or they've told the attorney that they did it.. lol.

He got Kyle to agree he can't use force to protect property, then wanted to impeach him by bringing in that video of Kyle from two weeks ago saying he wished he had his gun to stop shoplifters. But the judge had already ruled that the video wasn't coming in so he gave little binger a fierce talking to.

IF you are talking about byecep he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, that's why he got shot. There is a world of difference between having a gun and pointing it at someone.

You won't get disciplined for this kind of thing unless there is a pattern of behavior across many cases.

Commenting on the defendant's silence the way the prosecutor did is a hard ground for mistrial, and the judge could declare a mistrial after the trial is over if there is a conviction.


Regarding both sides having grounds for appeal, the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, ever.

Of course. But that's a problem whether they testify or not.

Mistrial might not be a bad outcome for the prosecution at this point.

Thanks. I haven't been following in real time.

If I'm Rittenhouse's lawyer, I don't like this performance. He starts off testifying like some sort of junior cop (which his appearance reinforces), and then within seconds, he is crying in a very bizarre way that might well seem fake to some jurors.

This is a point I am confident the judge would lose on in an Appeal.

I am not saying it might merit an appeal but am saying the judges logic was wrong hear and his only issue should have been with the procedural point that the Prosecutor should have come to him to seek leave to follow that line once Rittenhouse opened the door.

Rittenhouse did absolutely open the door to the prosecutor questioning him on the video statement of him saying he wished he had a gun to stop shoplifters, protect property and then him later saying to the Prosecutor he did not believe anyone should carry a gun or kill someone to protect property as a way to establish his belief system was one that only saw it as justifiable for self defense.

Those two positions he expressed are absolutely in conflict and thus a lawyer has every right to try and determine his actual view. If he, in fact believes killing people for property defense is allowable, that is relevant to the juries considerations in this case.

The judge was very wrong IMO in how he addressed that.

this gets in to tricky ground.

Many on the right believe the best remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

This EMT guy, if believed was a good guy with a gun who thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter out randomly shooting and killing people. Certainly that could be a valid thing to believe with limited information and if he was attempting a citizens arrest on that belief it could be merited.

Except that Rittenhouse was running towards the police (who were 100 ft away), so there would be no need to effect a citizens arrest, you could simply follow him to police and report him. Rittenhouse expressly told byecep that he was going to the police. That is in video footage. Anyway, Rittenhouse has no obligation to surrender to the mob, in which one is shouting "cranium that boy" (which means kill him). Especially as it turns out the mob did want to kill him, because Huber used potentially lethal force in hitting him over the head with a skateboard. He certainly has every right to react to the deadly threat of byecep pointing a gun at him. He doesn't have to wait until byecep shoots him in the head before he can act (a not particularly effective strategy, as byecep found out shortly there after).

Plus it's not at all reasonable to say that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. An active shooter is, you know, actively shooting. Not jogging casually towards the police.

WHAT???

If a Prosecutor thinks a judge made clear errors in law or jury instruction or other a not guilty verdict cannot be appealed?

It's called double jeopardy. Unless you want to let the feds take a bite at the apple and go after you for "civil rights violations". Then its fine.

That is not accurate.

Rittenhouse was actively shooting people when the Good guy with a Gun approached and if he knew nothing other than this guy is 'currently shooting people' his approach is certainly understandable if his plan is to intervene to stop an active shooter.

I see you haven't been following the trial or understand case law at all.

We need a lawyer to clear this up as my understanding is that double jeopardy only applies once a verdict is allowed to stand meaning it survives all appeals.

For instance if it is exposed there was some egregious abuse in the trial that requires a new trial that can be ordered and the prior trial vacated. So it is not that he was found 'innocent' and then a second trial found it guilty as the first verdict did not stand.

That might be a justification if Gaige had shot Rittenhouse. Gaige isn't on trial. Kyle is on trial. And at the time he shot Gaige, Gaige was literally pointing his gun directly at him. Kyle had reasonable fear for his life, of course if someone points a gun at you, you have a reasonable fear they are going to shoot you. And as it turns out, Kyle wasn't an active shooter, the only people he shot were trying to kill him.

The only possible exception IMO would be if the judge or juror was bribed, and hence jeopardy had never really attached in the first place. The whole point of the jury system is protection against abuses of the state, so there is no way to over turn a jury's acquittal.

So are you admitting your prior statement is completely wrong and Gaige was not approaching Rittenhouse as he was approaching the police and Gaige was instead approaching Rittenhouse as he was shooting other people?

I am not trying to argue Gaige, if charged could successfully argue self defense. I simply pointed out your framing was wrong, and that Gaige could well have thought of Rittenhouse as an active shooter and he could have been moving in to engage and try to stop an active shooter.

haven't kept up today. I didn't know defense was gonna put him on the stand.. Interesting

Where I practice law, if a judge finds that a prosecutor purposely caused or goaded the defense into asking for a mistrial, then double jeopardy applies and the case is over. The judge here has been talking about not believing the prosecutor in his assertion that he brought in these forbidden topics in good faith for that purpose. If there is a mistrial here, I don't think he would be retried.

This makes too much sense for this forum.

I am 99.9% positive you are wrong but no point us opinion until one of the lawyers clarifies.

IF a Judge, for instance makes a clear mistake in law and disallows testimony or allows a witness or something that should not have happened and a Defendant gets a not guilty verdict I am sure that is grounds for the Prosecution to appeal and if the Court agrees they can order a new trial.


If an Appellate Court says 'there was absolutely no basis for the trial judge to disallow that witness (or testimony)' and they feel it impacted the verdict they can order a retrial.

I am an attorney that practiced criminal law for almost eight years before getting into other areas of law. If there is a not guilty verdict, the prosecution cannot appeal or retry the defendant on those same charges. This is regardless of whether there were errors that caused prejudice to the plaintiff's case. It may feel unfair to the government; it was designed to be that way.