friends and family will say if they acquit on all counts. That is a lot more of a threat than the crazies screaming outside the court house or the NBC guy following the bus.

This is where knowledge of the backgrounds of Rosenbaum, Huber, JKM and groscruetz might have impacted the jury. If a juror’s family and friends are assuming Rittenhouse is guilty because the media and the Democrats have labeled him a white supremacist, they might be more inclined to rely on the actual evidence if for instance they knew that Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile.

Basically, Binger’s argument was that Rittenhouse is on the wrong side of the culture wars and therefore he had no right to defend himself. It is sad that in today’s America so many people feel that way.

    Binge hiding JKM is a certain violation of the 6th amendment itself. Right to confront. Binger used him as an adverse witness in his pleadings while preventing his testimony in person.

      Smooth23 in reply to Elzorro. | November 19, 2021 at 9:35 am

      Honestly its a bit ludicrous they were allowed to charge him with that in the first place, with the right to confront and all.

        TargaGTS in reply to Smooth23. | November 19, 2021 at 11:34 am

        This has confused me for a while. I do business with a company that suffered a pretty severe workplace accident. The accident was a result of someone doing something profoundly negligent and was indicted as a result. I can’t remember if it was a felony or misdemeanor. In any event, the victim made himself scarce when the case came to trial (left the country kind of scarce). As I understand it, even though some of the event is captured on security cameras, the charge was dismissed because the complaining witness wasn’t available which violated the defendant’s 6A rights.

        Why didn’t that apply here? There must be some circumstances where 6A doesn’t apply or is mooted in some way, for instance, when the victim of recklessness is dead.

      Same with the drone video. W/o the drone operator/photographer and information about when the pros received the video, it should have never been allowed.
      Judge, if he finds his smarts and nads, declares mistrial w/prejudie and blames it on the prosecution, that he has no choice; thereby absolving himself.

    Christopher B in reply to Jonathan Cohen. | November 19, 2021 at 9:30 am

    Based on Mr. Branca’s analysis, I think if anything guilty on Count 2 (First-Degree recklessly endangering safety) based on the shots fired towards McGinnis, or the lesser included charge of second-degree endangering, is more likely than guilty on Count 1 (Rosenbaum murder). I could see the jurors who are firmly for acquittal on all charges compromising with a Karen-type who is demanding some kind of guilty verdict given that it’s the least serious charge he faces. Given the threats from Rosenbaum when Kyle was just walking around the car lot I don’t see anybody being swayed by the video into thinking he was ‘provoked’ by Kyle supposedly pointing a gun at someone.

      I can’t imagine any situation where I would “compromise” on convicting someone.

      either the facts support a conviction or they don’t.

      I wouldn’t care if it was 11-1… if the facts aren’t there, there’s no way I would “compromise” and send someone to prison for a crime they weren’t guilty of.

        anarchyisfreedom in reply to ryStatDL. | November 19, 2021 at 10:23 am

        Absolutely correct.

        How could anyone,with a conscience, ‘compromise’ on anything pertaining to this?

        Kyle is a child.

        The ‘compromise’ scenario is solid of evidence of just how completely morally bankrupt ‘we’ have become. Disgusting and tragic.

        fogflyer in reply to ryStatDL. | November 19, 2021 at 10:54 am

        I could see compromising on a not-guilty verdict if I was a lone hold out for guilty, but certainly not the other way around. Our system is supposed to favor the accused and err on their side. I would never vote guilty if I didn’t think someone was.

          ryStatDL in reply to fogflyer. | November 19, 2021 at 11:15 am

          I was on a jury about 10 years ago where I “knew” (as in “felt”) the defendant was guilty

          however – the prosecution had not proven it.

          so, I voted “not guilty”

          SeiteiSouther in reply to fogflyer. | November 19, 2021 at 12:07 pm

          I voted not guilty on evidence, despite the fact that the accused were, in my eyes, guilty.

          Prosecution didn’t bring their A game and didn’t prove their case.

        That is because you have morals and ethics that a mentally deranged leftist on a jury would not…

        buck61 in reply to ryStatDL. | November 19, 2021 at 11:34 am

        let’s compromise by putting him in prison for 30 years !!!!!. That sounds fair and just. All because you can’t hold to your own beliefs on the facts of the case and the law.
        You spending a few days in a jury room versus 30 years of another person at the gray bar motel.

        Arminius in reply to ryStatDL. | November 19, 2021 at 11:50 am

        So, compromise with masked Karen just so I can end my “ordeal” and not have to miss Thanksgiving?

        Not a chance. My ordeal would be nothing compared to Kyle’s. And when I was in the Navy I missed lots of Thanksgivings. Also there’s that thingy in the Bible about not bearing false witness. I think voting to convict someone I knew was innocent just because I was missing my favorite daytime TV shows would fall into that category.

      Harry_the_Horrible in reply to Christopher B. | November 19, 2021 at 9:45 am

      Given that the charge carries up to 12 1/2 years with five additional for the rifle, if’n I were on that jury nothing on heaven or earth would move me to convict Kyle.
      I might compromise for a misdemeanor for littering or a noise violation, but not a felony.

      civisamericanus in reply to Christopher B. | November 19, 2021 at 10:49 am

      Actually, if the shots fired near McGinnis were not reckless (e.g. as portrayed by the fictional Fearless Fosdick character by Al Capp, who often gunned down innocent bystanders while chasing alleged criminals) I would not find Rittenhouse guilty of that either.

