Kyle's trial went well today
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Honestly, trials are a sham. It’s all a dog and pony show. It all comes down to 12 randos who already had their mind made up long before the trial began. No amount of evidence will persuade them. Just one Biden supporter means at least a hung jury.
I generally agree, but I doubt that the prosecution re-tries any charges on which the jury does not come to a unanimous verdict. That said, the prosecution's case is so bad, and the judge is so favorable, that the defense may not even have to make their case to get Kyle acquitted of at least the most serious charges, and there's a case to be made for severance/dismissal of the two misdemeanor charges, so it could come down to the jury not getting a say in anything but the reckless endangerment charges.
Oh god, did it really? I've been listening to Rakieta's 10 hour livestreams of the first 3 days and then some (I'm at https://youtube.com/watch?v=Fxzpp6D_VxQ rn) and it was bewildering how fucking incompetent the defense been with their such an absolutely clear case. The judge is pretty based though.
Last two days have been fantastic for the defense. First full day of testimony was terrible from the perspective of the defense allowing the prosecution to ignore legal procedure, but even Nick admits that there are competent lawyers that disagree with his assessment (as to how bad it was for the defense, not that the prosecution ignored procedure) and gives Andrew Branca as an example.
I had considered posting summaries, but honestly I think shilling Nick and Branca's summaries/coverage is probably going to be more beneficial (as they're actually lawyers and have some experience with criminal trials, whereas I'm just a layman who's basically just watched this case and the Chauvin case. Still, I'd love to have some discussions here with other laymen (or people in the legal profession) to get some perspectives I'm not getting during the Rekieta streams (or while browsing the /pol/ threads for the reactions/memes.)
Just checked, first paragraphs at https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-trial-day-4-two-state-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/
Oh Jesus Christ, no.
I hadn't yet had an opportunity to read through this portion of Branca's summaries yet. From the bits I did glance through I think he's a lot more negative on how the defense did today than Nick, but still believes the day was a win for the defense.
Can you quote any specific bits you were commenting on, as I'm not sure I'd categorize any of that to be paragraphs (there's technically a few, but most of the page is single sentences)? I think he's confused the facts a bit on the one thing he describes as a fumble by the defense, but he may be concerned about future narrative by the prosecution, not any actual facts and testimony before the jury.
Alos I don't think the jurors even can see the points made by the defense. They're not ckearly signaled, not explained (instead he explained what a cell phone is), not repeated, etc.
Compare to "the government" repeating all the time how there was "no gun, bo knife, no bat, no weapon of any kind but a plastic bag" on the evil midget while showing him dying again and again too. And other such easy tricks for the lay persons "of average intelligence".
His description of the "fumble" by the defense is quite long, and revolves around the prosecution presenting irrelevant evidence/argument to Kyles (legitimate) case of self defense, either now or in the future. At the end of this he comments with the following:
I think they intend to do this for all the major charges when the prosecution rests. Kyle has a legitimate self defense claim in all three cases, and should the prosecution attempt to present irrelevant (and speculative, in Huber and Rosenbaum's cases) evidence or argument that the decedents were acting in good faith to stop an active shooter, that the defense can (and will) show contrary character evidence, as well as video evidence proving Kyle's legitimate self defense claims.
If they do this, the prosecution's narrative to the jury may not matter, as the judge can simply dismiss the charges then, or overrule the jury with a judgement notwithstanding of verdict. Ultimately I don't think that the narrative of the prosecution is strong enough to outweigh the facts of the case, but I don't think the facts of the case are going to convince anyone who went into the trial convinced that Kyle was guilty to find him not guilty. So I'm not worried (currently) about the prosecution's narrative, but simply the fact that Jury selection was handled less than ideally and it's possible that there are members of the jury capable of convincing the jury to convict Kyle on the some of the charges irrespective of the evidence. All he really needs is one juror unwilling to convict and he walks (unless the state decides to retry the case.)
question from a casual observer: why is anyone still trusting Rekieta after how he handled the Vic Mignogna case?
It's entertaining during parts of the trial that would otherwise be dull (there were multiple witnesses today that were dull or difficult to watch without commentary IMO.) I didn't watch any of his commentary on the Vic case (I wasn't interested enough to watch a three+ hour late-night stream live or otherwise), and aside from him disagreeing with what the judge ruled on that case (which is still waiting on appeal, IIRC) I don't recall any bad/biased takes being discussed in any of the KIA forums. What do you mean exactly by "how he handed" it?