At around 2:23 to 2:26 the judge seems quite pissed and gets real short with the prosecutor.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter The Commish
- Start date
- Status
At around 2:23 to 2:26 the judge seems quite pissed and gets real short with the prosecutor.
Zow
Footballguy
Jon, I'm genuinely not following here. What exactly did the defense motion in limine to preclude the rioters from doing? As I interpret your quoted post here, it sounds like the defense doesn't want the prosecution to refer to the victims as looters/arsonists/rioters - but I can't see why the state would want to do that anyway. Did you maybe transpose defense and prosecution?
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Watched the last 15 minutes or so as suggested by Jon. I find the judge's rule re use of formal names to be interesting. I've litigated that a few times myself and the judges vary on it in my jurisdiction. I like that this judge has a standard rule (though it does surprise me that he permits the defense attorney alone to call a defendant by his first name). Nonetheless it's consistent and an easy rule to follow.
The ruling which impacted the case significantly is the defense is going to be able to bring up all kinds of character things on the victims. The limitation was that the character traits in question have to be essential to the elements of the case. Being able to detail all the things that Rosenbaum did that day will allow the defense to show just how vicious and evil he was. Being able to show that it was some violent thug who was chasing you, makes it impossible for rational people to conclude that Rittenhouse was not in serious danger. All other rulings were minor in comparison. I was not expecting the judge to go that far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Got a time stamp for that ruling? I only watched the last few minutes where you said the judge got frustrated with the state.
Start at around 1:55 mark. It starts as a discussion on if the defense can call the victims as arsonists and looters. The judge said, if they can show it, then yes. The prosecution made some good arguments, but the judge disagreed and opened the door for the defense to show the victims were bad characters as long as it was key to impacting elements of the crime, which included a discussion on provocation. This discussion went on for a good 20 minutes, basically up to the point you watched already.
timschochet
Footballguy
From a layman’s POV, I don’t see how this really helps the defense. Who cares how “evil and vicious” Rosenbaum was? If Rittenhouse wasn’t personally aware of it, what difference would it make? My only concern as a juror would be: did Rittenhouse reasonably believe his life was threatened? And I gotta be honest: the fact that Rittenhouse was carrying an assault rifle makes that a pretty high bar, at least for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
In any confrontation between an armed man and an unarmed man, it’s reasonable to believe that the unarmed man will fear for his life. It’s far less likely that the armed man will fear for his life: not impossible, but you’re going to need a whole lot of evidence to keep me from being skeptical.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
If the unarmed man was fearful for his life, why would he go attack an armed man? That doesn't make sense, IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
Exactly. This whole thing doesn’t make sense. That’s why I’m having trouble buying Rittenhouse. But hey I’m no lawyer and I’m not on the jury. So we’ll see.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
yeah, me either. I feel like Rittenhouse will walk but will get nailed with a felony weapons charge for not being of legal age. That will prevent him from owning a weapon ever again.
However, I could see this case going either way. I think if this was in NY, IL or California it would be a slam dunk. But us people here in normal land tend to see things for what they are, not what we wish them to be.
That's just my opinion, though, and it's not worth much.
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah, me either. I feel like Rittenhouse will walk but will get nailed with a felony weapons charge for not being of legal age. That will prevent him from owning a weapon ever again.
However, I could see this case going either way. I think if this was in NY, IL or California it would be a slam dunk. But us people here in normal land tend to see things for what they are, not what we wish them to be.
That's just my opinion, though, and it's not worth much.
The weapons charge is a misdemeanor. He will get his gun back.
His friend who bought his weapon could be facing a felony charge.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Oh, it is? I thought for sure it was a felony.
Yeah, that straw buyer is in real trouble for sure.
Let's say your wife has a gun and some unarmed guy attacks her with the intent to rape her. She can't shoot? Rosenbaum was a strong SOB, more than capable of killing Rittenhouse and even was heard saying he planned to if he ever saw him alone.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
If the jury hears/sees that Rosenbaum was a psycho who was accosting and threatening to kill people, I think it will undoubtedly color how they perceive Rosenbaum and whether it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to fear great bodily harm. If the ruling is as Jon has explained, it’s a big win for the defense. Personally, I think that evidence should only come in to the extent that it was witnessed by Rittenhouse, but I guess the judge felt otherwise.