      Let’s say for example that one of the rounds did hit McGinnis. That would obviously be wrong, but who is responsible? If Rosenbaum created the situation, then he and not Rittenhouse is responsible (again, assuming Rittenhouse didn’t just spray gunfire all over like Fearless Fosdick). There was a shooting by police in, I believe, New York City in which innocent people were hit but the police were not charged with anything as they had apparently not fired recklessly.

      This is not to say that what happened to the innocent people is OK. The responsibility rests however with the individual(s) who created the violent situation and not those who defended themselves against it. The same principle applies when Israeli bombs kill civilians in Gaza. Israel has the right to defend itself against Qassam rocket launchers and, if Hamas deploys them near noncombatants, which it does intentionally, then any collateral damage is solely on Hamas and not Israel.

      There is in fact something called felony murder. Suppose bad guy X shoots at innocent party Y, who lawfully returns fire but kills Z who is close to X or steps into the line of fire. Somebody has been killed unjustly but the law may well say X is guilty of murder for creating the situation, again assuming Y did not fire indiscriminately.

        History is replete with cops firing towards “suspects” without giving an “f” about innocents near or behind the subject. Doesn’t outweigh self defense. McGinnis put himself in a potentially lethal situation.

      They can’t even consider count 2 if they don’t think he is guilty of count 1.
      The jury instruction says that if you find Kyle acted in legal self defense against Rosenbaum, then his actions did NOT amount to reckless endangerment of McGinnis.

    I’m more worried about the counts involving Huber, Jump Kick Man, and Grosskreutz. I think they were all obviously self-defense, but I think if there is a juror that is looking for a reason to convict, they will allow themselves to believe the prosecution’s theory that they were stopping an active shooter. We all know that what they thought didn’t matter and is irrelevant, and I also don’t find it believable that they thought that to begin with, but I think a juror could latch onto that and convince themselves that it justifies a conviction.

      Think38 in reply to Cooper. | November 19, 2021 at 10:44 am

      Surprised the judge allowed that sort of argument. Even if Huber, Jump Kick Man and Grosskreutz all thought they were stopping an active shooter, that determination is not relevant to Rittenhouse’s decision to use deadly force to stop them.

      One possible outcome is all four of them could have been properly using self-defense under Wisconsin law. While I don’t think that was the case, the law allows for that outcome.

        The prosecutor also claimed Kyle should have called 911 for the fires and everything else- let the cops and fire do their job. That same argument can be used against them for engaging instead of calling cops.

          Paul in reply to stl. | November 19, 2021 at 12:34 pm

          Such a bullshit argument. One of the key aspects of Self Defense is that you reasonably fear imminent threat of grave bodily harm. When some antifi thug is bashing a skateboard over your head, or an antifa thug is grabbing your weapon after screeching that he intends to kill you, or an antifa thug is pointing a .45 in your face, I’d say that meets the threshold of imminent and reasonable.

      civisamericanus in reply to Cooper. | November 19, 2021 at 10:52 am

      The three white guys who chased and killed a Black guy in Georgia thought they were chasing a criminal, and the police had apparently been about to warn the Black guy about trespassing. You cannot however use deadly force over a misdemeanor, or even a nonviolent property felony like burglary. Maybe Binger ought to go down to Georgia to defend those guys while using the same reasoning, in the hope that one or more people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty (as shown by this jury’s failure to acquit in roughly ten minutes) might buy what he is selling.

      amwick in reply to Cooper. | November 19, 2021 at 12:33 pm

      The defense was not allowed or given the opportunity to question drop kick man… That is a big deal..

    You don’t seem to understand the concept of justified use of force in self defense. If Rittenhouse is convicted on count one then he is not justified in using any level of physical force to protect himself from a use of unlawful force while he is attempting to escape from the sceen of the of the murder.

      Think38 in reply to bigo. | November 19, 2021 at 10:48 am

      As a matter of law, that is not correct.

      “A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person’s assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.” Wis Stat 939.48(2)(a)

      In other words, even if guilty of count 1, he can defend himself against a lynch mob.

      civisamericanus in reply to bigo. | November 19, 2021 at 10:57 am

      Even assuming the people who chased Rittenhouse had a right to arrest him, the instant they said “beat his head” they indicated that they were going to take the law into their own hands and, as far as I am concerned, anything anybody does to a lynch mob is OK. In addition, he was trying to turn himself in to the police which pretty much takes away this argument.

      In addition, there were plenty of police around but, as far as I know, none of Rittenhouse’s pursuers went over to them to get help. That tells me even further that they intended to take the law into their own hands, thus losing any rights they might have had unless and until they desisted from the violent conduct in question.

      TargaGTS in reply to bigo. | November 19, 2021 at 11:22 am

      People are not permitted to chase suspects, even those suspected of murder, and physically assault them. Don’t believe me? Ask the three guys on trial for the murder of Abery in Georgia.

      Unless you’re a duly sworn officer of the law, you are only allowed to use physical force to defend yourself or others, not to effect ‘arrest.’ If the mob chases the bank robber and assaults him, the bank robber is entitled to defend himself.


Imagine conviction on all counts.

It can happen if Karen (apparently Juror #54) digs-in and holds-out until the others are fed up and will vote any way she wants – just t be able to get this over with.

