Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH: Has Jury Foreperson Gone Rogue And Holding Back Acquittal?

Rittenhouse VERDICT WATCH: Has Jury Foreperson Gone Rogue And Holding Back Acquittal?

Judge allowing the jury to take home instructions raises concerns they’ll play the “dictionary game”

Today completed the third day of jury deliberations in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, with no verdict being achieved before the jury was sent home for the day.

There wasn’t much real action today, with the exception of a couple of notable events, and my own increasing belief that we’re dealing with a single hold-out juror for guilt, and that this juror is #54, the foreperson.

MSNBC Has Left the Building—With Momentum

Early in the day, the judge called the court into session with just the lawyers, and no jury, to inform them that apparently a freelancer for some arm of NBC News was believed to have been following the jury bus when this freelancer was pulled over and cited for running a red light.

The concern, of course, is that this person was seeking to photograph or otherwise identify the jurors.

The judge announced that not just that individual but NBC News generally would be excluded from the courthouse for the duration of the deliberations.

Here’s the brief explanation by Judge Schroeder of those events:

Juror Requests to Take Jury Instructions Home

When the jury was brought into the courtroom for purposes of dismissal, shortly after 4:00 p.m. Wisconsin time, Judge Schroeder imprudently asked if any of them had any questions for him.  One did.  A woman juror asked if she could be permitted to take home a copy of the 36 or so pages of jury instructions.

The judge looked over at the parties, and although the State appeared to make no particular signal, defense Attorney Marc Richards shook his head slightly but observably in the negative.

Despite this, Judge Schroeder announced that he would agree to the request and that the same option would be extended to all the jurors.  Whether only the one juror who made the request ultimately took home the instructions, or whether multiple or even all jurors did so, is unknown.

Frankly, it’s rather remarkable that any juror who had already been struggling with the instructions for more than 7 hours today alone, as well as the two prior days, would be interested in continuing to work with that at home in the evenings.

Frankly, I think it was a bad call both for Judge Schroeder to agree to this request, as well as to do so in the manner he did.

First of all, if he wants all the jurors to return to deliberations fresh and rested tomorrow morning, the last thing he should want is any jurors continuing to work on these instructions, alone, into the night.

Second, allowing the jurors to take the instructions home encourages what lawyers call the “dictionary game.”   This occurs when the jurors start to do their own research into what various terms in the instructions might mean—including looking words up in the dictionary.

The trouble with encouraging such behavior by the jurors is that a word—like, say, “provocation”—has a specific, narrow legal meaningsin the context of the jury instructions that differ from the general, broader, common-use meaning one might find in a dictionary.  Jurors are not supposed to make use of outside resources to inform their arriving at a verdict, but permitting them to take the jury instructions home encourages exactly that.

To illustrate, many types of conduct might be considered “provocative” in the general sense, but in the specific legal use-of-force sense conduct is only “provocative” if it immediately results in a forcible response.  So, Kyle’s coming to Kenosha open-carrying an AR-15 rifle might be considered “provocative” in the general sense, but not in the narrow legal sense that would strip him of the legal defense of self-defense, because that conduct did not immediately result in a forcible response.

Third, the judge addressed this question from this juror in front of the lawyers and looked to them for a response.  That means that Mark Richards’ shaking of his head, indicating he preferred the jurors not to be given the instructions despite the request, could be observed by the jurors.  Richards appearing to prefer the denial of the juror’s request could be perceived negatively by that juror and others, creating a bias against the defense.

The judge should instead have either discussed the request with the lawyers while the jury was removed from the courtroom, or more conveniently have held an impromptu whispered bench conference with the jury present but outside of their range of hearing.

Next, I have my suspicion of what—or, rather, who—is holding up a verdict in this case:

FREE BOOK OFFER–LINK

My Suspicion: Juror #54, Foreperson, Is the Holdout Against Acquittal

I have a growing suspicion that this jury has not yet arrived at a unanimous verdict of acquittal only because of the resistance of juror #54, a woman who also happens to be the foreperson, who seems to be the hold-out against acquittal.

The jury selection risk to Kyle was always going to be that a “mask Karen” type, usually of leftist political persuasion, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive, would be seated on the jury.  Such a person would be most unlikely to ever vote for acquittal—her social group would necessarily know she had done so, given the unanimous nature of an acquittal.

In addition, this type of person is likely to seize the leadership position of foreperson on a jury, to suit their bossy and entitled nature.  Such a person also tends to be outspoken and forward in circumstances where other people would defer to apparently higher authority.

There has been one apparently female juror who on several occasions can be overheard being unusually familiar with Judge Schroeder—not in the sense of knowing him personally, but in the sense of engaging in a relaxed discussion that one does not usually find between a juror and a trial judge.

Then we have the jury note from yesterday asking for access to the Exhibit #5 drone video footage and related evidence.  It was written by juror #54, the jury foreperson, and an apparent woman:

The tone of that note suggests to me that the person who wrote it is accustomed to giving orders to underlings—personal assistants, staff, household help—and here the note is being addressed in this tone to the trial judge as if the judge were a staffer to the jury foreperson.

Then this evening we had the very unusual request to be permitted to take the jury instructions home, made by a single juror—a female juror.

I suspect that all of this conduct is that of juror #54, the female foreperson of this jury—who I suspect is precisely the kind of “mask Karen,” left-leaning, bossy, entitled, and status-sensitive juror that would be most likely to hold out against acquittal.

Finally, my friend Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) was kind enough to remind me that during jury selection I’d made a particular note of juror #54 at the time, as I was live commenting right here at Legal Insurrection:  “#54: Knows some of the witnesses named, but could set that aside.”  I’ve also heard from sources in a position to know that when polling was done around jury selection, prospective jurors who knew any participants in the August 2020 riots–which would likely include some of the witnesses–tended to trend 75% against acquittal.

That’s all just a guess—but one informed by some experience with both juries and mask Karen types.

Here’s the video of Judge Schroeder dismissing the jury for the day, including the discussion around taking the jury instructions home:

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Until next time:

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

Yet again, the judge messes up and encourages a hung jury. He needs to man up and declare a mistrial

Colonel Travis | November 18, 2021 at 8:17 pm

I’d hate to be in that room with Juror 54. I know exactly who this is. Not specifically, but I have one in my extended family I see every Christmas. I couldn’t stop laughing listening to speculation on Rekieta Law about what kind of person 54 is. All I could think of was – yep, yep, she does that yes, uh huh, I know her!

I think we all know one.

madisonian_123 | November 18, 2021 at 8:21 pm

I guess I’m the anti-Karen then. I hate officious, bossy people and naturally rebel against them. I’d ensure a hung jury rather than let someone like that boss me into agreeing with them.

    RandomCrank in reply to madisonian_123. | November 18, 2021 at 8:46 pm

    A Karen wouldn’t last long if I were in the room.

    I think a lot of people do, that’s why Karen is a meme to begin with.

    If I were on this Jury with what I’ve seen, I’d already have crossed my arms by now and said “we’re hung then”’

    I like to hope that there are some on the jury doing the same thing.

      DaveGinOly in reply to cashin. | November 18, 2021 at 10:42 pm

      If she’s the only hold-out, or even just in the minority, she’s got an uphill battle to fight. Otherwise the jury is hung, and that opens the door to a mistrial. There are two ways that can go – dismissal with prejudice or retrial, which the prosecution will lose (given proper jury selection preparation and voir dire), because they’ve shown their hand and it’s a loser. A second trial will see the prosecution but with the same pig, with lipstick.

