The defense in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial rested their case on Thursday, and CNN has spent large segments attacking the judge, criticizing gun-owners, and accusing Rittenhouse of “white wanna-be vigilantism.” However, the hosts of CNN Newsroom were taken aback when a guest Friday morning challenged their liberal talking points on the case.
Mark Eiglarsh (a criminal defense attorney, and former prosecutor) explained why he doesn’t believe the prosecutor can convince the jury toward a guilty verdict.
My fear is that the prosecutor will try to argue that the prosecution, who I mean with the utmost respect and love for him, has not proved that he used deadly force to protect himself from death and great bodily injury. As the rest of the world sees, he is not in good shape. The evidence suggests the exact opposite. They have established, and the defense also did, that he had reasonable fear of death or great bodily damage, and legal rights to use deadly force when he needed it. This is likely to be an extremely quick and easy acquittal.
Jim Sciutto (host) was obviously surprised by Rittenhouse’s positive prediction. He suggested that Rittenhouse could be allowed to spend more time in prison. There are also the possibilities of lesser charges being brought against him.
SCIUTTO These could include second-degree intentional murder or second-degree reckless killing. It is possible that there could be different charges for each Rittenhouse victim based upon these circumstances. Is the prosecution proving the lesser charges against Rittenhouse?
EIGLARSH: No. It doesn’t really matter. Do not get bogged down in details about the charges. It doesn’t really matter if he used force for a reason. The jurors will reject any other charges that are put in front of them…And, quite frankly, I think it’s unfair for the prosecutor to throw those out when the primary issue is whether he used reasonable force, and, quite frankly, I think he did.
Not to be deterred by this unequivocal dismissal, host Erica Hill shifted the discussion to an emotional appeal regarding the families of those Rittenhouse shot: “The families of the victims, though, obviously, are looking for justice. What do you say to them?” Eiglarsh responded by again stating the facts of the case: “I would tell these families, I am so sorry for your loss, but on a legal level, which is the only thing we’re analyzing here, These crimes were not committed by him. He was able to prove that he used reasonable force.”
Sciutto retorted his absurd suggestion of Thursday that more law-abiding citizens should have guns as a last resort. Eiglarsh quickly shut down the reasoning.
SCIUTTO : Mark, let me ask what it means and what precedent has been set. Is that to say that any person with a gun could volunteer their services for the police? Right, even if they are heavily armed during protests et cetera. This is, in fact, exactly what occurred here.
EIGLARSH. There are no precedents. Law has allowed everyone to carry guns legally and do what is right.Each case is unique. It is impossible to compare this case to any other case, as each case is unique. Our main point is that, first, this was a case where he had the legal right to use fatal force. Secondly, they were impaneled. After hearing the facts, each side was presented. Both sides got cross-examination. Here’s what the precedent is.
Sciutto ended the segment by casting doubt on Eiglarsh’s expertise, saying, “Right. Well, we’ll see how the public takes that precedent as well.” The judge and jury will hear closing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense on Monday, and there isn’t much doubt about which direction CNN hopes the trial will go.
Panera Bread, Dell sponsored the CNN segment. Contact these advertisers via our Conservatives Fight Back webpage here.
You can click “expand”, to view the entire transcript.
CNN Newsroom with PoppyHarlow and Jim Sciutto
11/12/21
10.18.23 amERICA ILL: Mark Eiglarsh (Criminal Defense Attorney, former Prosecutor) joins us. Mark, it’s good to meet you today. Now, tell me: What do you expect to hear during Monday’s closing arguments. What do you think? Where do you believe they will be focused?
MARK EIGLARSH. The prosecutor I love most, and I respect him deeply, will probably try to argue that he never should have used deadly force, because he did not reasonably fear the death of great bodily injury. As the outside world sees, his evidence suggests the exact opposite. Even before the defendant took the witness stand they established that he had reasonable fear of death or great bodily damage and legal rights to use deadly force. It is expected that this will be an easy acquittal.
JIM SCIUTO: Mark, the prosecutors may ask the jury for lesser charges. These could include second-degree intentional murder or second-degree reckless killing. It is possible that there could be different charges for each Rittenhouse victim based upon these circumstances. Is the prosecution proving the lesser charges against Rittenhouse?
EIGLARSH: No. It doesn’t really matter. Do not get bogged down in details about the charges. Even if the use of force was justified, that doesn’t mean anything. Any other charges brought before the jurors are rejected by them. What is the most important issue? Was he justified? As a trial attorney, my only concern is that jurors may sometimes say that they did not prove the primary charge, but that they might have argued one of the lesser ones. It’s unlikely that they will do so here. I believe it is unfair that the prosecutor throws those out. The primary issue here is whether the defendant used reasonable force.
HILL: As you said, it is not too soon to question whether or not this was a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and judicial resources. The victims’ families are, however, looking for justice. How can you help them?
EIGLARSH : To them I first say, “I’m sorry for you loss.” He didn’t do the most heroic actions, such as taking out a gun and running to this scene. It doesn’t seem like he was necessary. He put others and himself in danger. That said, that’s not what he’s on trial for. The trial is about whether or not he killed anyone, as well as whether or not he used force in a justified manner. I’d like to tell the families that although I’m sorry for their loss, on a legal level (which is what we are analyzing), he did not commit any of these offenses. He was able to prove that he used reasonable force.
SCIUTTO : Mark, let me ask what it means and what precedent has been set. Do you think that this means that anybody with a gun may volunteer to assist the police, even though they might be heavily armed, in protest, etcetera? This is, in fact, exactly what occurred here.
EIGLARSH. There are no established precedents. Law has allowed everyone to carry legal guns and do what is right. However, every case is unique. It is impossible to compare this case to any other case, as each case is unique. Our main point is that, first, this was a case where he had the legal right to use fatal force. Secondly, according to tradition, a jury was inducted, heard the facts presented by both the prosecution and defense, then cross-examined on each side. We believe the truth suggests the government didn’t prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Here’s what the precedent is.
SCIUTTO: Right. Let’s see how people respond to that example. Mark Eiglarsh – Thank you for sharing your expertise.
EIGLARSH : It’s my pleasure. I am grateful.
About Post Author