I suspect Binger knew all along that he had a ringer in the jury. He just had to give #54 a pretext to use to hold out for conviction.

    pchase9401 in reply to Ben Kent. | November 19, 2021 at 8:43 am

    I’m not sure about #54.

    There was a comment on here that she responded that she knew one of the witnesses, but when I went back to jury questions could not find that reference.

    What I did find was she answered she went downtown 2-3 days after and saw the damage.

    From that, the defense probably wanted her on there.

      comments Andrew picked up during jury selection
      #54: Husband family grew up hunting, gun collection, I shot a few times at targets.

      Chirafisi: Anyone else #54.

      #54: Drove down 2-3 days after.
      Chirafisi: Still substantial damage?
      #54: Yes.
      Chirafisi: Keep you from being impartial here?
      #54: No.

      #54: BA

      #54, brought into well, would not have raised hand to previous questions, put into well

      #54: Knows some of the witnesses named, but could set that aside, put in well.

      The witness list was said to have been over 200 nanes,we don’t know if any of those were actually called.

    The Pedant-General in reply to Ben Kent. | November 19, 2021 at 8:43 am

    I think that is wildly unlikely. The case for self defence is so clear cut and so obvious that you would have a stand off. If Karen insists on holding out, the other jurors would notify judge that they are hung.

    KR is clearly and obviously running away from Rosenbaum,

    The downside is that even telling the judge that you are afraid of the consequences of NG would be enough to trigger the riots you are trying to avoid.

      Yeah, I think it just goes to show that you can reason with these people. If they want to riot, they’re gonna riot.

      Telling the judge you’re afraid of consequences triggers him to unseat that juror and bring in an alternate. Then start deliberations all over again

      I suppose the judge could find out if the fear is sincere and founded, try to assure them all will be well first. Also if any others in the jury feel this outside pressure would be a concern too, something to investigate maybe with one-by-one questioning of all the jurors alone.

      civisamericanus in reply to The Pedant-General. | November 19, 2021 at 11:12 am

      Lynch mobs do not render verdicts in this country and, if they try to do so, that is why our law enforcement officers and, if necessary, the National Guard, are armed.

    PhillyWatch in reply to Ben Kent. | November 19, 2021 at 9:02 am

    I just don’t see it happening. Even a random mix of people is bound to find one who’s staunchly opposed to being steam rolled by an entitled Karen-type and will not give in.

    estevenspi in reply to Ben Kent. | November 19, 2021 at 9:16 am

    Please dont use the word Karen. It’s a hateful anti-white slur.

I hope today we’ll hear (in comments, Mr. Branca’s coverage, or discussion on Rekieta Law’s coverage) about the juror(s) taking home the jury instructions. IANAL, but I can’t imagine why the court allowed that.

    PhillyWatch in reply to JMark. | November 19, 2021 at 8:40 am

    Perhaps because it really doesn’t matter as he’s already determined the outcome.

    Of course, the ideal is acquittal on all charges and if reviewing the instructions helps get that all the better. But a guilty verdict on any other forces him to look at the misconduct that’s occurred, with a likely declaration of mistrial resulting.

      PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 8:44 am

      Adding something to that:

      The tea-leaf readers are all saying this judge lacks the moxie to declare a mistrial. Maybe he’s loathe to do that, but I have to believe all judges are loath to take a trial away from a jury…until the events force them to.

      So far this judge seems to be all bark and no bite.

      Christopher B in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 9:15 am

      I’ve been thinking along those lines. Dismissing the gun charge was a good sign. I think he’s going to look really hard at any guilty verdict to be sure that it’s a proper application of the facts to the law, or he’ll pull out one of the mistrial motions and approve that.

    JHogan in reply to JMark. | November 19, 2021 at 9:01 am

    If she had handwritten notes on her instructions she is bringing information about what happened inside the deliberations room to the world outside.

    AFAIK, this is a great big no-no. Akin to a juror telling a neighbor, or reporter, about deliberations while the jury is still deliberating.

      That would be a sneaky way to get a juror off the jury. Let her take home the instructions, and then kick her off the jury because it is determined there were notes on the instructions which she had made in the jury room.

The only reason I can think right now for a juror to take the instructions home is to share and/or discuss with family and friends.

Is that allowed?

    PhillyWatch in reply to Exiliado. | November 19, 2021 at 8:47 am

    They’ve been cautioned to not discuss the trial with anyone, not even their family, not even each other if their paths should cross in a bar.

    JHogan in reply to Exiliado. | November 19, 2021 at 9:05 am

    The instructions may be okay to remove.

    Any handwritten notes on them that reveal what is going on inside the deliberations room could be a problem.

      OnePingOnly in reply to JHogan. | November 19, 2021 at 9:12 am

      I don’t remember exactly how the juror phrased her question. Did she ask if she could have a copy of the instructions to take home with her, or did she ask if she could take her copy of the instructions home with her?

      One way suggests a fresh, clean copy while the other suggests a “dirty” copy with her notes scribed on them.

    FelixTheCat in reply to Exiliado. | November 19, 2021 at 9:50 am

    “Is that allowed?” No, but a Karen who asks the Judge “How would you know?” when instructed not to sit in his seat while reviewing the video evidence likely believes the rules don’t apply to her.

Hopefully juror 54 pitches independently researched information and arguments today and gets herself booted from the jury. One can only hope.

You’ve heard of Twelve Angry Men?!