      No matter what Karen does, Kyle will likely (and hopefully) walk. But she will have saved her reputation, and that’s all that matters to her. The city can burn for all she cares.

        MattMusson in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 19, 2021 at 6:49 am

        I am getting information from other sources that it is much closer. I heard 6 to 6.
        If that is the case – I believe the Jury could be deliberately choosing not to rule because of the threats and intimidation to them and their city.

          Virginia42 in reply to MattMusson. | November 19, 2021 at 8:42 am

          That’s pretty amazing that half the jury is that stupid. Going by their feelz, not the evidence. This country is in trouble.

    If she is the last or one of less than 3 and I was decided on the self defense beyond a reasonable doubt I would decline to talk or listen to any more of the debate and I would encourage others who were decided to do the same. Let her set and talk to herself until she admits to a hung jury or changes her mind.

    SeiteiSouther in reply to madisonian_123. | November 19, 2021 at 10:50 am

    K.A.R.E.N.

    Acronym:

    Killjoy and Rabidly Entitled Narcissist

Trying to read the tea leaves of jurors is a risky endeavor. As a retired DEA agent, I always thought-based on my experience- that a quick verdict meant guilty. The OJ Simpson trial changed my mind.

To me, the videos are exculpatory or at least would create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Personally, I think Rittenhouse made an error in judgment when he went to Kenosha with a weapon. That said, if there was any evidence that he instigated any violent confrontations, I missed it. The fact that the weapon charge was thrown out indicates that his presence there, even armed, is legally irrelevant. (I am not a lawyer, but with all 30 years of LE experience, I have a pretty good working knowledge of the law. Of course, Wisconsin law is separate from other states or federal law.)

To me, this case cries out for an acquittal. Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim seems supported by the videos. At the very least, every juror should have a reasonable doubt.

If Rittenhouse is convicted, it will be a cautionary tale to those who would stand up to rioters and defend life and property-especially given the absence of the much-needed National Guard. If he is convicted, it will be a cautionary tale to BLM and Antifa. I prefer the latter.

    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to gary fouse. | November 18, 2021 at 8:50 pm

    Nice job retired DEA agent.

    Every time I hear someone say he went to Kenosha with a gun, I tell them he didn’t cross state lines with it. It was already there.

    The other thing so think of is – how would we handle a rape case?

    “Well, she shouldn’t have cross state lines into Kenosha. She had no business being there.” BLAME THE VICTIM.

    “She should have used her fists to defend herself!”

    “What was she wearing?”

    So nice job buster. BLAME THE VICTIM.

      Colonel Travis in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | November 18, 2021 at 10:07 pm

      He’s not blaming the victim. I don’t think Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha, either. One can have poor judgement and a valid self-defense case. These are not mutually exclusive. This is not the ridiculous argument that Binger made. It’s not even close.

      No one should have attacked Rittenhouse. He provoked no one. The guy seems genuinely helpful and caring. Who did he shoot? Two people grabbing his weapon, one person aiming a pistol in his face, and someone trying to kick his head in like a pumpkin. The guy did nothing illegal. Every one of those dickweeds deserved to get shot for their actions.

      Yes, he was perfectly within his rights to go to Kenosha. And look where he is now – a very real chance of going to prison for the rest of his life. It doesn’t matter if we think he is not guilty. What matters:
      1.) He was prosecuted by tyrants.
      2.) Defended by idiots.
      3.) Got a judge who is a coward.
      4.) Now waits for a jury to decide his fate.

      Those are very real consequences you risk in America right now. The reality is that Kyle did everything right legally and it might not F-ing matter. For some bizarre reason, the totality of it all is never considered. I carry a gun every day. I will defend my life, my family’s life, I will defend your life if God forbid we are somewhere and circumstances go FUBAR. Will I go to a BLM protest? Ah, no. Will I stop you? No. If you understand the risks and want to insert your rifled-self in the middle of a flaming BLM riot, outnumbered by people who hate your guts, be my guest. Don’t be shocked if it doesn’t turn out like you expected.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 18, 2021 at 10:19 pm

        “Yes, he was perfectly within his rights to go to Kenosha.”

        Yes, as much as in his rights as the rioters, more so, since he did not go with an intent to break the law.

          if you are going to question Kyle’s judgement you have to question everyone who was out that night including the traditional media and so called citizens media

          Colonel Travis in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | November 18, 2021 at 10:35 pm

          Correct. He was doing good vs. a ton of people doing bad. After seeing him on the stand I was convinced he was a genuinely good person. And again, I sure as hell support his case.

          He shouldn’t have been attacked. But he was. He shouldn’t have been prosecuted. But he was. He shouldn’t be found guilty….and we don’t know this one.

          What we want and what we get don’t always match. Think about your choices in life. If you’ve weighed the risks and move forward with risky behavior? Godspeed to ye.

          Id rather have a neighbourhood full of good guys like Rittenhouse than a neighbourhood full of Karens and Antifa and burn loot murder Democrats.

          Neighbourhoods of Rittenhouse’s will be orderly and clean and everyone will be looked after.

          Democrat neighbourhoods…well…they dont call Democrat cities shit holes for nothing.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 18, 2021 at 10:46 pm

        Kyle’s decision to go to Kenosha that night, and to be armed with an AR, only appears ill-advised because 20,000 Kenoshans with ARs weren’t out on their streets with him. Kyle went to help and Kenosha let him down.

          Bingo!

          Mauiobserver in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 18, 2021 at 11:35 pm

          How true. The classic movie High Noon is the story of a town in which the cowardly citizens leave the marshal to face a gang of vengeance seeking criminals all alone. If a huge group of hundreds or thousands of mostly armed citizens would have shown up to protect their town then likely no violence would have occurred or been necessary. Of course if the leftist elected officials would have had a show of force by law enforcement and if necessary the national guard then the looting, arson and rioting would have been avoided.

          Hopefully the citizens of Kenosha and the entire state of Wisconsin will throw these bums out in the next election starting with the Governor, AG, Mayor, DA and then fire the ADA’s, and police officials if they are complicit in this fiasco.

          Colonel Travis in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 18, 2021 at 11:38 pm

          Gee, no kidding? Let’s look at what actually happened: 20,000 armed Kenoshans weren’t there. Guess who was t? Oh that’s right, the guy who is facing a serious chance at spending the rest of his life in a cage.

          I deal with things as they are, not how I want them to be.

        His being there was perhaps rash and ill-advisied. Welcome to the life of a teenage boy, rash and ill-advised is their province.

        If you won’t go, and you think anyone who does go is exercising poor judgment, then who will go? Who will be there for the victims? I probably wouldn’t have gone; but I admire those who did.

        It also helps being a teenager, convinced of your own immortality and with incomplete judgment. At that age principles and ideals matter more than your own safety. There’s a reason that’s whom we send to fight for us when needed; more mature adults will think three times about it, and that’s not what’s needed at times like those.

        felixrigidus in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 19, 2021 at 6:05 am

        I don’t think Rittenhouse should have gone to Kenosha, either. There are tremendous risks involved, and no 17yo is likely to truly appreciate those risks. Of course, sometimes risk is what we need to take if we want to preserve freedom and civil society. The United States is founded on people taking tremendous risks and practically signing their own death warrants when they signed the Declaration of Independence after all.

