Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

[Livecorpse]

IAmPoliticsGirl-1472395209723965441-20211218_203548-vid1.mp4
Fuck these people.

Holy shit those crazy eyes. Just a reminder:

 

[Milkshake Sniffer]

He was brought on to manage public perception of the trail. Spoke very highly of Richards et al, put together a free team of lawyers he wanted Richards to make use of, got removed from the team just before the trail for, based on Barnes own statements, clearly trying to take control of the trail away from Richards et al and then proceeded to publicly shit on them throughout the trail.

This instilled the idea in anyone watching Rackets et al that Kyle had no chance and was going to lose, they had no plan and they had not done things that it later turned out that they had.

Barnes has been the big mad ever since.

Barnes has a monumental ego and often doesn't sufficiently distinguish between what he thinks the law is and what it should be but.....

His big issue was the jury selection assistance on offer not being utilised. His ejection from the team seemed to be a result of that but ultimately we'll never know - might just have been a coincidence in timing. Jury selection, especially in high profile prosecutions, is a real Barnes obsession but is he actually wrong? Leaving aside anecdotal or private research material, the BLM advocating Chauvin juror and the Scott Peterson juror who lied about her history as a claimed victim of domestic violence provide demonstrable proof that jury selection can be determinative. The very fact that we have jury selection rather than a purely random juror lottery is evidence that it matters.

Now we know that the defence did have a jury selection adviser (and I believe ran mock jurys) but we also definitively know that when it got to the crunch, the defence did not have confidence that the jury was not going to convict Kyle. Chirafisi seeking a mistrial without prejudice (and the prosecution opposing it) completely undermines the whole there was never any doubt narrative. It also establishes that the prosecution shared that view.

Barnes and others had other criticisms of how the defence performed such as not objecting enough (the enhanced video being the prime example), Kyle giving evidence, the underuse of defence expert evidence, Richards' general delivery (standard of oratory) and, not publicly going after prosecution lies/misconduct pre trial. Other views may legitimately be held but none of those criticisms are themselves unreasonable.

I can't claim to have heard the entirely of the trial coverage (though it often seemed that way) but don't recall Barnes saying Kyle had no chance. He certainly said that Kyle was at risk from a tainted jury. He said that repeatedly and vociferously and was clearly buthurt about his ejection.

Obviously acquittals across the board was the proper outcome. That outcome does not mean that the defence was the best it could have been or even that it was competent. The same applies to the defence's approach to jury selection.

TLDR: For all the ex post facto congratulations and adulation for the defence team now going on, never forget that when it mattered, the defence did not have confidence that the jury wouldn't convict and the prosecution believed the jury would convict.

 

[B2_Spirit]

I watched the trial live and can't say I know a lot about the courtroom, but I could tell Binger was way out of line and the defense objected to almost none of it. It didn't seem cut and dried to me like people feel now, that Kyle was gonna walk. The jury deliberated so long, the judge allowed Binger and Kraus to obfuscate. The whole thing felt surreal, things were happening that should not have been, hell you could say the whole trial should never have been... and by the end I could tell from the defense attorneys' body language they knew there was some real risk there at the verdict. Maybe part of the defense strategy was staying as passive/co-operative as possible to find favor with the jury while Binger dug himself into a hole being an obvious asshole, but it was coming off as if they weren't defending their client. I guess it all worked out in the end, not least because Kyle did take the stand and did well on it. I heard somewhere in Wisconsin or that particular area the defendant is expected to take the stand, which I didn't know, maybe I'm wrong on that but heard it several times now, supposedly it's common practice there.

I'm still wondering why some of those decisions were made by the defense. Maybe they knew something being in that room and able to see the jury we didn't. But Chirafisi at the end looked nervous as hell. All the video evidence was clearly on the side of Kyle and there was a lot of it, and yet it all comes down in the end to how the jury feels. I didn't see any jury selection footage but maybe the threat of violence had been overshadowing/contaminating all that from day one. That was my biggest concern while they were deliberating, that some BLM/antifa mouthbreather was going to start hunting them down/following them home, or just the weight of the case was going to make them cave.

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

Barnes has a monumental ego and often doesn't sufficiently distinguish between what he thinks the law is and what it should be but.....