Well, that’s nothing compared to it’s sequel: One Angry Karen

Hope Karen does not point the rifle at the other jurors and demand guilty or else,

    Russ from Winterset in reply to Elzorro. | November 19, 2021 at 9:48 am

    If “Karen” gets into a strong argument with the other jurors, will she get snippy and ask to “SPEAK TO THEIR MANAGER”……considering that as the Jury Foreman she is that manager?

Fox news reporting that Defense team says prosecution knew who jump kick man is and hid it. Seemed like a weak story with not a lot of facts.

    I believe the only one saying this would be the ‘security’ person who has allegedly hijacked the defense. He is not a lawyer and seems out of tune with the rest of the defense team.

One question, that I am curious about. Why do we keep saying KR travelled to Kenosha? Just about everyone, even on the LI discussions, talks about KR “going to” Kenosha. But wasn’t he there already? IIRC, he was with DB, who lived in Kenosha. They went to the city in the morning, and cleaned graffiti. He never left Kenosha until going to the Antioch police department, so how do we keep tarring him for “travelling to Kenosha”? Not only did his father live there, he worked there, and he never left the city between cleaning walls and the protests?

    PhillyWatch in reply to A Thinker. | November 19, 2021 at 9:51 am

    I’m willing to bet half the cops in KPD don’t even live in Kenosha but in outlying communities.

    It’s just a narrative to suggest Kyle doesn’t belong there, has no dog in the hunt there, should not have been there.

Court TV just replayed the part where the juror asked her question.

The phraseology is “can we take the jury instructions home.”

That wording suggests she’s talking about her copy of the instructions which presumably includes her notes.

Another potential reverse and remand ruling at the appellate level.

The FOX News article does not say that the prosecution withheld the Jump Kick Man information. Just says the prosecution declined to give him immunity. Without immunity, I doubt he would have said much.

    SFFLYER in reply to dwb. | November 19, 2021 at 10:41 am

    Material witness/suppression of evidence… bet that discovery request included ID of ‘any material witnesses’, etc. Binger stated the the prosecution DID NOT KNOW who the JKM was… pros lie to judge and jury…might be a little problematic for Chunk and Soy

    Think38 in reply to dwb. | November 19, 2021 at 10:57 am

    Without immunity, he probably doesn’t speak. However, if they knew his identity and withheld, then they deprived the defense the opportunity to solicit that testimony to begin with.

    Note it is possible the prosecution did not know the identity of jump kick man — they could have been talking to a representative of JKM, as as an attorney.

“I see FOX News is reporting that yesterday Rittenhouse defense told them that prosecution always knew who “jump kick man” was and withheld that information. More grounds for a mistrial? ”

The list is growing. Is it unreasonable to believe that at some point it’s all too much for Schroeder to ignore?

    Smooth23 in reply to rduke007. | November 19, 2021 at 9:48 am

    I don’t think Schroeder cares. He’s too used to people who are actually guilty of something, and then just being a cog in the system of ramming home a guilty verdict.

    Krenn in reply to rduke007. | November 19, 2021 at 9:52 am

    All that article says it that Defense knows who JKM is, Maurice Freeland.

    It doesn’t say WHEN defense found out, or when Prosecution knew. I don’t see anything in THAT article which SPECIFICALLY says that prosecution withheld that info.

    (It wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but that particular article doesn’t claim that particular thing)

      I saw specific info on Faux News last night suggesting the State declined to id him due to pending charges and knew his identity early on and did not disclose this to the defense

      PhillyWatch in reply to Krenn. | November 19, 2021 at 10:19 am

      If mistrial is declared without prejudice then prosecution will have no choice but to call him.

It should be noted, if it hasn’t already, that Binger stomping all over Kyle’s 5th Amendment protections during cross means the trail of appellate processes could lead all the way to SCOTUS.

    PhillyWatch in reply to OnePingOnly. | November 19, 2021 at 9:57 am

    I’ve not heard any one saying there are constitutional issues here, only procedural issues and due process issues that are all a matter of already settled law. It should be stopped at appellate court. But then it will just be sent back to the lower court for retrial.

    At least, this is what I’m understanding reading all the lawyer stuff. But still a highly likely outcome is NG on all charges or mistrial with prejudice if not or a hung jury.

      Smooth23 in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 10:01 am

      You must not be paying attention. It’s spelled out in the motion for mistrial with prejudice, as well as all over the internet of the constitutional issues during Rittenhouse cross exam.

        PhillyWatch in reply to Smooth23. | November 19, 2021 at 10:11 am

        I don’t mean merely violating KR’s constitutional rights. The judge himself said what the prosecution did was a well-established border you don’t cross before the jury. To me, that sounds decided with no call to get the Supremes to try to figure out what the framers meant when they wrote the 5th. That makes it largely procedural…the prosecution failed to follow procedures designed to protect the defendant’s rights. That’s a matter the judge himself can decide, or an appellate court if he fails to.

      OnePingOnly in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 11:10 am

      Maybe y0u should review when issues arising in a state criminal court, up to the limit of state appellant processes, can be appealed to SCOTUS. It’s when there is a federal component involved in the proceedings — i.e. issues involving federal law, which don’t seem to apply here, or if there is a question of the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights.

        OnePingOnly in reply to OnePingOnly. | November 19, 2021 at 11:11 am

        *state criminal *case*

        PhillyWatch in reply to OnePingOnly. | November 19, 2021 at 11:31 am

        If you’d tell me what applies here, it would be more relevant.

