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:

The defense should return to court in the morning and argue to Judge Schroeder that no reasonable jury could conclude that Rittenhouse’s compelled (and almost certainly lawful) shooting of Rosenbaum can be found to have been an intended or reasonably foreseeable provocation of Anthony Huber or anybody else, and further that Huber’s motive for launching his attack upon Kyle is irrelevant to the legal merits of Kyle’s self-defense, and therefore the state’s whole theory of the case that Kyle has no privilege of self-defense against Huber because Huber was (purportedly, speculatively, without evidence) acting in good faith and with good and heroic motives is an argument unmoored from both centuries-old use-of-force legal principles as well as any reasonable view of the actual evidence, and should therefore be excluded from this trial.

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.)

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:

The defense should return to court in the morning and argue to Judge Schroeder that no reasonable jury could conclude that Rittenhouse’s compelled (and almost certainly lawful) shooting of Rosenbaum can be found to have been an intended or reasonably foreseeable provocation of Anthony Huber or anybody else, and further that Huber’s motive for launching his attack upon Kyle is irrelevant to the legal merits of Kyle’s self-defense, and therefore the state’s whole theory of the case that Kyle has no privilege of self-defense against Huber because Huber was (purportedly, speculatively, without evidence) acting in good faith and with good and heroic motives is an argument unmoored from both centuries-old use-of-force legal principles as well as any reasonable view of the actual evidence, and should therefore be excluded from this trial.

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.