Judge Schroeder just dropped the sixth count. It collapsed on the basis previously discussed in the column. jonathanturley.org/2021/11/14/was…
...That is another blow to the prosecution. While only a misdemeanor, it shows the jury that what was promised as proof of the violation did not materialize at trial. There is a serious credibility crisis for the prosecution and this only magnifies any such doubts.
...The loss of the sixth count also removes a default option for the prosecution if the more serious counts collapse. This leaves (even with lesser counts considered) a high cliff for conviction.
...A compromise verdict (which is what the prosecution clearly wants) is still possible in embracing a lesser offense but those still remain very serious counts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With the end of closing arguments, the jury now has the case. I remain confused how the sixth count was ever adopted. Even without the grand jury/indictment process, the prosecutor still had to establish the crime in the preliminary examination (PE)...
...I still fail to see how Binger could represent that a crime was committed under the state governing the sixth count. I also fail to understand how a court could have found probable cause to believe a crime was committed on possession...
...Now the jury will consider five counts that are ridiculed with prosecutorial contradictions. I cannot imagine that the prosecution hold much credibility with the jury at this point.
The best part of the defense was the video summation. Richards has the type of rough hewn style that can be appealing to a case with highly localized elements. He scored in calling Binger to account for his alleged misrepresentation of evidence...
...He also laid out an easy course for the jury to follow in its deliberation -- a road map that was missing with Binger. However, the greatest impact was likely the final video as he showed Rittenhouse refraining from using force and then responding to attacks...
Binger also set up Richards attack with the social media posting after he built up Grosskreutz as a heroic figure trying to stop an "active shooter."...
Binger's closing argument had some strong points but he, again, took considerable risks with this jury by mocking the damage caused by Rosenbaum and others. ..
...He also referred to Rosenbaum as harmless and "all bark and no bite." That is glaringly disconnected with this conviction as a child molester and the scenes of him rioting...
...The narrative about the protesters were disconnected from the images that the jury was seeing. I am not sure why Binger felt that need to go as far as he did in his descriptive elements...
...They are turning to the provocation instruction. The prosecution is arguing that Rittenhouse was not provoking by being at the scene with a gun but that the provocation was raising his weapon. That is an interesting distinction...
...Many in the media have argued that the provocation was appearing at the protests with a gun but the prosecutors just confirmed that they are not arguing that.
...The prosecution is making a strong case that it should be able to argue provocation with an instruction. They are right to note that they have evidence that can be argued as provocation and should be able to argue that interpretation of the evidence.
The judge in the Rittenhouse case is weighing a critical question of the misdemeanor charge on possessing a dangerous weapon. He is suggesting that the law is vague and may have to be construed strictly...
...He is saying that he has been "wrestling" with the language and cannot say with certainty what is prohibited. He is noting that an "ordinary citizen" would have trouble understanding who is prohibited from possession under the Wisconsin law.
...At this point, the misdemeanor may be the only count that is still alive in the trial after a disastrous trial. usatoday.com/story/opinion/…
...Binger just objected to the court that he was the "target of your ire" yesterday for ignoring a court order. Now he is maintaining the defense is violating the order on scope. It is a different in magnitude. Binger yesterday violated a core constitutional protection.
...This is a debate over just 4 minutes of tape, which the court noted has been the focused already of extensive testimony. The court just delivered the tough question in asking what is the prejudice to the state in allowing the jury to hear the evidence...
...The court appears willing to let it in so the jury will hear evidence under the impression that the prosecution fought to keep from them.