        I’m not a lawyer, just calling it as I see it. Still looking for something that hints at a question of constitutional law that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court and not in appellate court.

        Questions may come out in arguments in the hearings for mistrial though. But if it starts wading into those questions I expect the citations to fly and us court watchers will go glassy eyed,.

          OnePingOnly in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 11:57 am

          Binger went down the road twice in trying to suggest to the jury that Kyle was tailoring his testimony to the evidence presented. The rationale Binger gave for his suggestion was because at no point prior to the trial had Kyle addressed his actions that night. He never gave an interview to the media, etc., etc.

          After the objection, Binger was reprimanded by the judge. After the judge’s reprimand and cross continued, Binger AGAIN attempted to do the same thing. That’s when the judge lost his shit at Binger. If you’ll recall, the judge told Binger that he previously had been up to the line in conduct potentially prejudicial to Kyle’s 5th Amendment protections and now had probably crossed it.

          And then the judge allowed Binger to continue on cross.

          The appellate pleading that could go all the way to SCOTUS would be that the prosecutor’s conduct with his line of questioning was highly prejudicial against Kyle vis-à-vis his constitutional right to remain silent and for no one to infer anything from that silence, and that the trial judge failed to recognize that infringement and declare a mistrial with prejudice at that point.

          PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 12:59 pm

          “The appellate pleading that could go all the way to SCOTUS would be that the prosecutor’s conduct with his line of questioning was highly prejudicial against Kyle vis-à-vis his constitutional right to remain silent and for no one to infer anything from that silence, and that the trial judge failed to recognize that infringement and declare a mistrial with prejudice at that point.”

          That still sounds like procedure violation. The court has perfect discretion to rule on the matter, and barring doing so the appellate court should. Things that get to the supremes always arise out of twisted technicalities with laws or their constitutionality, not simple process issues.

          The judge DEFINITELY agreed prosecution stomped all over his rights, I see it too not saying otherwise. This issue to not compromise defendants 5th ammendment rights is decided…the judge even started to give a citation in court when he was admonishing prosecution.

          PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 1:08 pm

          to clarify…I’m not saying that because this is a state court it’s not in their jurisdiction as it definitely is if it’s a constitutional issue. I’m just saying it’s decided law, the judge (almost) quoted a citation for, so it is not an issue for them to decide so it would never get there.

          I can see how it might become an issue prosecution tries arguing he wasn’t really covered by the 5th for…some imaginary technical reason I can’t fathom. That will come out in the mistrial hearings, I imagine. Let’s wait to see it.

          PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 1:50 pm

          I’m more concerned Kyle will be sued by everybody after this.

Not a lawyer and I may have my facts wrong…but did the prosecution know who “jump kick guy” was? and if so did they not tell the defense? Shouldn’t that be a bigger deal? This is such a mess.

Note…Solar/Lunar Eclipse, Biden getting Coloscopy so Harris is Queen For a Day, what could go wrong?

    NJ observer in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 10:10 am

    Ther hasn’t been a “great” article on NR in years.

      PhillyWatch in reply to NJ observer. | November 19, 2021 at 12:20 pm

      As someone who also rejects Trumpism, I really can’t blame them for going that way.

      But this one is really good, McCarthy lays out the issues raised by the prosecution’s actions and really pins them to the wall for it. Also painting a bad picture for the judging letting things in he should not have.

      At least to my lay perspective.

      But more, he also lays out the PROPER ways of remedying the situation.

The judge should recognize two things by now: (1) that KR’s rights have been violated outrageously and willfully; and (2) if he leaves the decision to the jury, any jurist who votes “NG” is likely to be ID’d, and thus exposed to retaliation.

So, it’s time for the judge to — finally! — declare a mistrial.

We keep getting photos of the questions from the jury, which look like they’re taken after they’re filed with the clerk. Anyone know who’s taking the pictures?

Has this judge been deliberately giving the defense grounds to appeal and get a do-over if the first jury convicts?

(K)aren wants to drag it out past ThanKsgivng.

I read some interesting tweets from Jellene and one other person.

They seem to think that had the judge ruled to declare mistrial with prejudice before the start of the jury deliverations, the prosecutors can protest / appeal the ruling in order to seek a favorable judge.

AND that if the judge delays his decisions on the motions until the completion of the jury deliberations and not get an acquittal, then he will make his decisions. At that point, the door of protest/appeal is closed to the prosecutors.

Perhaps the lawyers can address or confirm this.

    Not a lawyer, but if he ruled before deliberations, what’s the point of deliberations?

      PhillyWatch in reply to MarkS. | November 19, 2021 at 10:29 am

      Hopefully to get an NG verdict and not create the huge mess of litigation which will inevitably follow.

      In a case where evidence so clearly supports self defense, it’s seems perfectly rational to this layman.

        PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 10:31 am

        I’m not saying he ruled already and keeping it secret…but it’s obvious he’s delayed ruling. Which doesn’t mean he’s not leaning one way or the other.

    lancebaby in reply to lurker9876. | November 19, 2021 at 10:32 am

    Wishful thinking. I keep saying it but will again. . the judge has done absolutely nothing to date that gives the slightest indication that he will actually act to correct the injustice going on. He yells and huffs but then . . .does nothing.

    If Rittenhouse is convicted he will huff, puff, say that he has serious misgivings and do NOTHING.

    The Reketa law guys are great but the are projecting onto this judge what they would do not what has or will do.

