We reported that the Rittenhouse jury had concerns about the ability to view video evidence.
The defense filed a motion to mistrial without prejudice regarding the drone footage. The defense argued that they hadn’t gotten a clearer, more high definition version of the drone video until Saturday, after the close of evidence. The defense argued to the court in their motion that the prosecution sent them a compressed copy and kept the clearer version.
The prosecutor’s misconduct and withholding evidence were the grounds for their position. This was in addition to the prior points they had made about the prosecutor improperly talking negatively about Rittenhouse’s silence, impugning his constitutional right to remain silence and trying to get in evidence against what the judge had already ruled against.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team claims that the prosecution has withheld or altered evidence. pic.twitter.com/ug2pSNDwdv
— MRCTV (@mrctv) November 17, 2021
This jury question led then to discussion on the motion point concerning the withholding or omission of evidence.
The prosecution argued that they had nothing to do with the compression and don’t know what occurred.
The defense, on the other hand, said that the video sent on Nov. 5 — the compressed and unclear video — had different tags and metadata than the video they were given by the State on Saturday. One was made 21 minutes earlier than the other, they said. The defense argued they had two versions of the same file and that prosecution withheld clearer evidence. They claimed they were aware of the differences on Friday, and that the prosecution had mentioned to them that their version was more clear while watching the video that day in court. They stated that if they’d had the clearer file they could have presented other arguments.
This is an additional addition.
“Our version is much clearer.” pic.twitter.com/n2UsNtin7F
— Wilson Kanaday (@wilsonkanaday) November 17, 2021
The prosecution did not claim that the copy was different. The “Miss Wisco” referred to on the video is one of the defense team, Natalie Wisco.
DEVELOPING : In the Rittenhouse case, the defense claims that the video evidence presented by the prosecution was compressed in order to leave out important evidence. pic.twitter.com/J5Fuc9cPok
— Newsmax (@newsmax) November 17, 2021
The prosecution further claimed that the defense must have had the high definition copy, because a prior defense attorney John Pierce had gone on Tucker Carlson’s show and, the prosecution argued, Fox played the higher definition video.
“If Tucker Carlson knows it, you can have it subpoenaed, no?”
Here’s an interesting fact: Fox News claims that Kyle Rittenhouse drone footage, in which he was shooting Joseph Rosenbaum (the clip that could trigger a mistrial), is Fox News. pic.twitter.com/yK9vKWTFwR
— Ellie Hall (@ellievhall) November 17, 2021
A defense motion was made for a mistrial with no prejudice. They had previously moved for one with prejudice – meaning the prosecution couldn’t bring the case back. But now they were saying that if the court was disinclined to rule in favor of the with prejudice motion — and we don’t know that yet — if he would grant it without prejudice.
Now, that’s one element as to the motion. There are still other arguments within the motion, so even if the judge didn’t find in favor of the defense on this particular argument, they could on the other arguments. We have already said that if the jury convicts, all this becomes moot.
We’ll keep you apprised as things continue to break.
About Post Author