Zow
Footballguy
For sure.
I watched the video again where Jon references this. I think the prosecutor had a good argument, but overshadowed by making some pretty silly arguments (e.g. aggressor doesn't matter since Rosenbaum didn't have a gun, arson isn't that big of a deal, etc.). I think the state should win on prior bad act character evidence if Rittenhouse didn't know about it, but the state just seemed to piss off the judge. I'm still somewhat unclear on what the court actually ruled, but it sounds like they'll have some leeway to get in some evidence about some of the prior bad acts of those in the area that night and I would agree that's a "win" for the defense (I still think they need to prove that Rittenhouse saw those acts firsthand and saw the victim(s) engaged in them or its an easy counterargument for the state).
Zow
Footballguy
If making sense was a baseline for actions I and others like me would be out of a job.
Juries are easily influenced (glove don't fit, you must acquit). The defense will be able to submit evidence that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and others. Then the jury will have to decide if Rittenhouse's fear was reasonable. Most jurors are just going to think, well he said he was going to kill him, so yes. It is not even going to cross their mind if Rittenhouse had actual knowledge.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I don't think any of these conclusions are obvious. I think this is a big part of the political divide here.
-fish-
Footballguy
I listened to the entire argument tonight...it begins about 1:51. the judge didn't seem to actually make a ruling (it's motion in limine #3), but sure seemed to be leaning that direction. it's possible he circled back at the end and cleaned it up--I didn't listen to the last motion,. sounds like he got reversed by the state supreme court on a similar evidentiary ruling 20 years ago and he's still pissed. he cited to the dissent and a federal advisory committee instead.
The judge has some weird proclivities, like not allowing victims to be called victims--even though he admitted the citations he was relying on did just that. that one cuts both ways, as he said that the prosecution was free to call him a "cold-blooded murderer" in closing argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah I also wasn’t sure if his ruling.
And it’s established law in my jurisdiction that “victim” is a permissible legal title (I usually just counter it by explaining the law in my opening and reiterating the point in my closing).
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Good, unbiased take here.
This sounds more like you're trying to read into things the way you wish they were instead of how they actually are. You're trying to divine intent and motive to the judge based on your own personal bias. This is exactly what the mainstream media does.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
I don't know much about specific gun laws, but this seems like a place where we should make some changes.
Shouldn't just be the friend who bought it that faces a felony.
-fish-
Footballguy
Yeah, the friend has been charged with 2 felonies. Seems like both sides of that transaction should be facing the same level of consequence.
In this case the unarmed man was a psychopath who was just released from a mental hospital after being in jail for beating his girlfriend. Perhaps he did not even take his medication because he was hellbent all night on starting stuff on fire, verbally threatening people, and causing mayhem all around. I am not calling him a psychopath as some hyperbole, the dude was a psychopath and trying to explain his behavior by rational norms doesn't work. The judges ruling allows the defense to show what a monster he was.
However, the prosecution will be in a difficult position, in order to build Rittenhouse up into the animal that he has been characterized in the internet and even by some media, they will have to prove it. The two incidents that are widely used to portray Rittenhouse into a maniac have already been excluded as irrelevant. Any attempt to call Rittenhouse an active shooter, as many people did, will not be allowed since there is no evidence of that.
Rittenhouse already had a very strong case and will be able to present it. What little pathetic case the prosecution had has all been eliminated. All they have left is some unseen surveillance video showing Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum away from the dumpster fire, which makes perfect rationale sense when you know what a thug Rosenbaum was.
I really tire of people complaining about the law. This case does not show our laws are bad, but how good they are. Rittenhouse would not be alive had he not defended himself against Rosenbaum and the ensuing lynch mob. The argument they were only trying to disarm him is pathetic and utter BS. Grosskreutz talked to Kyle, he knew he was not some loose active shooter, but a scared boy who was going to the police to turn himself in. And yet he still pulled out his gun to shoot Kyle when Kyle showed incredible restraint not to shoot him.