        Kenosha on the other hand deserves no such effort.
        Look at Sam and Sal, the ingrateful sons of the owner of the shady “Carsource” dealership, whose testimony indicates some serious creativity put into their accounting.
        Look at the fact that Kenosha allows a corrupt mayor to abandon their city to burn, loot, murder whenever the hordes care to come to plunder and raze the city.
        Look at the corrupt District Attorney’s office that in this case alone has been exposed to commit numerous violations of the constitutional rights of the defendant.
        Look at its judges that allow these flagrant violations to go unchecked, raising their voice to scold but never to sanction, open their mouths ever to bark, never to bite.

        All the same, I’m thankful that there are 17 yo that are not yet as cynical as I have grown in the constant battle against the liberty-hating left. All we can do and are called to do is to fight the long defeat this side of death., and keep liberty for another generation, or at least another day.

        “One can have poor judgement and a valid self-defense case. These are not mutually exclusive.”

        “If you understand the risks and want to insert your rifled-self in the middle of a flaming BLM riot, outnumbered by people who hate your guts, be my guest. Don’t be shocked if it doesn’t turn out like you expected.”

        Correct. Avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places. KR was inexperienced. He could just as easily have wound up dead because the mob took his rifle. He made a bad choice. Should he go to jail for it? No.

        Unfortunately I partly blame the defense. I think during closing that they failed to recognize the risk of sympathetic jurors. Kraus and Binger are idiots, but maybe they read the room better than we thought.

      Agree Master Sgt.
      KR is a fine young man that thought it his duty to help defend liberty from a mob. Had he done exactly the same thing, sans weapon, he would be dead or hospitalized for serious injury.

      You should all be so lucky as to have young men like Kyle helping defend you from a government bought and paid for mob.

      Apparently some of you think the only ones that should have “gone to Kenosha” are the government paid thugs intent on burning the town to the ground.

        civisamericanus in reply to Barry. | November 19, 2021 at 2:15 am

        I think Kyle exercised bad judgment by going to Kenosha.
        (1) Police have the duty, authority, and equipment to deal with riots and looting. You and I don’t get paid to do that and most of us don’t have heavy-duty riot gear along with backup from partners.
        (2) While Kyle was 100 percent in the right, what he got for his trouble was what I see as a junk criminal charge, six figures in legal expenses (I and others have donated money to help) and he could have gotten himself a beating or worse.

        If the leftists are going to tell the police to stand down, and not arrest looters, arsonists, and rioters (of which there were many) then the proper course of action is for those auto dealerships and other businesses to move themselves, their jobs, and their property tax revenues out of the city and let the whole city rot. If the police are not going to arrest shoplifters who help themselves to whatever is in my store, I’ll close the store and move it online (where you can’t get anything without paying) and/or outside the city. Let them try to run Kenosha without employers and businesses.

        Same with the city whose authorities charged a truck driver with a crime for driving through a mob that swarmed his truck and tried to kick in the cab’s windows. Professional drivers should simply shun the city and see how they like it when the gas stations run out of gas and the stores run out of food.

          Then EVERY fucker that was there exercised bad judgement!

          Rittenhouse, at least, went there to make a positive difference! All those other cunts went there to burn the place to the ground!

          Id rather my town was inundated with thousands of Rittenhouse’s then Democrats any day of the fucking week!

          “Then EVERY fucker that was there exercised bad judgement!”

          Well, yeah, but 17,196 wrongs dont make a right. Dont be a lemming.

          I don’t think Kyle exercised poor judgment in going to Kenosha. I do think he exercised poor judgment in perhaps being overconfident that he could go out into the crowd on his own to help people and protect property. He may not have realized that there are any number of bat-shit crazy people who will not hold back an attack even in the presence of a gun. In that case the gun is no longer a deterrent but your only means of stopping such a person. Which he had every right to do. I wonder what a difference it would have made if he had received any kind of training or briefing on just how to spot and avoid major sources of danger in such as situation. In my mind one big one would be “Always be aware of your exits and don’t lose them.” another would be “Have a means of communication handy.” Kyle was going to Kenosha with every good motive. What he forgot was he was going into a war zone.

          Someone wrote that everyone who was there exercised poor judgment. Nope. Based on what they knew of the inaction by civil authorities and the probability of property owners to take action the rioters made the excellent judgment that they would be allowed to riot unhindered. They made the right call for their intended actions.

    henrybowman in reply to gary fouse. | November 18, 2021 at 9:29 pm

    It will be sad, but then we will all just have to become Klingons.
    Holster up in the morning as always, but before going out the door, add, “Today is a good day to be convicted!”
    It changes nothing else.

    Elzorro in reply to gary fouse. | November 18, 2021 at 9:31 pm

    A lot of people I talk to say the same thing about he should not have gone. What about looking at the other side? Everyone in town should have gone and run those Polecats out of town and saved the city?

    Milhouse in reply to gary fouse. | November 19, 2021 at 12:16 am

    Personally, I think Rittenhouse made an error in judgment when he went to Kenosha with a weapon.

    Do you mean he shouldn’t have gone, or that he should have gone unarmed? If he’d gone unarmed he’d be dead or injured now. And saying he shouldn’t have gone means nobody should have gone, which means nobody should ever step in to defend the defenseless, i.e. the Kitty Genovese theory of life.

      civisamericanus in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2021 at 2:19 am

      Nobody should have gone. You and I don’t get paid to arrest looters and rioters. Police do, and they have the authority and equipment along with backup from other cops. If the city is not going to allow the police to do their jobs then all the businesses should just move out of the city, take their jobs and property taxes with them, and let the whole city rot. The car dealership that was trashed should move out regardless of whether their insurer covered the damage. Insurers should in fact encourage insured businesses to move out of these “outhouses” (family friendly language for the word Donald Trump used) where criminals are allowed to do whatever they want, and anybody who dares defend himself or herself gets prosecuted.

        arbiter9605 in reply to civisamericanus. | November 19, 2021 at 3:15 am

        No we don’t get paid but its not about arresting them instead it was about preventing someone’s lively hood from being destroyed to point that they can’t afford to reopen. Was it a bad idea he went? Yes it was BUT just cause it was a bad idea or he shouldn’t had the gun doesn’t mean he forfeits his right to protect himself. Just cause person attacking you only has his fists doesn’t mean you forfeit self defense right when he uses a gun.

        paracelsus in reply to civisamericanus. | November 19, 2021 at 6:37 am

        go to Portland where the mayor tells the police to “stand down”
        take a walk in the evening through a once beautiful town with great restaurants; my wife and I used to do this at least once a month: we never once had to look over our shoulders in fear
        now, as any idiot can plainly see, it’s turned into the typical Democratic shithole with no police anywhere in sight.

        People sometimes forget that the courts have affirmed many times that the police do not have a personal duty of care to any one person. They are tasked with protecting public safety. So absent of them actually doing such just what is a citizens of Kenosha supposed to do to keep themselves and their properties safe?

        I am unaware of any law that requires a person to hold off on taking steps to (within legal means) secure and protect themselves and their property because the police are not Johnny on the spot. If they decide to do nothing that is on them and not on people like Kyle.

I typed provoked and trial in to my search bar and guess what popped up? Try it.

The last few elections where I was a PJ, my team of clerks and voters were unhappy with the AJ’s.

Those AJs are registered Democrats and we did not want to be in the same room with them.

After the polls closed and my husband and I were driving to the drop off place, my husband asked me where I found my AJ. I explained to him that a friend referred her to me. He then said that he used to work with her many, many years ago and says everyone thought she was loony.

I think that’s a typical trait of many Democrats.

