Rittenhouse: Turley Predicts
Jonathan Turley has never struck me as one for going out on legal limbs without carefully assessing their strength. So it seems notable that he expresses his expectations for the outcome of the Rittenhouse so firmly:
With the end of closing arguments, the jury now has the case. I remain confused how the sixth count was ever adopted. Even without the grand jury/indictment process, the prosecutor still had to establish the crime in the preliminary examination (PE)...
I still fail to see how Binger could represent that a crime was committed under the state governing the sixth count. I also fail to understand how a court could have found probable cause to believe a crime was committed on possession.
Now the jury will consider five counts that are ridiculed [sic = riddled] with prosecutorial contradictions. I cannot imagine that the prosecution hold much credibility with the jury at this point.
I would be astonished if the prosecution could secure a single conviction on the five remaining counts.
As you can see, Turley continues to consider that the dropping of the sixth (possession) count was a body blow to what little credibility remained of the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution's attempt to portray a baby-faced teenager as a killer who was seeking confrontation with this bunch of rioting hooligans fails the smell test. It seems the prosecution is hoping for that unmentioned, but always in the background, threat of what could happen to Kenosha should the jury not 'do the right thing.'
The jury has a tough job here. Can the individual members live with their conscience if they knuckle under to the unspoken threat of riots and property destruction? What happens as a result of the verdict they render is not on them.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, Rittenhouse would not have been in Kenosha if the elected officials had done their job of protecting persons and property. They abdicated that responsibility; and in my view they should be the one's on trial.
SWC:
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1460794981623353347 <<
>> https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1460794981623353347 <<
Assuming this isn't just simply a "compressed file" (such as a zipped file) versus the decompressed size; it if it truly is a low res version given to defense, and a HI res version of the same video used by prosecution during closing arguments, then the defendant has been denied his due process rights to a fair trial.
If I had to guess, he either gets NG on all counts, or a mistrial with prejudice. This is egregious prosecutorial misconduct, and the judge can't let it stand. The kid is a free man right now. It's over ....
One unfortunate fact: defense didn't notice the hi-res version used by prosecutors during closing -- they should have noticed, and immediately objected. But they can't be held accountable for not being video resolution experts, so the only option for the judge -- if the jury comes back with any guilty verdicts at all -- is to set aside the guilty verdicts, and issue a judgement N.O.V., or a mistrial with prejudice. Alternatively, judge stops deliberations and orders jury to return a directed NG verdict. (Both outcomes presume the defense raises the issue tomorrow morning, but they may be confident enough in the jury to not bother. But to preserve it as an appealable error, they need to make the objection.)