His big issue was the jury selection assistance on offer not being utilised. His ejection from the team seemed to be a result of that but ultimately we'll never know - might just have been a coincidence in timing. Jury selection, especially in high profile prosecutions, is a real Barnes obsession but is he actually wrong? Leaving aside anecdotal or private research material, the BLM advocating Chauvin juror and the Scott Peterson juror who lied about her history as a claimed victim of domestic violence provide demonstrable proof that jury selection can be determinative. The very fact that we have jury selection rather than a purely random juror lottery is evidence that it matters.

Now we know that the defence did have a jury selection adviser (and I believe ran mock jurys) but we also definitively know that when it got to the crunch, the defence did not have confidence that the jury was not going to convict Kyle. Chirafisi seeking a mistrial without prejudice (and the prosecution opposing it) completely undermines the whole there was never any doubt narrative. It also establishes that the prosecution shared that view.

Barnes and others had other criticisms of how the defence performed such as not objecting enough (the enhanced video being the prime example), Kyle giving evidence, the underuse of defence expert evidence, Richards' general delivery (standard of oratory) and, not publicly going after prosecution lies/misconduct pre trial. Other views may legitimately be held but none of those criticisms are themselves unreasonable.

I can't claim to have heard the entirely of the trial coverage (though it often seemed that way) but don't recall Barnes saying Kyle had no chance. He certainly said that Kyle was at risk from a tainted jury. He said that repeatedly and vociferously and was clearly buthurt about his ejection.

Obviously acquittals across the board was the proper outcome. That outcome does not mean that the defence was the best it could have been or even that it was competent. The same applies to the defence's approach to jury selection.

TLDR: For all the ex post facto congratulations and adulation for the defence team now going on, never forget that when it mattered, the defence did not have confidence that the jury wouldn't convict and the prosecution believed the jury would convict.

I agree with a lot of this, but just a few things to consider. (I’m not a lawyer but I watched the whole trial and some of jury selection)

1) I think it was really important that local counsel dominated the case. Schroeder was the judge in Richards’ very first jury trial IIRC and had also dealt with Binger. Can you imagine an out-of-towner in that situation? Barnes would have been a disaster (and also probably the only Republican too).

2) Judge Schroeder completely neutered the defense team’s jury questions. Like completely cut off at the knees. He seated the jury in 1 day! Barnes wouldn’t have been much help and Jo-Ellen Demetrius proved to be a really good call here. I think the reason they were so uncertain and Chirafisi went for the mistrial without prejudice is that Kyle eliminated their best jurors on the tumbler draw.

3) I went and rewatched those two days of trial when the defense was practically asleep. True, that shit was painful to watch, but after rewatching (without the lawtube panel screaming object every 30 seconds), it looked to be strategic, and it was a strategy that paid off. Supposedly Schroeder is an anti-defense judge (and Richards said that he and Schroeder “went to war” at their last trial together). Binger’s unchecked conduct on direct reversed that, and by the time it got to Kyle’s testimony, Binger’s smug reached critical mass and Schroeder felt bad for Kyle and chewed him out for it when it really mattered.

Hearing Barnes bitch and moan during the trial coverage just proves to me he would have been a mess. He would be the one constantly objecting to whatever he could and getting into fights with Schroeder. In a fact-heavy case, Richards was the right guy for the job (though I wish he let Chirafisi do all the cross examining). I am absolutely relieved Barnes got kicked off.

 

[Meat Target]

It just occurred to me that Binger's decision to prosecute Kyle has affected my personal life.

For 3 weeks, I had to watch and see if the most indisputable case of self-defense would result in a murder conviction for purely political reasons. Because of that, I procrastinated on mandatory-but-entirely-useless busywork that needs to be done by year's end. And the next two weeks are cut short for Christmas and New Year's.

So thanks a lot, Bingus. Your ambitions and slimy actions have slightly inconvenienced me, now that I have to stop shitposting and do some actual work. Up yours.

 

[Apterigo]

IAmPoliticsGirl-1472395209723965441-20211218_203548-vid1.mp4
Fuck these people.

It's weird of her to make the "ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away" argument when we've been saying that exact same thing about all the riots that kicked off this shitshow in the first place

 

[Jack Awful]

IAmPoliticsGirl-1472395209723965441-20211218_203548-vid1.mp4
Fuck these people.

Of course she'd end the video with "this is gross".