    Milhouse in reply to lurker9876. | November 19, 2021 at 12:26 am

    What are PJ and AJ? I’m a poll worker here in NYC, and those abbreviations don’t ring any bells with me.

      Old Patzer in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2021 at 1:04 am

      I’ll guess precinct judge for PJ.

        or Poll Judge. AJ doesn’t ring any bells.

          Milhouse in reply to SDN. | November 20, 2021 at 9:33 pm

          What are precinct judges or poll judges? We don’t have those in NY. The only judges I know of in the election system are at the court downtown; if someone is not in the book but insists on voting, and refuses an affidavit ballot, or if someone voids three ballots and wants a fourth, we’re supposed to tell them to go downtown to the courthouse and come back with a court order. We have a log book to record voters who voted by court order; I’ve never had occasion to use it.

I am old kids. Even I have never used a dictionary in maybe 30 years i just type the word/words in my search bar. Who even has one? I do not understand this but what next? It just gets worse.

I doubt this judge would remove her, but could he given that when she said she knew some of the witnesses but could set that aside, she lied.

Fine. Her social set would shun her if she voted to acquit. Remove that weight from her shoulders. SHE IS NOT MAKING HER DECISION SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT COURT.

I’d hate to be in that jury room with her as I have a hard time controlling my anger when I have to deal with people who come with a bag full of adjectives like bossy, entitled, officious, etc. So if I saw Richards shake his head and the judge grant her request anyway the likely outcome for me would be gratitude toward Richards and disgust and contempt toward Schroeder.

Because I’d want to get the f*** out of that room. I doubt I’d be the only one on that jury feeling the same way.

    SeiteiSouther in reply to Arminius. | November 19, 2021 at 10:59 am

    All this would do would cement my judgment for not guilty. I’ve had friends who’ve been on criminal trials have that “one” person who, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, will move to vote one way and one way only.

VetHusbandFather | November 18, 2021 at 8:38 pm

Regarding the jury instructions… couldn’t they just download it at home anyway if they were inclined to start doing their own research? To me this is a clear indicator that is what the juror plans to do, but if that’s what they want to do it seems like they can do it anyway. It does seem like this would have been a good time for him to clarify the types of things they should not be doing at home.

    There should be a law against jurors making a dime off a case, or appearing on the media.

      Don’t know if you remember, but this came up after the Scott Perterson trial. A bunch of those jurors wrote books. If it happens again, I’d find it as distasteful today as I did then. But, I don’t know what could be done to stop it without violating 1A. Free speech has some downside, but it’s dwarfed by the upside.

      In most other English-speaking countries, as far as I know, it is against the law for a juror ever to disclose what happened in the jury room. But here the 1A makes that impossible.

        TargaGTS in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2021 at 8:23 am

        That’s interesting. If you ever take the time to research how grand jury secrecy works and how that secrecy is at odds with the 1A, it’s a fascinating and wholly confusing adventure. There’s a surprising amount of both ambiguity and uncertainty with respect to when, if ever, and what, if anything, grand jury jurors can say about the grand jury.

        I’m not sure if the Court has protected grand jury secrecy against 1A attacks because the grand jury is an enumerated element of the Constitution, or if there’s another reason. But clearly, in some circumstances, the Court can find where the rights of the accused (or just the investigated) outweigh the 1A protections of others.

What I mean is, could the judge quiz her in chambers and remove her if he decided she was acting in bad faith and replace her with an alternate?

Again, Wisconsin is Bat Country.

As a former litigator for 33 years and now a Judge, I find it hard to watch a lot of these “arm chair” lawyer pundits, including Andrew Branca, making subjective value judgments about the Judge and the jury. What if Juror #54 is NOT the hold out or the “unmasked Karen”? You’ve now basically tarred this woman as a problem. Just looking at the comments shows that.

    Elzorro in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:00 pm

    Do you think as a judge that Binger violated the Brady Rule with the video dump? As a layman that is interesting to me, The judge opened the evidence up after closing it and before a verdict, Do ya think that is significant?

      hamazasb in reply to Elzorro. | November 18, 2021 at 9:10 pm

      I haven’t watched 100% of the trial, but I did watch most of the testimony and the testimony of Kyle Rittenhouse. I’ve also read Mr. Branca’s reporting, as well as other lawyers opinions. From what I’ve seen, the prosecution has taken a lot of liberties, has breached a number of ethical rules, and has truly angered this judge. From what I’ve read about Judge Schroeder, he leans heavily on letting the jury do their job. If I had to guess (and yeah, it’s only a guess), the judge may be holding back ruling on the various mistrial motions and violations until after the verdict has been rendered. If it’s hung, he may very well grant the mistrial motion with prejudice.

        Elzorro in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:21 pm

        TX Judge. I got interested in law from The Innocence Project and have taken several legal classes from Judges who were acting as adjunct professors. It was great. They really opened up to the class. They loved to have a place to vent and I learned a lot from them.

        Colonel Travis in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 10:14 pm

        You just did the very thing you criticized armchair lawyers for doing!

        buck61 in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 10:15 pm

        what would you have ruled when Binger committed a gross violation of Kyle’s rights on the fifth amendment violation?. That was clearly cause for a misrial with prejudice.
        Would you have made the tough but correct call or just barked like Schroeder did?

        amwick in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 10:35 pm

        TY Judge… I really appreciate first person experience..That is why I come here to read.

    Elzorro in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:12 pm

    I think Mr Brancas ‘suspicions’ are not objective value judgements but just plain old suspicions myself.

      hamazasb in reply to Elzorro. | November 18, 2021 at 9:17 pm

      You may be right. Overall I appreciate his analysis. I just feel it’s a stretch to identify the juror specifically. That said, he’s been at the trial, so his instincts could be correct.

    TargaGTS in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:14 pm

    This is probably tough but wholly fair criticism about the speculation on the witness. But, keeping a juror on the jury who admits to knowing ‘several’ of the people on the witness list…in a murder trial, no less, is unusual. Sure, that’s no fault of her own, I guess. But, if she is indeed the impediment to a jury verdict, I think the circumstances of her placement on the jury is worthy of exploration.

    With respect to the ‘value judgements’ of the judge, these are the kinds of pesky inconveniences for government James Madison loved. Freedom to comment on trials as they unfolded is one of the principle reasons the colonists declared independence from the Crown. Just sayin’.

    Alexandra in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    He didnt “tar” the woman. He merely shared his opinions and speculation. Its interesting and really all we can do is speculate at this point.

      Notanymore in reply to Alexandra. | November 18, 2021 at 9:50 pm

      The state had over 100 witnesses 9n their list. She could have well known someone not called.

        why take the chance, there were plenty of other jutors available. She should have been struck early on, she also said she visited the site a few days after it happened.

    JHogan in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:37 pm

    Branca isn’t the only one with these suspicions.

    The attorneys on the Rekieta Law live stream basically agreed.

      hamazasb in reply to JHogan. | November 18, 2021 at 9:42 pm

      I’ve watched them too. And again, I personally feel they are making a lot of speculative opinions and monday-morning quarterbacking. But in the end, that’s my opinion. And I’ve heard them mention (which is absolutely true) it is very hard for an attorney to watch a trial without having his or her own opinion. My only concern is specifically calling out this juror. No one knows what’s going on in that room. If #54 is the presiding juror, it’s her job to make those requests. That alone doesn’t mean she’s a bossy “karen.”

        c_programmer in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 10:47 pm

        I think the Rekita Law panel got into what I’ll call the “24hr news conundrum.” Events are not moving as quickly of their coverage so they have nothing substantial to say for long stretches of time… But they’re on the air for that span so they have to say something. As such rank speculation becomes the most interesting talking point and that can get carried away.

