Friday, November 19, 2021

Rittenhouse

I am so amazed that the Kyle Rittenhouse jury is still out.

So many paths this can take.

A holdout juror that can't be convinced (or won't admit) he's innocent (for political reasons?).

I can't believe the majority of that jury thinks he's guilty.

Is it fear of the mob outside?

We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

  •      Why then could he be retried if the jury is hung?
  •      I can see it taking 12 to convict, why 12 to "find innocent" 
  •      when the assumption is that he is?
  •      Would another prosecutor touch this?

Will the judge finally declare a mistrial?
Will he be found guilty so that he can get a retrial in a different venue? 
Would the mob outside alone be grounds for a retrial?

If there is a retrial, the video of the prosecution should clear him as easy as the video of the shootings.



16 comments:

  1. Lot's of questions there Ed...

    "A holdout juror that can't be convinced (or won't admit) he's innocent (for political reasons?)."

    It could be the other way around. Perhaps a holdout juror can't be convinced [or won't admit] he's guilty.

    "Why then could he be retried if the jury is hung?
    I can see it taking 12 to convict, why 12 to "find innocent when the assumption is that he is?"


    Regarding a hung jury, because that's the law. To your second point, yes, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. But the jury is charged not with deciding his innocence, rather whether the state proved that he is guilty. That's why if they are unable to do so, you never hear a judge, or jury declare a defendant innocent. He/she is always found to be guilty, or not guilty.

    OJ Simpson is a good example. Not many people I know think he's innocent, but the jury found that the state failed to prove their case, so he was found not guilty. ​

    "Will he be found guilty so that he can get a retrial in a different venue?"

    A convicted criminal can't ask for a retrial in a different venue. He can appeal that decision, based on clear legal malfeasance of judicial error. But he can't get a retrial. Absent a pardon or the state vacating the verdict, as happened yesterday in NY for the killing of Malcolm X, the guilty verdict would stay on his record. The state then decides whether it wants to retry the case, most likely in the same court, but perhaps with a different judge.

    However, these are state charges. I'm guessing there are some federal charges that are still possible should he be found not guilty.

    "If there is a retrial, the video of the prosecution should clear him as easy as the video of the shootings."

    I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'm guessing any video of the first trial would not be allowed in a second trial.

    At the end of the day, I'm guessing we're gonna see a hung jury. And potentially a retrial. The state in this case was about as adept in court as the Marcia Clark crowd in the OJ trial.

    I think most people see the case this way... a minor, took a gun he probably should not have had, went on a road trip, crossed state lines, entered a riot zone, got carried away and shot someone. The defense has essentially admitted all this in their arguments.

    While few I talk to want him sitting for 20 years in jail, few want him getting off scot-free either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should have said appeal, not retrial.
      Moot point now, eh?

      Delete
    2. Yep... moot point. I wouldn't rule out the Fed option though. It's a possibility, even though it'd be dicey.

      I think we may see a wrongful death civil suit brought against him like the Goldstein family did with OJ.

      Delete
  2. There probably won't be a verdict. Juries are cowards now. They'll let it go into Mistrial With Prejudice so the Judge has to handle it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good job. I felt there was a holdout too - and only a holdout who wanted some guilty verdict. It's not possible that 11 people who sat through that all thought he was guilty with one innocent holdout.

    How many times have I read in the media about his "AR-15"? ONE report correctly said AR-15 style. Smith & Wesson must be groaning.

    I don't know what was worse: the prosecution denying the defense the same clear copy of the video (LOVED the judge asking them "why didn't you subpoena it from Tucker Carlson?") OR holding on to a charge the prosecution knew was indefensible. Just in case. We call that "piling on" and my husband has been on juries that recognized piling on and dismissed it quickly.

    As I've posted elsewhere, I glad this young man wasn't Nifonged. Hope he moves on with his life with greater discernment and a wad of cash from this persecution. Er "prosecution."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've given some thought to your AR-15 comment.
      My Smith and Wesson M&P Sport is always referred to by AR-15.
      Just as, no matter the brand, a 1911 is always a 1911.

      I can't wait for a jury member to talk about what went on in there.

      Delete
    2. Uh-oh, name missing. Baysider, not "unknown"

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure which statement got a "Why is that?"
      AR-15, or just AR, like 1911, is similar to all facial tissue being "Kleenex".
      Why would I like to hear from a juror(s)? I'm fascinated with the deliberation process having been involved in a Fed case that was bizarre. 12 Angry Men stuff.
      I'm curious as to what the holdup was, the turning point.

      Delete
  4. Yesterday's verdict was a good day for America! The real America as established by our Founders.

    I'm actually basking in the afterglow of this righteous verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A win for justice over the MSM and the left!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm with AOW. Still. What. A. Great. Result.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for taking the time to share these excellent pieces with us. We really liked the beautiful colors used in each one. Have a great rest of your day and keep up the posts.

    Regards,
    Online Dissertation Proposal

    ReplyDelete