I wrote beforehand about how the protection within the Rittenhouse trial had made a movement for a mistrial with prejudice and the decide had beforehand stated he could be “taking it below advisement.”
On Monday, as either side wrapped up with their closing arguments, they reminded the court docket that the movement was nonetheless pending. The decide stated he could be ruling on it.
The protection had beforehand raised two points.
The primary is that the prosecution improperly infringed on Kyle Rittenhouse’s constitutional proper to stay silent when, throughout questioning, ADA Thomas Binger tried to recommend that Rittenhouse hadn’t made a remark till he was capable of hear everybody else testify. That induced fireworks with the decide admonishing the prosecutor and saying he was on the road and possibly over it.
The second concern was that the prosecution had tried to introduce proof that the decide had already dominated they might not introduce. The decide had additionally admonished the prosecutor over that, saying that he didn’t imagine the prosecution when Binger claimed that he didn’t assume the decide’s ruling utilized to the proof he, Binger, was making an attempt to introduce. The decide chastised Binger, saying “Don’t get brazen with me,” “I don’t imagine you,” and “There’d higher not being one other incident.”
Now, in a proper submitting for a movement for mistrial with prejudice that they made on Monday, the protection mentions these points but in addition raises one other — that the prosecution withheld proof from protection. The protection argues that on November 5, the prosecution turned over a compressed model of a drone video that had been taken on that day displaying a number of the incident of Rittenhouse operating into the lot with Joseph Rosenbaum chasing him after which the taking pictures. In the meantime, the protection is saying that the prosecution had a clearer model of the video that they didn’t present till after either side have been completed presenting their circumstances.
— Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱 (@JackPosobiec) November 17, 2021
From Each day Mail:
‘The issue is the prosecution gave the protection a compressed model of the video. What which means is the video offered to the protection was not as clear because the video saved by the state.’
The movement goes onto clarify that the file measurement of the protection video is simply 3.6MB whereas the prosecution’s is 11.2MB.
The movement states that this bigger file was not offered to the protection ‘till after the trial concluded’
It reads, ‘In the course of the jury directions convention, the protection performed their model of the video for the court docket to assessment. The state indicated their model was a lot clearer and had their tech individual come into court docket to have the court docket assessment their clearer video. The video is identical, the decision of that video, nevertheless, was not.’
In reality, the state didn’t present the bigger file till two days earlier than closing arguments and after the proof had been closed.
Right here, they’re displaying the video to the decide and you’ll hear ADA James Kraus say that their model is clearer.
So the protection needs the prosecution to elucidate why they didn’t flip over the proof that that they had — the identical high quality of the video.
The movement states, ‘Because it pertains to the compressed drone footage. The prosecution ought to be required to elucidate to the court docket why they didn’t copy the footage for the defendant with the identical high quality as their copy
‘The video footage has been on the middle of this case. The concept the state would supply lesser high quality footage after which use that footage as a linchpin of their case is the very motive they requested and have been granted the provocation instruction by the Courtroom.’
The protection argued these actions have been clearly intentional and prejudicial to Rittenhouse. That’s why they’re arguing for a mistrial with prejudice, that means that the prosecution can’t carry the case once more towards Rittenhouse, as a result of they’re arguing the prosecution’s actions are so egregious.
Now, if the prosecution didn’t flip over the proof to the protection, that may very well be a giant drawback particularly if it might have been useful for the protection.
So what does that imply now that the case has gone to the jury? Typically talking, a court docket tries to dispense with motions earlier than that time so it’s uncommon that it hasn’t been determined by now. It may very well be that the decide needs to offer the jury the prospect to resolve and the proof factors towards an acquittal. If there’s an acquittal, the movement turns into moot, that means it not issues and the decide hasn’t taken the case out of the jury’s palms. That may be what’s occurring there. If there’s a conviction, then again, it’s unlikely the decide goes to go round that call, however the protection can have preserved their objections for enchantment by having filed the movement.