Just imagine that according to Posobiec reporting Richards seems to believe he managed to get a 6-6- split jury in the most clear self-defense case one can imagine to ever see in court.
This is only possible if he did not do his job at jury selection (obvious), objecting to deficient evidence (obvious), and in general.

Frankly, after this trial both ADA and the lead defense attorney should be disbarred.

    It’s obvious the jury is split in some way.

    I think that may be Richard’s stock answer to anyone who asks. He may not really believe it.

    felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | November 19, 2021 at 4:48 pm

    I will admit that Richards’ presser convinced me that he had a rationale for most of his decisions, so I drop my call to disbar the defense attorney.

    He still did not do a good job, but thankfully the facts of the case were so overwhelmingly in Kyle Rittenhouse’s favor that despite all threats and all deceit from #DisbarBinger and #Disbar Kraus Kyle not a single juror voted to convict im unjustly.
    If you look at the blue-check Twitter lynchmob that takes courage.
    And given the likelihood that quite a few jurors were on the more “liberal” side of the aisle that is genuine courage. I think we can all be thankful that these jurors did their duty.

It looks like they’re arguing jury instructions in the arbery case now, for you fellow trial addicts.

    fogflyer in reply to Smooth23. | November 19, 2021 at 11:28 am

    How is that one looking in your opinion?
    I decided I could only follow one trial and I chose Rittenhouse.

      Smooth23 in reply to fogflyer. | November 19, 2021 at 11:34 am

      I haven’t been able to watch enough to know, honestly. Same reason as you, I’ve been watching Rittenhouse and trying to work. If I had to guess, I’d say the father/son go down for murder, but the camera man is acquitted.

Another question for the lawyers…

Should it come to the judge declaring mistrial…is it an ‘all or nothing’ proposition? In other words, can he declare mistrial on some charges but not others?

Can he leave NG verdicts standing for some charges and call mistrial with prejudice on any guilty verdicts or hung jury for other charges?

Or any combination…maybe mistrial with prejudice on some…mistrial without on others (meaning another trial). Not sure how that could come about though.

Again, not a criminal lawyer but experienced civil trial attorney. In this context, one thing I truly don’t understand is why the Court’s rulings on what offenses the jury is to consider, based on prior findings is not a WRITTEN INSTRUCTION on the verdict sheet, as opposed to the general instructions to the jury.

In every jury trial I’ve tried, if a jury is to consider or not consider a question, the verdict says “IF you found “yes” to question #2, continue to question #3…” or “if you did not answer that question “yes” report your verdict, or continue to question #4 ” etc.

My sense is the jury is confused as to whether they should even consider (or able to consider) the lesser includeds of “reckless” etc if they’ve found justified self defense.

The problem of provocation is also “problematic.” Not sure if this requires a separate finding, or if they are entilted to say “guilty” to one of the homicides based on a finding of “provocation.” It would be far preferable if they were required to make a separate finding as to provocation, which in my view would really strengthen the trial court and/or appellate courts ability to throw out any guilty verdict (should that happen, God forbid)

But let’s face it: by any reasonable application of law and facts, this should be a directed verdict. Question: if the jury is hung, can the judge nonetheless go on to declare directed verdict?

    Smooth23 in reply to xnycp. | November 19, 2021 at 10:34 am

    The jury instructions are such a mess

    PhillyWatch in reply to xnycp. | November 19, 2021 at 10:38 am

    Hate to be inclusive but there aren’t many objections that I’ve seen: the lawyers are saying he can declare mistrial (if warranted) with prejudice. That would have the same affect as a declared verdict as it protects the defendant from double jeopardy.

    That makes the lesser included charges all the more relevant because what what’s left to charge him with if they want another shot at him. Jaywalking, probably, as he runs down the center of the street from the mob.

Taking the jury instructions home seems innocuous, I can see a juror sitting down with an advisor and marshalling the ‘correct’ decision to each instruction.

    The Pedant-General in reply to Davod1. | November 19, 2021 at 10:42 am

    sitting down with anyone not on the jury would be a massive problem

    xnycp in reply to Davod1. | November 19, 2021 at 11:02 am

    I think this was incredibly ill considered. It’s already a lot to ask (unrealistic) to tell jurors not to discuss cases with their spouse. Now the Judge has given them take-home instructions, which is clearly an issue of contention/discussion in deliberations, and asking them: Do not take a bite out of this cookie, that I’m allowing you to take home.

    The whole idea of letting them take home instructions is counter to the idea that deliberations only takes place as a body. If jurors want to take breaks during deliberations for a “Study hall” in which they can all read the instructions privately then so be it. I would have suggested as much if I were the judge. Also, “allowing” them to take home the instructions after a full day of deliberations is the worst thing possible from a stress management/see the big picture sense that is now required for a hung or near-hung jury. Terrible, no good ruling!

soveryverytired | November 19, 2021 at 10:59 am

I’m watching the Rekieta stream and the discussion of Brandon Beamon (sp?). It’s kind of driving me nuts because BB is mentioned in the liveblog by Andrew right before Grosskreutz’ testimony. I believe that’s Day 5, as titled by Andrew.

Name me one good reason to have allowed them to take the instructions home? Can’t think of one.
I really am having a hard time how why the juror(s) would be allowed to bring the instructions home, without at least asking them first some very pointed questions, and then forcefully instructing them on the illegality and punishments they’d incur for discussing or researching beyond the scope of their duty as a juror.
I see no reason whatsoever for that to have been permitted: at the very least, it was risky. At worst, it’s a potential threat to the prized confidential nature of a jury.

