It’s hard to express how badly the prosecution has been doing in the Rittenhouse case.
They were in trouble from the start, with the prosecutor claiming, falsely, that right before the shooting, Kyle Rittenhouse was chasing Joseph Rosenbaum — the first person shot — when in truth, it was the other way around.
Then the prosecution seemed to ask questions of its own witnesses that just blew up the prosecution’s position and indeed supported the defense’s argument of self-defense.
But there was another issue that hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves — that’s the testimony of witness Nathan DeBruin. DeBruin seemed to believe that DeBruin was saying the prosecution wanted to make him change his statements.
Kenosha witnesses describes the tactics used by the prosecution to get him to change his statements pic.twitter.com/gVG3OIZJHU
— Kyle Hooten (@KyleHooten2) November 10, 2021
That’s definitely problematic if that’s what was going on there.
Today’s testimony by Kyle Rittenhouse was a cross examination. The prosecution incorrectly referenced Rittenhouse having not given his story before. That’s remaining silent, which is his constitutional right to do. It’s improper to comment on it or imply anything negative from it. Judge Bruce Schroeder ripped into prosecutor Thomas Binger, “The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the Defendant’s silence. Your case may have already been closed. It better stop.”
A Judge Indicts The Rittenhouse Case
“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the Defendant’s silence.”
“You are right on the borderline, you may be over. It better stop.” pic.twitter.com/OVK9eYOSSm
— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) November 10, 2021
But the judge didn’t stop there. This was something a prosecutor with experience should be able to recognize, given the law as it stands.
Holy f**cking shit the judge just completely snapped at the Kyle Rittenhouse prosector:
“I was shocked when you opened your examination and commented on the defendant’s post-arrest silence. It’s fundamental law. This has been the law of this country for over 40 years. pic.twitter.com/BeWwcX4GH3
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 10, 2021
“I was astonished when you began his examination by commenting on the defendant’s post-arrest silence,” Judge Schroeder declared. “That’s basic law. It’s been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years.” He also made the point that even if he, the prosecutor, thought he had a point, he should have asked the court out of the hearing of the jury to get a determination on the issue.
Evidently, the defense is fed up with the actions taken by the prosecution.
While they mentioned the possibility of moving for a mistrial earlier today after the prosecution improperly impugned Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent, now the defense is saying they will in fact make that motion to the judge. The defense announced that they will be asking for mistrial without prejudice. This means the case would be closed on the basis of the allegations, and no prosecution could refile it.
BREAKING pic.twitter.com/jMvW2q69Lv
— Kyle Hooten (@KyleHooten2) November 10, 2021
The defense said that while it isn’t normally granted with prejudice it can be in the case of prosecutorial misconduct “designed to avoid an acquittal” and then they laid out how just today, the prosecution improperly stepped on Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent, twice, the issue the judge had previously called a “grave constitutional question.”
Rittenhouse Defense accuses the prosecution that it tried to forcibly a mistrial so as to avoid an acquittal pic.twitter.com/RiZ99T3L8y
— Kyle Hooten (@KyleHooten2) November 10, 2021
So bring the popcorn and we’ll keep you apprised as to what the judge rules and where this goes from here.
About Post Author