The only flaw in our justice system is this case is allowed to go forward. In Florida it would be thrown out in pretrial with a good defense team. It is an abuse of justice to go forward with this waste of time case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes they should both go free. Kyle showed he could possess and handle a gun with great restraint and discipline. In fact, better than trained police who have been involved in these shootings. The only crime here is Kyle was 17 instead of 18, which is just an arbitrary number. It was not like a strawman purchase for a convicted felon. This law needs adjusting.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s really hard to take you seriously when you throw around words like “monster” and “psychopath” and then claim that it’s not hyperbole.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm also not convinced that the court ruled how Jon thinks it did.
To be clear, I'm not convinced Jon is wrong, either, but watching the portion of the hearing left me unclear as to the ruling. I imagine the court will either more clearly define its ruling in a subsequent minute entry or it's possible that the court may defer a specific ruling until trial when the defense tries to actually submit such evidence.
What you all saw here is a normal pre-trial proceeding regarding "motions in limine." Motions in limine are objections to anticipated evidence, and hearings such as these occur in most serious felony criminal jury cases in advance of trial (sometimes even the morning of). If not obvious why they occur, the goal is for the court to decide ahead of time whether certain evidence can or cannot come in so that objections can be preserved for appeal without the prevailing side needing to object during the actual presentation of evidence. This serves to both help the attorneys prepare for trial and reduce the chances of a mistrial should evidence come out at trial that is objectionable but the court finds that a curative instruction will not suffice to get the jury to "unhear" the evidence that should not have been admitted (and, this may occur because an objecting attorney is really supposed to wait at trial for the evidence to be presented before objecting).
This case provides a good example of that because should, for example, the defense call a witness who can lay the proper foundation that one of the victims was a prior felon for sexual assault, the state may be helpless to object until after the jury hears such evidence (there is some serious trial strategy to deciding when to object as an objection almost certainly draws attention to the significance of the testimony whereas the jury may not otherwise think the fact is important). Should that occur, and should the court agree with the state's objection, it's really difficult to practically get the jury to disregard such evidence. So, ideally, both sides will know what is and what is not coming in before trial (and if they think the judge got it wrong they can always appeal later).
Last edited by a moderator:
The judge did not actually make a final ruling on the motions. He informed the council what his ground rules were. This judge does not like to make pre-emptive decisions which he may overturn later based on the scope of all the evidence. But the judge made his opinions on what he considered relevant and what he would allow and what I said accurately reflected what his opinion was. The prosecution is definitely licking their wounds from this bloodbath which occurred yesterday.
Last edited by a moderator:
You obviously are not familiar with the evidence in this case and the actions of Rosenbaum. It was no hyperbole. The guy has been convicted multiple time of raping young girls, just got out of jail for severely beating his girl friend, had just spent a month in a mental institution and was released that morning, spend the night trying to set buildings on fire, was yelling racial slurs and death threats at multiple people, lit a dumpster on fire and was pushing it towards a gas station where dozens of people were hanging out, and finally when he saw Rittenhouse walking alone started to chase him in what probably was an effort to make good on his promise to kill him. You are on f-ing crack if you really think calling Rosenbaum a psychopath is some hyperbole.
The Commish
Footballguy
for the insight sans personal color/opinions. Have always wondered about the things heard that are objected to and sustained and how one makes the jury forget it. Once it's out there, it's out there. There's a whole process for trying to limit that kind of stuff that I didn't know existed and sounds like that's what's going on right now.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm unsure how you can definitively state the proclivities of this judge and, given he may no actual rulings (a point which you now seem to concede), how the hearing could be accurately described as a "bloodbath."
If anything, I think the judge is erring here by not issuing specific rulings on the motions in limine (though such vagueness probably helps the defense more than the state). Nonetheless, while I'm unaware if Wisconsin has a similar proceeding, the lack of clarity in the judge's ruling and possibly error could, in my jurisdiction, warrant what is called a "special action" to try to get an appellate court to quickly decide the issue before a trial.