    PhillyWatch in reply to DelightLaw1. | November 19, 2021 at 11:14 am

    ONE good reason…

    It won’t matter if Judge is strongly leaning towards mistrial with prejudice if the returns guilty on any charge.

The problem with the judge ruling on the motion for mistrial with prejudice after a jury verdict is that it opens KR to double jeopardy. In short, if mistrial with prejudice is ordered prior to a jury verdict, retrial is barred and the prosecution cannot appeal. If it occurs after a jury verdict of guilty, an appeals court can overrule the judge’s decision and order a new trial or even reinstate the jury verdict.

    PhillyWatch in reply to CommMentor. | November 19, 2021 at 11:54 am

    I’ve been reading so much here and I may have it wrong. But my understanding is if he declares mistrial with prejudice then KR is protected under double-jeapordy so there is no retrial possible.

    But there is also the possibility to set aside the jury verdict in favor of a directed verdict. THAT can be appealed as it does not protect the defendant under double jeapordy.

    I am mindful that before the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice he’s going to look for very solid foundation for that decision. First question to answer is…With the jury in deliberation is there even a need for doing so? Obviously, no (the HUGE weight of evidence in his favor???) so wait until after. Next, he’s going to look for solid foundation to support in hearings with the parties in argument on all the points raised.

    All this is just from what I’ve gathered here and other articles, I’m no lawyer. But it makes sense.


      PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 11:59 am

      Missed this…

      That I’m layman should be apparent but there are several lawyers/judges on here. Authoritative correction is welcomed.

It’s so obvious why someone asked for the instructions that it hurts.

Anyone that’s spent a lot of time in a corporate office environment knows what I’m talking about.

There is some passive-aggressive Karen that wanted the instructions for no other reason then to appear engaged and lend themselves some false sense of expertise.

It’s the equivalent of asking pointless questions in a meeting to make the appearance that you’re listening and paying attention. Now during deliberations today they will drop the “well last night while I was reading through the instructions I thought….” all in the interest of appearing better read on this subject.

Like…..I’ve just seen this exact same strategy play out so many times it’s infuriating that we’re doing these kinds of games with someone’s life on the line. I’d be livid in that jury room, and again, I hope there are people in the room that see through it.

    c_programmer in reply to cashin. | November 19, 2021 at 11:23 am

    I just hope she’s dumb enough about all the big brained external legal research she did last night. Because if she does that she’ll get kicked off the jury and a reserve juror takes the spot.

    lmartinjr in reply to cashin. | November 19, 2021 at 11:24 am

    I didn’t think about it that way, but sadly i think there is probably quite a bit of truth in your statement. When you read the way this woman forms her written questions, they are quite authoritative in nature suggesting she is probably well practiced at exactly what you are describing

    BlueOx in reply to cashin. | November 19, 2021 at 11:30 am

    How does “we want to quit work and go home EARLY”, followed by “can we please have materials so that we can continue to work at home” not raise enormous red flags?

….and if things aren’t bad enough. President “Poopypants” is receiving his physical and was knocked out for the brain scan, er colonoscopy and Kamala is now the president.

MoeHowardwasright | November 19, 2021 at 11:37 am

The longer it takes, the more the judge is sweating the mistrial options. I’m 64 and have never, ever heard of a judge allowing a juror to take home anything to do with a trial. It seems like he is trying to punt this to an appellate court for resolution. Total abdication of his responsibilities. SMH

    I wonder what’s worse… ‘do the right thing’ when it’s clearly his to do and still in his court, even if it invites the ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’. (He loves quotes…)

    Or getting overturned in appeals.

    If the seasoned court watchers know the particulars, how many times has his decisions been overturned? If very low compared to his peers, I’d suspect he’s more worried about the latter than the former.

    The judge is a coward.

After watching this trial for the last few weeks I am startled by the lack of professionalism, the lack of seriousness, and the lack of awareness regarding the scope and attention this trial is getting around the country.

This is likely the biggest trial in the history of Kenosha County in terms of public attention. You would expect all the players from the judge, the prosecutors and the defense to be sharp and attentive. Yet, it seems sloppy all the way around.

The most competent of the people seems to be Binger, which is sad because he is the most evil and ideological of them all, and is using his abilities to move an agenda at the expense of the life of a young man that just wanted to help his community.

Perhaps this is how many small counties run their courts. In any case, the legal community in Kenosha County has been thoroughly embarrassed on a national stage.

What’s the issue with the jurors taking instructions home?

That seems unusual to me. Is that allowed? I don’t ever recall being able to take any documentation home from a juror assignment.

What are ‘juror instructions’?

    PhillyWatch in reply to Kreemerz. | November 19, 2021 at 12:05 pm

    Juror instructions are given the jury to explain the law and the charges. They’re largely pattern…or pro forma instruction…that the parties decide on how to arrange for clarity. Or obfuscation, your pick.

    Taking ANYTHING out of the jury room relating to the case…even your own notes…is usually banned. Both sides are concerned with jurors trying to understand definitions of terms that are extremely narrowly defined in legal contexts. If they just look it up on google what the heck will they find? they want them to ask the judge, who’ll respond with all parties concurrance.

      PhillyWatch in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 12:08 pm

      The ‘dictionary’ issue is the one that was raised by Richards when he half-heartedly objected when Schroeder polled the attorneys upon request.

      this has been my understanding from points raised here and in AFB’s article.