        DaveGinOly in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 11:01 pm

        Except her note “requesting” the videos ends with what is basically an “instruction” to the court that she expects that what she asked for will be ready when she requires it. Hardly the tone anyone on a jury other than a Karen would take with a judge. It’s only one of a few “tells” in the note about the nature of #54.

          SeiteiSouther in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 19, 2021 at 11:04 am

          I was also expecting an addendum to the effect of:

          “Soy latte, half cream, with shot of espresso.”

          That’s how it came off to me.

        Martin in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 11:56 pm

        They agree with you and have stated that often. They say they are critical from the outside. They have said they are Monday Morning Quarter Backing. They admit they have biases, however they are informative and entertaining. They have a variety of backgrounds and knowledge. During the extended period of no new info they have been discussing the law. Comparing the laws and courts of different states. Just telling stories about past cases.

    Treguard in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:43 pm

    Hardly. He’s made specific observations based on specific facts. He’s said these are hypothesis, and those hypothesis and theories are exactly why were are here.

      hamazasb in reply to Treguard. | November 18, 2021 at 9:45 pm

      What “facts” does he have that this particular juror is a hold out?

        hamazasb in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 9:47 pm

        And I get that he is making a hypothesis, and that’s why a lot of people (me included) read this. I just don’t agree with identifying a specific juror.

        Colonel Travis in reply to hamazasb. | November 18, 2021 at 10:25 pm

        I have watched this entire trial. If I were on this jury I would be voting not guilty. Why do I need to re-see what didn’t convince me the first time? The evidence request is for a hold out or someone trying to convince me I’m wrong. There is no other logical reason.

    ““arm chair” lawyer pundits”

    Generally more intelligent than former litigators turned judge.

Conservative Ideals | November 18, 2021 at 8:59 pm

Again – since when does an acquittal need to be unanimous? Either everyone thinks he’s guilty, or he’s not guilty. It’s not nor should it ever be that everyone has to think he’s innocent, or he’s not innocent.

    Some states I think do allow that. In a recent case (Ramos v Louisiana), The Supreme Court held that non-unanimous guilty verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment. I don’t believe that decision impacted non-unanimous acquittals. So, in some jurisdictions, perhaps they’re still allowed. In WI (and VAST majority of other states), they’re not.

      SeiteiSouther in reply to TargaGTS. | November 19, 2021 at 11:09 am

      The non-unanimous jury verdicts in LA, thankfully, are no longer allowed. We voted to change the constitution to remove it in 2018, but unfortunately it was not retroactive. Only 2019 forward.

    I have long believed that the idea of a hung jury is anathema to the Constitution. The rules of most courts require a guilty verdict to be rendered unanimously. If the state tries a person and fails to convince all of the jurors of the defendant’s guilt, the defendant remains innocent as a matter of law, the necessity of a jury’s declaration innocence is non-sensical when this presumption is the bedrock of our system of juris prudence. When the prosecution fails to convict (e.g., has failed to overcome the presumption of innocence), the trial is over. Case closed. A requirement for a unanimous “not guilty” verdict puts a burden (requirement of unanimity among the jurors that the prosecution didn’t prove its case) on the defense, when the entire burden (of positively convincing all of the jurors of a defendant’s guilt) is supposed to be on the prosecution.

    Where is there anything in the Constitution about a do-over? In fact, it says the opposite – no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Jeopardy takes place when the charge goes to the jury. (At no other time before then is the defendant in jeopardy. Nothing adverse can happen to him before the jury deliberates. This phase of the trial is known as “jeopardy” for a reason.) Once the jury returns anything less than a unanimous guilty verdict, the defendant can’t be put in jeopardy again.

    Professor Jacobson can back me up here. In RI’s original constitution, the rule was (and I’m recalling from memory of decades ago) “no person having been found innocent shall be tried again for the same offense.” When RI revised its constitution (in the late 1800s if I recall correctly), that rule became “no person having once been put in jeopardy shall be tried again for the same offense.” The latter version obviously differs from the former, a plain sign that a finding of “not guilty” is not the same as “jeopardy.” The two rules are not the same. If they were, why bother changing the language?

    The rule is “once in jeopardy”, not “having been found innocent.” RI corrected its constitution. Why do our courts behave contrary to the plain language of the US Constitution and the constitutions of many states (if not all of them)?

    “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”
    Thomas Paine
    Common Sense

FWIW, Tucker Carlson’s monologue addressed a few of the issues in the case, one of which directly related to his program’s use of the contentious drone video. While there wasn’t anything new there, it was a good explanation of what happened and how it’s currently impacting the trial now. More importantly though, he’s the first broadcast journalist who’s publicly identified the alleged and so-called ‘Jump Kick Man,’ including the allegation that he was known to the prosecution long before trial began, something the prosecution has denied TO THE JURORS.

    amwick in reply to TargaGTS. | November 18, 2021 at 10:38 pm

    He came out and showed the higher quality video back in August… John Pierce had it… smh…

      TargaGTS in reply to amwick. | November 19, 2021 at 7:15 am

      You’re making the same mistake that the prosecution made; although yours is likely an actual mistake whereas what the prosecution claimed in court is very likely a deliberate lie. It’s reasonably clear from contemporary accounts on social media at the time of that appearance that John Pierce did not in fact bring that video for his segment. Instead, that video was posted either earlier that day or earlier in the week (perhaps even the night of the melee) and staffers from Tucker’s show and Shannon Breams’ show downloaded the video directly from the twitter feed.

      That twitter post was deleted very shortly after it was posted and later in the same day, the entire twitter account was deleted. So, John Pierce did not ‘have it.’ Fox News had it.

Lucifer Morningstar | November 18, 2021 at 9:06 pm

The judge announced that not just that individual but NBC News generally would be excluded from the courthouse for the duration of the deliberations.

Wow. I can’t believe it. Judge Schroeder actually made a decision and sanctioned MSNBC for their actions in chasing the jury bus. It’s the first real punishment he’s meted out to anyone. Will wonders never cease?

TheLooseThread | November 18, 2021 at 9:07 pm

The judge has not yet made a decision on any form of mistrial.

Question: If a jury indicates they are hung is the judge allowed to poll them to find out the current vote counts? I can see a judge believing there is reason for mistrial with prejudice to take a 11-1 (for acquittal) into account.

There is more afoot here than meets the eye, something smells, which is why this jury should have been sequestered, avoids shenanigans from ringers who have an agenda. #54 should be replaced tomorrow.

Thanks, Andrew. Great analysis.

Jury foreperson or not, any juror can demand that the judge be informed that the jury is at an impasse. Sometimes a judge will ask what the last vote was, without asking whether guilty or not guilty is the majority’s position. (Historically, word leaks out after the trial.) A judge might give to the jury what is referred to as an Allen charge or instruction, named after a SCOTUS case. Wisconsin’s version of that instruction is considered not as coercive as the one approved by SCOTUS. In any event, it’s an instruction to give deliberation another chance.

My point is that the foreperson is not the slave master over the other jurors.

    CuriousJustice in reply to Ira. | November 18, 2021 at 9:32 pm

    There has been a lot of case law regarding the impropriety of the judge asking how the jury is divided x-y. If a subsequent Allen charge is given, appeal courts have ruled that the minority jurors feel pressured into siding with the majority i.e. that the judge is singling them out. Guilty verdicts that have been obtained this way have been overturned.