Considering that he emphasized he considered character aspects an essential part of the crime and that he pointed out cases where defendants knowledge of those character flaws was not required, he made it very clear that Rosenbaum's character and activities that night is all fair game for this trial. The prosecution was dumbfounded that the judge would not allow the Rittenhouse stuff which happened weeks/months before, but is seemingly allowing showing the victims were looters, arsonists and rioters. Is it possible for the judge to change his mind. Sure. But you saw how irritated the judge got with the Prosecution for making some of those arguments. I am sure a judge of this experience and being so highly respected is quite aware of what could trigger an appellate court to act.
dozer
Footballguy
Law School for Dummies:
motion in limine
(limb-in-nay) n. from Latin for "threshold," a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations, such as statements made without the Miranda warnings.
motion in limine
(limb-in-nay) n. from Latin for "threshold," a motion made at the start of a trial requesting that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced in trial. This is most common in criminal trials where evidence is subject to constitutional limitations, such as statements made without the Miranda warnings.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm not so sure about the bold. Again, not saying you're wrong, but I didn't interpret his comments as giving the defense carte blanche to get into any and all things Rosenbaum at trial (and, frankly, I think such a ruling would be errant). Instead, I interpreted his comments as stating that the defense could get into some of the general facts demonstrating what was going on in that area of Kenosha that evening.
Zow
Footballguy
This isn't wrong, but in practice motions in limine (at least how I use them) are used to try to preclude non-dispositive evidence that may or may not be relevant. For example, in one of my more recent jury trials, the state intended to use evidence found on my client's phone to show that he intended to sell the drugs he allegedly possessed. I cannot in good faith argue that such evidence would be irrelevant, because the charges alleged were solely regarding drug possession and the allegations that the drugs were possessed with the intent to sell. However, also found on the cell phone were photos of my client's juggalo items/weapons and mosh pit stuff, some lawful but distasteful porn, and evidence that he may have not been entirely faithful to a significant other. To prevent the jury from inadvertently seeing this irrelevant evidence, I filed a motion in limine to preclude this evidence and request the state sanitize the exhibits it intended to admit regarding the cell phone records.
Basically, MILs are utilized by attorneys to make "CYA" type objections well in advance of trial so that, for example, one doesn't have to argue in front of the jury or at a bench conference wtf a juggalo is and why it shouldn't be precluded. Oftentimes judges don't require an evidentiary hearing on these types of motions and will take them up shortly before trial.
In contrast, for a constitutional violation re: a potentially dispositive piece of evidence (e.g. an unlawfully obtained confession), a motion to suppress will be filed well in advance of trial per deadline and the court will hold an evidentiary hearing (where witnesses would testify and be subject to cross-examination) to decide the issue.
Not carte blanche but stuff that has some bearing on the elements of the crime. Something like testimony where someone heard Rosenbaum threatening to kill people if they saw them alone or pushing a flaming dumpster near a gas station with complete disregard for human life would be right down the middle in determing if it was reasonable to be in fear for one's life. And he made it clear that defendant's knowledge was not required. Things like being a convicted child rapist will not make the cut. But violent activities, especially that occurred that evening will, at least according to his examples and his explanation.
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom
Footballguy
By the way, if during a riot someone with an AK said, yeah, I just shot someone dead, but don’t worry, I’m going to go turn myself in to the police, I’m not sure I would believe them in the moment.
-fish-
Footballguy
Well, particularly after he kills someone else right after that. Not horribly reliable.
zoonation
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Watching the hearing yesterday, both attorneys seem extremely competent. Both made mistakes, as well. The most important thing at issue was the scope of testimony of the use of force experts. At the end of the day, it appears that the defense expert will be on a very short leash and limited to testifying about the timeline and the limits of perception relating to significant events in a compressed time frame. If the defense expert sticks to those issues, the prosecution won't call it's own use of force expert.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Now selecting an emoji is spam?
Maybe you should report me for giving your post an emoji? Who knows, it might work with all the gaslighting you guys do around here.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
so what was funny about it again? it's okay to admit you have no idea. we all just assume that anyway.Now selecting an emoji is spam?
Maybe you should report me for giving your post an emoji? Who knows, it might work with all the gaslighting you guys do around here.
I've watched the video of the evening of the killings by Rittnehouse and I am perplexed that anyone can blame the mob for chasing after Rittenhouse after they saw him kill someone right in front of them. That Rittenhouse admitted to killing someone and then turned to leave in no way diminishes that he did kill someone during a chaotic and violent scene with witnesses watching him as he killed someone with his gun.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