Did everybody see the news that Maurice Freeland (i.e. Jump-Kick-Man) was prosecuted by Krause in front of Schroder in 2016?

Posobeic posted a PDF of the jury instructions.

Midfiaudiophile | November 19, 2021 at 12:26 pm

I’m most worried about the JKM charge. There wasn’t that much evidence presented on the charge by either side, Kyle failed to hit him with bullets and obviously wasn’t killed, and it’s a “lesser” charge that isn’t ruled out by the Rosenbaum instructions since he was firing directly at the guy.

Thankfully, if that’s how they split the baby the Judge has a place to insert his finger, given that nobody called him to testify and there’s some serious questions whether or not the state knew his identity and withheld it prior to trial.

If Defense had spent more time talking about the difference between “reasonable belief” and factual correctness not being required for a self-defense claim they’d probably be in a better position there, but, again, there’s no way that the state presented enough evidence to overcome any reasonable doubt on the charge.

Guns and gadget from Kenosha WI just noticed that the motions for dismissal are on the docket for today in the Rittenhouse trial.

Don’t know how true this is but someone could google it to confirm it.

Disclose TV just reported that the Rittenhouse verdict is expected within an hour.

BUT Poso said his source inside the court room has not heard anything about a verdict yet.

See my post @

verdict coming soon? anyone hear anything???

Had we defended 2a in the past like we defend 5a, we wouldn’t be having this trial.

“verdict expected within the next hour” according to

Families of deceased instructed to enter courtroom. It’s showtime, folks.

Asking family members of those killed into the court room does not sound good.


With prejudice.

Court just started . . . Let’s see.

Faith restored….

….for now.


AnAdultInDiapers | November 19, 2021 at 1:16 pm

Count 1 – Not guilty
Count 2 – Not guilty
Count 3 – Not guilty
Count 4 – Not guilty
Count 5 – Not guilty

(I’m watching the live stream)


God Bless America



AnAdultInDiapers | November 19, 2021 at 1:20 pm

Wait? Binger’s just walked out? No censure for his horrific behaviour?

This is a win not just for Kyle but for the entire concept of legal self defense.


Thank you for the wonderful job. Became a big fan during this process. God bless America and the US Constitution

Unanimous not guilty.

Thank God every single juror, even the most poisoned by MSM and under the threat of Burn Loot Murder, was brave enough to do justice.

Awesome news for Kyle BUT nothing will happen to Binger and Krause?

Richards and Chirafisi both looked so relieved. Richards did have his hand over his eyes.

This is over for Kyle but his life will be drastically different.

In the meantime, our law of self defense remains in place.

Now on to the Arbery case. This sounds similar to this case.

Any riots, looting, arson starting?

Jonathon Turley on FNC commenting about the significant disconnect between what the state argued at opening and what they argued at closing and how that usually doesn’t sit well with jury.

Also, Binger mocking the damage the rioters caused to Kenosha didn’t play well with the people who – you know – actually live in Kenosha.

I take back everything I said about Karen!

    lurker9876 in reply to luckystars33. | November 19, 2021 at 1:30 pm

    I’m not so sure but that Karen took 4.5 days to reach a verdict.

      Chewbacca in reply to lurker9876. | November 19, 2021 at 1:59 pm

      It’s all presumptions on who the holdout was. It’s possible there really wasn’t anyone who disagreed. Maybe they all decided to make it look like they were thinking about it this whole time to try to keep the peace in Kenosha but actually knew all along what they were going to decide.

    Layman101 in reply to luckystars33. | November 19, 2021 at 1:54 pm

    I love Karen’s now…I think I gonna have the wife get one of those silly side bob hairstyles now too 🙂

Just in time for Kyle and his family to enjoy Thanksgiving with BLESSING!

AnAdultInDiapers | November 19, 2021 at 1:35 pm

A comment on the judge: He’s taken a lot of flak throughout the trial, with people unhappy at his deferral of many decisions and motions.

He made two important points during the trial. At the very start he pointed out that the eyes of the country (and the world) were on this trial, and that people expected to see justice.

Throughout the trial he put his faith in the jury, and repeatedly avoided making decisions that they should be trusted with, and said explicitly that this was what he was doing.

He left open multiple options for intervening in the result of the case, but was always waiting for the jury to reach a verdict.

Now they have. They’ve reached a verdict of not guilty on all charges. They’ve done this despite the Brady violations, despite the prosecutors’ behaviour leading to the judge telling them he believed they did not act in good faith, despite the prosecutor gravely violating the defendant’s constitutional rights, despite the miraculously found evidence, despite the inexplicably fuzzy picture, despite the prosecutors changing their arguments mid-case, despite all the shenanigans and nonsense, and despite the obvious risks to which this exposes them, their city and their families.

Despite all of that, not guilty. It’s hard to see how the judge could’ve assured a more thorough and indisputable verdict. Give him credit for that.

Good points but still…Binger and Krause get away with it.

Will Kyle sue everyone after this?

Thank you Heavenly Father for watching over Kyle and ensuring justice was done, Amen

I can’t believe I feel such a feeling of relief for someone I’ve never met.

Also, thank you Andrew for all of your time and effort and your excellent coverage!

I do t know if any of you watched anything on the PBS stream after the verdict but holy shit, what a bunch of racist left wing fucks. The government funding for PBS needs to be cut ASAP.