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Barnes has a monumental ego and often doesn't sufficiently distinguish between what he thinks the law is and what it should be but.....

His big issue was the jury selection assistance on offer not being utilised. His ejection from the team seemed to be a result of that but ultimately we'll never know - might just have been a coincidence in timing.

No. Barnes has been pretty adamant that he put the team together and expected Richards not to take point as a result. And said maybe Richards figured out what he was trying to do.

Jury selection, especially in high profile prosecutions, is a real Barnes obsession but is he actually wrong?

When you consider that he believes that unless you do it his way you will lose I would say he is in fact wrong.

but we also definitively know that when it got to the crunch, the defence did not have confidence that the jury was not going to convict Kyle. Chirafisi seeking a mistrial without prejudice (and the prosecution opposing it) completely undermines the whole there was never any doubt narrative.

You do a motion for mistrial if you are given the chance.

Barnes and others had other criticisms of how the defence performed such as not objecting enough (the enhanced video being the prime example), Kyle giving evidence, the underuse of defence expert evidence, Richards' general delivery (standard of oratory) and, not publicly going after prosecution lies/misconduct pre trial. Other views may legitimately be held but none of those criticisms are themselves unreasonable.

When most of those points were bolstered by Barnes who was clearly bitter they became unreasonable because they clouded the rest of the panel to what the defence was actually doing and why.

He certainly said that Kyle was at risk from a tainted jury. He said that repeatedly and vociferously and was clearly buthurt about his ejection.

Yes he said it so much that people started to believe Kyle was doomed. Not saying he said Kyle was going to lose just he gave off that impression. As said, before he got kicked he was tasked with managing public opinion and when fired he admittedly did a complete 180 on the defence.

Obviously acquittals across the board was the proper outcome. That outcome does not mean that the defence was the best it could have been or even that it was competent. The same applies to the defence's approach to jury selection.

Of course it means they were competent. If they weren't they would have lost.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

Wonder if this is inherent in a jury trial system that rests on idiots deciding important stuff, but I have heard of really bad verdicts in our system as well. Guess a fair trial is an illusion no matter the circumstances.

It's what happens when lawyers become lawmakers.

I'm pretty sure the most common career of most politicans in the US right now is Lawyer, even if they're like Former Vice President Joe Biden and never actually practiced. What you end up with, is a system wheren lawyers have made the law, and because of that, the laws are written the way they speak. Obfuscated, incomprehensible, non-sensical, and not in anyway a lay person could understand.

Our original consitution was written by Farmers, Businessmen, Merchants, Soldiers, Sailors, every day people, so our laws were more easy to understand. The issue is, we're terrible keepers of those laws so we end up in a system of technicalities, twisted logic, and loop holes trying to find and reference itself over and over.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

No. Barnes has been pretty adamant that he put the team together and expected Richards not to take point as a result. And said maybe Richards figured out what he was trying to do.

When you consider that he believes that unless you do it his way you will lose I would say he is in fact wrong.

You do a motion for mistrial if you are given the chance.

When most of those points were bolstered by Barnes who was clearly bitter they became unreasonable because they clouded the rest of the panel to what the defence was actually doing and why.

Yes he said it so much that people started to believe Kyle was doomed. Not saying he said Kyle was going to lose just he gave off that impression. As said, before he got kicked he was tasked with managing public opinion and when fired he admittedly did a complete 180 on the defence.

Of course it means they were competent. If they weren't they would have lost.

From the few interviews with Kyle that I watched, the kid said he and the team were very happy with the jury selection and Richards did a really good job as team head all the way through.
Barnes must be smoking crack or some shit to say the shit he says.

 

[Thomas Talus]

It's what happens when lawyers become lawmakers.

I'm pretty sure the most common career of most politicans in the US right now is Lawyer, even if they're like Former Vice President Joe Biden and never actually practiced. What you end up with, is a system wheren lawyers have made the law, and because of that, the laws are written the way they speak. Obfuscated, incomprehensible, non-sensical, and not in anyway a lay person could understand.

The way lawyers in common-law jurisdictions tend to speak/draft is to use language that has already been litigated at the appellate level, because there is already case law that lays out what those words mean. Relying on common parlance is an invitation to future litigation that might take the law in unintended directions.