      As I noted, the Wisconsin version of an Allen instruction is not as coercive as the one SCOTUS approved. Here is Wisconsin’s version:

      Wis JI Criminal 520
      SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION ON AGREEMENT

      You jurors are as competent to decide the disputed issues of fact in this case as the next jury that may be called to determine such issues.
      You are not going to be made to agree, nor are you going to be kept out until you do agree. It is your duty to make an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at a verdict. Jurors should not be obstinate; they should be open minded; they should listen to the arguments of others, and talk matters over freely and fairly, and make an honest effort to come to a conclusion on all of the issues presented to them.
      You will please retire again to the jury room.

    henrybowman in reply to Ira. | November 18, 2021 at 9:36 pm

    That’s an interesting point.
    Now, how often do jurors NOT realize that?

    JHogan in reply to Ira. | November 18, 2021 at 9:41 pm

    “…any juror can demand that the judge be informed that the jury is at an impasse.”

    That’s what I thought but wasn’t sure enough to say so.

    My understanding is any juror can go to the judge with any concern they have.

I truly believe fervently if convicted it will be remanded for retrial after appeal. I also believe that the reasons it will be remanded are because significant prosecutorial misconduct has occurred that caused harm, and absence of that misconduct would now destroy the probability of conviction on retrial. As far as the judge goes the ruling I really object to most is not including jury instruction that they cannot convict solely on one piece of evidence. In particular a nice blurry video in which the Judge has himself noted he can’t make out anything in particular going on which now appears to be the only thing that seems to be an issue in deliberations. In fact, the video is so blurry and useless it should not have been admitted. The only reasonable course the Judge can take with a guilty verdict because of all of this is to declare a mistrial, and due to the prosecutorial misconduct supporting the possibility of an intentional attempt to cause a mistrial so they may just try again in violation of double jeopardy, it should be a mistrial with prejudice.

    A Thinker in reply to Sean. | November 18, 2021 at 9:57 pm

    I definitely believe an appeal of any adverse judgment will be successful. The only bar to self defense is provocation. The prosecution argued that provocation involving unlawful conduct waived the right of self defense. When charge 6 came of the list, the jury was never informed that the carrying of the firearm had been found lawful by the court, leaving the jury to believe otherwise. The screwed up jury instructions, leaving words regarding count 6 in, only made it worse. That said, the multiple screw ups by the prosecution argue solidly for a mistrial with prejudice, but the judge can’t go with that, because it would make the rioting worse. Sad times we live in.

      PhillyWatch in reply to A Thinker. | November 18, 2021 at 10:37 pm

      And so…allowing jury members to study the flawed instructions, even take them home to get more study time in, only underscores the flawed nature of the deliberations.

      As we used to say: GIGO. Garbage In….Garbage Out. It would be hard enough to expect them to follow along with perfect instructions. But surely we can’t expect the jury, alone, to make sense of flawed instructions. Some at least will come to a flawed conclusion.

When I read the note from juror 54, I also interpreted it as juror 54 anticipating arguments with her fellow jurors. “Prepare the Rosenbaum shooting.” [list of evidence favoring the prosecution, especially the still frame which the prosecutor falsely claimed to show Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the Ziminskis] “We will request when ready.” Juror 54 swallowed the prosecutor’s lies and misdirection.

    JHogan in reply to Lance-11A. | November 18, 2021 at 9:56 pm

    Juror 54 also used the phrase ‘put down fire extinguisher’. That’s how the prosecution described what Kyle did.

    Kyle and the defense said he ‘dropped’ the fire extinguisher when he first saw Zaminski standing in front of him with a handgun.

    Big difference in characterizing Kyle’s reaction to first seeing Zaminski ten feet or less in front of him with a gun in his hand.

    And this is the key moment in the prosecution’s theory that Kyle provoked Zaminski and Rosenbaum.

    Elzorro in reply to Lance-11A. | November 18, 2021 at 9:59 pm

    All in all my take is she loves Binger and is trying to represent him in the jury room. Believe it or not some people really like all this social justice, socialism, virtue signaling with their mask and such. Until they eventually find out they can’t afford it. If she is what is suspected she could be having powergasms.

The prosecutor in this case is a monster. No less so than Roland Freisler or an Soviet monster.

Just imagine who is behind him.

This “zoomed-in image still” requested by the jury. As mentioned yesterday “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”, right?

Also: “When Judge Schroeder asks Binger if that’s true, Binger’s response is that information is not in evidence.”

BUT! This (not for use in court) is an exculpating evidence and as such should have been provided by prosecution? Brady violation, again?

    Elzorro in reply to MikePlacid. | November 18, 2021 at 10:05 pm

    Seems to me this mess has Brady written all over it. Brady is a perfect defense but the burden is on Kyle. I am thinking it may come in soon. What I was looking for was the judge to reopen the evidence on his own and he did and think that is most important.

      PhillyWatch in reply to Elzorro. | November 18, 2021 at 10:11 pm

      What does ‘reopen evidence’ mean? To decide if there’s more evidence? but that would mean introducing it to the jury and testimony wouldn’t it?

      or reopen evidence to throw evidence out. but the jury’s seen all the evidence and had DAYS (now) to discuss and ponder it. Can’t unsee it, as they say.

      Or does this only mean the judge wants hearings that will arm him with either 1) confidence things are OK and proceeding ‘fairly’ or 2)the only fair recourse is a mistrial due to uncurable procedural and/or rules violations

        It means the judge is now The King Lord and Master. He has take the power over the jury. He ‘closed’ the evidence when they rested their case. Now it is open and any evidence at all can be suppressed or admitted, it is up to him. Even if the Karen has spent all night working feverishly to make her case. He can simply suppress the tainted Fruit of the Poisonous Tree for Brady violation and stand back if he does. A natural mistrial Her head would.explode. I have not figured out if he could later rule on prejudice. This is just a hypothesis I have been working on like a puzzle. Brady allows for an unintentional error by the state which appears where Krout is heading to me and Binger is sitting there petrified and quiet as a mouse. Richards added the mistrial without prejudice. Is it Lets make a Deal time? We will see soon. Just speculation.

          PhillyWatch in reply to Elzorro. | November 18, 2021 at 11:22 pm

          Be kind…I dunno if I should be looking for a sarcasm emote.

          But they are missing. Along with Edit.

          PhillyWatch in reply to Elzorro. | November 19, 2021 at 9:25 am

          “Brady allows for an unintentional error by the state….”

          But….if the Brady violation denies the defendant due process and a fair trial isn’t there some way to remedy it for the defendant?

          You can say “ok…the prosecution sincerely intended to send them the whole enchilada and didn’t know they only got the cheese. Sorry!” then walk away from it. You HAVE to do something for the defendant….don’t you?

          I could see the unintentional act mitigating what you do to the prosecution (discipline, whatever), not what you do for the defendant.

    fogflyer in reply to MikePlacid. | November 18, 2021 at 11:59 pm

    “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”, right?”

    So, I spent 20 minutes or so reading through the AMPED5 instructions and what I found was only certain functions of the program were not to be used if creating evidence for court. Namely, A.I. algorithms. I doubt any A.I. algorithms were used as A.I. algorithms tend to make a very clear picture, but a picture based on a lot of guesswork that may or may not look like reality. This blurry mess was probably just created with standard interpolation algorithms. That said, I don’t see why any interpolation should ever be used as it is indeed adding pixels based on guesswork. If you can’t see something with simple color and lighting adjustments, then that’s just too bad.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to fogflyer. | November 19, 2021 at 6:01 am

      Are you sure it was the Amped Five software used? Could’ve been Amped Replay, or something that’s called Amp and not Amped.

