For Those Following The Rittenhouse Trial
The Dismissal Of The Weapons Charge Could Be Disproportionately Important In Its Effect On The Remaining More Serious Charges
Jonathan Turley—law prof and criminal defense lawyer—wrote an article yesterday that nailed what happened this morning: The judge dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge against Rittenhouse. The reason that’s important is that, psychologically, it could make a major difference to the jury in considering the more serious charges to know that Rittenhouse was legally carrying the AR-15. If he were carrying the rifle illegally that would color their consideration of those charges. This takes on added importance because the prosecution repeatedly tried to claim that Rittenhouse was carrying illegally.
Here is an unrolling of Turley’s tweets, with a link to the article:
Judge Schroeder just dropped the sixth count. It collapsed on the basis previously discussed in the column.
Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law …https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/14/was-rittenhouses-possession-of-the-ar-15-unlawful/
...That is another blow to the prosecution. While only a misdemeanor, it shows the jury that what was promised as proof of the violation did not materialize at trial. There is a serious credibility crisis for the prosecution and this only magnifies any such doubts.
...A compromise verdict (which is what the prosecution clearly wants) is still possible in embracing a lesser offense but those still remain very serious counts.
The Wisconsin law is convoluted and requires several readings to fit the various parts together. In the article Turley points out that Rittenhouse appears to have had a clearer understanding of the law than the hapless prosecutor:
The unlawful possession of the gun has been a prominent fact cited not only by the prosecutors but the press.
At trial, however, prosecutor Thomas Binger at points seemed to be learning the governing law from Rittenhouse. For example, he pressed Rittenhouse on why he did not just purchase a handgun rather than an AR-15. Rittenhouse replied he could not possess a hand gun at his age. Binger then asked in apparent disbelief that the law allowed him to have an AR-15 but not a handgun and Rittenhouse said yes. Binger then moved on after seemingly drawing out a point for the defense.
If you’re interested in wrestling with the complexities of the Wisconsin law, follow the link. In fairness to the Wisconsin lawmakers, in a rural state that is a major hunting state—with vast areas of woodlands—the question of what firearms may be carried by what age group can be a complex subject.
I'll say the prosecution did it's self no favors in this case. It's been like watching two blind guys walk around in a room full of rakes laying around.
Growing up in a very rural area of a Midwestern state it was a given that many youngsters would be using long guns for hunting, everything from lever action 30-30s to semi-auto and pump action rifles. We were younger than sixteen and had been hunting since were old enough to be trusted by our parents to carry these weapons.
The long gun laws were not written for hunting humans or defending oneself from others in an urban setting, but for their primary lawful use of hunting and target shooting. Unless there were municipality laws prohibiting the carry of loaded long guns inside their jurisdiction, Rittenhouse broke no law which is apparently what the judge determined.
The fact that one of Rittenhouse's attackers was a violent convicted felon with a firearm is the real concern - which is ignored - in order to pile on Rittenhouse and his 'scary' AR-15...