Our original consitution was written by Farmers, Businessmen, Merchants, Soldiers, Sailors, every day people, so our laws were more easy to understand. The issue is, we're terrible keepers of those laws so we end up in a system of technicalities, twisted logic, and loop holes trying to find and reference itself over and over.

32 of the 55 Framers were lawyers. The remainder were almost all either merchants or full-time politicians, with a few teachers, doctors, and soldiers, plus whatever you want to call Ben Franklin.

 

[Abbadon's Gate]

The way lawyers in common-law jurisdictions tend to speak/draft is to use language that has already been litigated at the appellate level, because there is already case law that lays out what those words mean. Relying on common parlance is an invitation to future litigation that might take the law in unintended directions.

32 of the 55 Framers were lawyers. The remainder were almost all either merchants or full-time politicians, with a few teachers, doctors, and soldiers, plus whatever you want to call Ben Franklin.

I agree in part, but the solution to that isn't further obfuscation of the law, but rather better education for the public. No one knows what our rights are in this country. If they're not even aware of the bare minimum the have no way to make informed decisions about the law.

As for your second point. Fair.

 

[Thomas Talus]

I agree in part, but the solution to that isn't further obfuscation of the law, but rather better education for the public. No one knows what our rights are in this country. If they're not even aware of the bare minimum the have no way to make informed decisions about the law.

The main problem is that the vast majority of the public has no interest in learning until the problem is already upon them. It's hard enough to get across ideas like "if you conduct business on a handshake, you have very little control over how things shake out when it goes bad" to people who have been in business for decades. PS - If you are contemplating being a co-signer, except maybe for an immediate family member who you absolutely trust, Proverbs 11:15 told people exactly what was up thousands of years ago, in very easy to understand language. But people still go out and do it anyway, then complain to their lawyers about how unfair life is (and also try to dodge out on their bill!).

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

"ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away"

Considering the riots fiery but mostly peaceful protests went on for a good percentage of a year, that sound like someone's taken a big hit of Copium.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

From the few interviews with Kyle that I watched, the kid said he and the team were very happy with the jury selection and Richards did a really good job as team head all the way through.
Barnes must be smoking crack or some shit to say the shit he says.

He put together a team, they did not use it and then they proceeded to win.

Dude’s salty as fuck over that.

 

[Mike Stoklasas Spock Ears]

Spoiler: Video

Big man Kyle is in the building

 

[Mikoyan]

Spoiler: Video

trim.E0AE260E-2BF2-4742-BD05-E2215B51AA90.MOVtrim.91E3E5F9-B9DC-4A72-9F00-1C449A3101FE.MOV

Big man Kyle is in the building

He's gonna need more doors.

 

[AnOminous]

Barnes and others had other criticisms of how the defence performed such as not objecting enough (the enhanced video being the prime example), Kyle giving evidence, the underuse of defence expert evidence, Richards' general delivery (standard of oratory) and, not publicly going after prosecution lies/misconduct pre trial. Other views may legitimately be held but none of those criticisms are themselves unreasonable.

I get that it can be a strategic choice not to object to everything objectionable, but in this case, when they weren't sure they were going to win, it was important to object to anything appealable. If you don't object to something at trial, you can't raise it on appeal except under specific conditions.

That said, when Binger was just acting like a completely spastic asshole, they might have figured he was turning off the jury so much they might as well let him keep doing it.

I don't think their choices were atrociously bad enough to be malpractice, but let's just say none of them were Clarence Darrow.

So while I think some of Barnes's opinions were valid, I think they were exaggerated by him being as salty as Lot's wife and he should have upheld the duty of loyalty to Rittenhouse even after being discharged, however pissed he might have been about it, at least until after the trial.

 

[AnOminous]

Our original consitution was written by Farmers, Businessmen, Merchants, Soldiers, Sailors, every day people, so our laws were more easy to understand. The issue is, we're terrible keepers of those laws so we end up in a system of technicalities, twisted logic, and loop holes trying to find and reference itself over and over.

It was drafted to be understandable to the normal voter of the time, but of the 55 framers, the majority (32) were lawyers as well. Even those who weren't, suffice it to say, had probably cracked open a copy of Blackstone from time to time. The language used would have been familiar to them.

That said, the normal voter of the time would have been a landowning white male with at least some higher education.

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

He's gonna need more doors.

But will there ever be enough whores for him?