        ‘Amped Five’ is what Fatboy said during the impromptu hearing at least a half-dozen times. Now, the guy isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, so there are no guarantees he’s not misspeaking…or lying.

          AnAdultInDiapers in reply to TargaGTS. | November 19, 2021 at 12:45 pm

          Nah, it’s good enough for me – I missed that part of the discussions, so you and fogflyer carry the motion 2-0

vbmoneyspender | November 18, 2021 at 9:36 pm

Can the juror write notes on her jury instructions and bring those notes into the jury room?

If so I would be so waiting for her to slip up and me tion what the dictionary said or google. If on jury I would make her life hell.

vbmoneyspender | November 18, 2021 at 9:44 pm

What I would be afraid of if I were defense counsel is the juror at issue adding notes to her jury instructions as a sort of gloss, including defining legal terms that she feels are not sufficiently defined in the jury instructions. And then using the gloss she’s add to argue that, based on her home research, she knows more about the words and phrases contained in the jury instructions than any of the other jurors so they should listen to her because her knowledge of these terms of art is superior to theirs .

I believe the request to bring the jury instructions home was a power move by the juror. By making that request in court, she is showing the other jurors that she will have a better understanding of the instructions because she is studying them more than they are. She’s trying to set herself up as a higher authority. Of course, some of the jurors will think that makes her even more of a bitch.

    stogiefan1953 in reply to richtrue. | November 18, 2021 at 10:27 pm

    …and they will be thinking correctly!

    stogiefan1953 in reply to richtrue. | November 18, 2021 at 10:28 pm

    The air must be so toxic in that deliberations room….evidently the rest of the jurors were so fed up being in the same room with her they called it an early day.

    Wow!!

      The judge mentioned they were already past the agreed stopping point for the day, so someone probably had something they needed out by 4. IMO they should be locked in the basement from 7am to 9pm every day until they come up with something.. this working 7 hours days for deliberations is bullshit

“There has been one apparently female juror who on several occasions can be overheard being unusually familiar with Judge Schroeder—not in the sense of knowing him personally, but in the sense of engaging in a relaxed discussion that one does not usually find between a juror and a trial judge.”
___________

WTH? This sounds completely inappropriate. If this woman is indeed the jury foreperson and holding out for some kind of conviction, her interactions with the judge could influence the other jurors to give her opinions more weight — especially after they just witnessed the judge agree to let her take home jury instructions against the wishes of the defense counsel.

This is bizarre and unseemly. I hope the defense attorneys are putting objections to this stuff on the record. This is all kinds of wrong.

    PhillyWatch in reply to Observer. | November 18, 2021 at 10:04 pm

    I read that Richards ‘shook his head in a no manner’ when the judge polled the attorneys in light of the request to take the 36 pages of instructions home. He then raised the issue of ‘dictionary and all that’. Sounds like a light hearted attempt, but it’s on the record right?

      The issue no one brought up is whether or not she had written notes on those instructions.

      Removing notes taken during deliberations from the jury room is unacceptable.

      When I was a juror we had to take notes on notepads provided by the court and we had to leave the notepads in the jury room when we went home for the night.

        fogflyer in reply to JHogan. | November 19, 2021 at 12:03 am

        They brought it up and the judge said if notes were written on the jury instructions, they could still take them home. Seems crazy to me… why not just print out a new copy of the instructions to take if that was the case.

      Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 7:37 am

      Just dawned on me: Do we actually know what the Judge said when he “polled the attorneys”? It would not be unusual for it to be phrased as “any objections?” would it? In which case Richards shaking his head would have been agreement with allowing the instructions to be taken home.

I’d be very surprised if there weren’t several holdouts.

How does the fact that the Prosecutors withheld the identity of jump kick man impact this case?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-identity-of-mysterious-jump-kick-man-revealed

Do any of the lawyers think there is actual grounds for appeal? and I don’t just mean the pro-forma kind of appeal usually filed in such high profile cases. I mean a truly meaningful appeal with issues of law and procedure to substantiate an argument that the jury was tainted or prosecution witheld evidence, or anything else that denied the defendant a fair trial.

Even the fact they weren’t sequestered: they were escorted home (or their designated gather place) in a bus with blacked out windows. Like a prisoner transfer bus. That has to affect their mental state in the midst of deliberations.

    Universal answer to all legal questions is…’it depends’. It is all in the rules and he who knows them best has the edge. In this plus ultra weight may be bearing upon the scales.

    AnAdultInDiapers in reply to PhillyWatch. | November 19, 2021 at 6:04 am

    I think the Judge explicitly telling the prosecutor that he’s committed a grave constitutional violation might be a possible reason for appeal.

I have to agree with others that I find this article highly speculative and lacking in evidence. I’m not going to post a “chastising” comment, especially towards someone who offers me free trial information on a daily basis.

However, I tend to try to work more in objective, demonstrable ways in my daily life rather than subjective, speculative, and innuendo-laden practices. I understand that the very nature of jury reporting makes the former very difficult to obtain (and pretty much criminal to try and seize concrete evidence of jury workings anyways).

Just stating my preference and I give this subjective stuff reported by more than just Mr. Branca little weight. On the other hand, it does pass the time.

    “I’m not going to post…”

    Yes, you are. You just did.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Barry. | November 18, 2021 at 11:06 pm

      Nope…didn’t chastise him, Sensitive Sally

      If you’ve got real info, post it, though.

      amwick in reply to Barry. | November 18, 2021 at 11:15 pm

      Ty Barry,, what a snot.. “it does pass the time”..SMH

        healthguyfsu in reply to amwick. | November 18, 2021 at 11:20 pm

        Oh look, snowflake 2.0

        I guess looking at facts rather than a bunch of made up court gossip making it’s way around the internet is now triggering to those that only want to hear what confirms their mindset.

          You must be friends with Rags….

          healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 19, 2021 at 12:23 am

          lol wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire

          healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 19, 2021 at 12:31 am

          Couple last things and I’m done with this spat:

          -I’m not DVing either of you. I think it’s stupid to DV just because you disagree with someone, even if it’s hostile but go on being petty if you wish…it doesn’t really matter in the long run.

          -Andrew posts here for free and I’m grateful for that, but he does it for a reason. It drives clicks to his business ventures, namely his book and his blog. My feedback to him is that I don’t think this kind of fact-limited analysis does serves his purpose of furthering said ventures. He can take it or leave it and maybe his site and sales data say otherwise. I can see just from this comment string though that I’m not the only one who believes that.

          -I just don’t understand why he have to stoop to the very same level of the left wing hacks that we hate with this kind of stuff. It ultimately undermines credibility to anyone who has a truly open mind. I do believe there are a few left out there these days.

Let’s say that they come back as a hung jury and the case is sent back to the state. We also know that there are several pending cases involving potential witnesses that were delayed awaiting the outcome of this case plus the civil suit filed by Gaige, Those pending cases kept witnesses from testifying, What happens to those cases? Are they deferred even longer until a decision is made to retry and a retrial is done?

    PhillyWatch in reply to buck61. | November 18, 2021 at 10:45 pm

    hmmm…so Grosskreutz is suing…KR I suppose?

    Lends credence to one the things I was told as a teenager: kill ’em, don’t wound ’em. Dead men don’t sue and meeting a ‘prepondence of the evidence’ test is a lot easier than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

    But their families do…as OJ found out.

      IIRCC, His lawsuit was against the police.. for letting people like Kyle run around with weapons. Something like that. Kinda ironic,, considering.

        healthguyfsu in reply to amwick. | November 18, 2021 at 10:55 pm

        Huber’s family and GG are co-party to a suit that the Kenosha PD illegally “deputized” Rittenhouse and others leading to wrongful death and grievous bodily injury.

        I hope they lose a lot of money chasing nothing.

        tekovyahoser in reply to amwick. | November 19, 2021 at 2:09 am

        So why didn’t The One Arm Man call police when he heard shots fired? Instead, he paraded his unlawfully possessed gun and went on with some vigilante righteousness.
        Police should have not allowed a vigilante like TOAM to be loose on the peaceful streets of Kenosha.

        PhillyWatch in reply to amwick. | November 19, 2021 at 9:33 am

        But it’s still a possibility Groskreutz can do so.

        I imagine he’s awaiting outcome of the trial. If he’s acquitted…especially if the judge grants mistrial with prejudice…I imagine he could do so. He seems the publicity hound who’d enjoy the idea of the notoriety it brings.

        All he needs is a lawyer to write up a compelling brief that makes the court ignore the clear video of him aiming a gun at KR’s head when he had to defend himself.

It occurs to me that having quite a few alternate jurors could mitigate the “social circle” problem somewhat. Gives deniability if confronted. Maybe that should become the norm for high profile cases.

Frankly, I feel like there should have been 2 full jury pools deliberating. When this one comes back hung, it could fall back to the second without going straight to mistrial. If nothing else, it would create an interesting comparison in outcomes to learn more about the shortcomings of the jury system.

At this point why isn’t the jury sequestered?

    TargaGTS in reply to jgoldbaum. | November 19, 2021 at 7:19 am

    Apparently because the judge is too busy reading his own press rather than considering how the media throng and mob of protestors surrounding the jury might be influencing or even intimidating that jury.

    SeiteiSouther in reply to jgoldbaum. | November 19, 2021 at 11:18 am

    They should have been sequestered from the get go. A lot of the problems happening now could have been avoided.

Well as if my eyes were not bleeding enough I just saw the Binger may have Bunko Brothers Problems too. Possibly withholding video of Kyle with them early. Must be the Eclipse Effect.

Question – If a jury picks a Foreperson and later regrets it can they change the foreperson?

Midfiaudiophile | November 19, 2021 at 12:15 am

Andrew McCarthy (of whom I am aware Mr. Branca is not particularly fond from getting my head bit off during the Chauvin trial, though McCarthy did favorably link Mr. Branca’s coverage of this case here a couple days ago):

“There should not be a conviction in this case. If there is, I expect it to be thrown out. If there is a hung jury, Judge Schroeder would be on firm footing if he did not permit Kyle Rittenhouse to be retried.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-mistrial-motion-looms-as-jurors-appear-deadlocked/

If Juror #54 knew any of the witnesses or prosecutors she should have been excused for cause!! No one can reasonably be expected to be unbiased under those circumstances! Replace Karen with an alternate!!

ugottabekiddinme | November 19, 2021 at 12:45 am

As an attorney of 40 plus years including trying a number of jury trials to verdict, both civil and criminal, I am appalled that the judge permitted jurors to take the written instructions home with them overnight. This jury should have been sequestered, from the moment they received the case to deliberate, until a final verdict. No outside environment or influences, period. Both these issues, one of omission, one of commission, seem ripe grounds for appeal.

    Midfiaudiophile in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | November 19, 2021 at 12:58 am

    I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, they can access the jury instructions online anyway with a little bit of searching and so sending the instructions back home if they’re intent on doing their own thing may be preventing them from finding the instructions hosted on CNN or something.

    On the other hand, this would have been an ideal time for the judge to reiterate, forcefully, that the only things that they are supposed to consider are the facts that were presented in HIS courtroom and that they should, to the greatest extent possible, not think about the case when they’re not in whatever has been designated as the jury room.

      tekovyahoser in reply to Midfiaudiophile. | November 19, 2021 at 2:11 am

      Everyone on the jury hit their Facebook and news feed first thing when they got home.
      Next trial (if it gets to that)?
      Change of venue. Full sequestration, start to finish and Kyle doesn’t testify.

    thad_the_man in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | November 19, 2021 at 4:38 am

    That actually maybe a plus. If there is a single hold out not arguing on the evidencee, and that person goes home and looks things up on the internet or in a dictionary, other jurors can report that person and they can be removed.

Surprised the documents are not printed in a newspaper this morning, maybe they have them just know they can’t print them yet.

For everyone that thinks the judge would overrule a conviction with a mistrial…

You’re being sandbagged.

The judge wants Rittenhouse put away. He gave the prosecutors a stern talking to *for the cameras*. So, when the verdict comes back guilty or hung, he can shrug and say, “I was more than fair to the defendant.”

If that wasn’t true, he’d have thrown this farce out with all the malfeasance by the prosecution.

If all true and sounds likely, she’s on a lefty mission to get Kyle

Let’s face it. This is part of a larger effort on the part of the leftards/establishment to nullify the Second Amendment. There have been several other cases where legitimate self defense has been criminalized. This one just happens to be high profile. Going forward, people will have to be willing to “break the law” if they want to protect themselves.

Allowing the jurors to “review” the instructions at home is in this writer’s view a very dubious ruling, and an invitation for discussions between the jurors via cellphone and computer , “legal research:” by and between the jurors and reaching a verdict in their homes as opposed to the courthouse.

We are living in the land of limbo at this point not having a REAL clue as to what the heck is going on in that jury room. We can speculate until the cows come home. My own head is like a ping-pong match of possibilities and outcomes, etc etc.
But until the day that jury comes forward w/ their verdict we just don’t know – cannot know. Thus, I pray.
As to those referring to whether KR should even have gone to Kenosha that fateful night, I am a staunch believer and defender of the 2nd Amendment. I believe you have a right to carry in your own backyard on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, or at a fiery riot in downtown Kenosha – maybe moreso there, if you’re defending people from maniacal evil-doers.
There’s been a lot gone wrong in this trial, but a lot gone right too. The time it’s taking – in the most optimistic view – is that the jurors want to get it right, and are in probably the toughest place any of them have ever been in their lives.
Personally, I think it is a slam-dunk case of self-defense. And if I were on that jury, you could not budge me from that – no matter what.
I only hope that is the case with the actual jurors.

    texansamurai in reply to DelightLaw1. | November 19, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    well said and agree with you–would only add that genuine self-defense or the defense of loved ones/innocents is so basic, so intrinsic, so natural that NO law, NO authority on this planet may deny it for any human being, regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, whatever–one of those “inalienable rights, among them…….”

    the idea that some karen(if indeed be the case)should be allowed to deny that same right to rittenhouse in order to preen/assuage her own inferiority complex is simply unconscionable

    lord

it is incredible that juror #54 knows some of those involved yet she was allowed to not only serve on the jury but serve as foreman. Her friendly and cavalier attitude with the judge is also suspect. She should be removed for not being able to see this case in an impartial fashion and judge solely by facts of the case. This needs to be declared a mistrial with prejudice and give Kyle and his family their lives back.

Are individual jurors polled in the event of a mistrial or hung jury?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend