Luck is the residue of design. You get a great cross when you are prepared and your opponent is not.
We have come across some remarkable cross examination in the Rittenhouse trial. The prosecutor called the one witness who was shot and survived. He was a paramedic. The prosecutor takes the witness through his encounter with Rittenhouse. The witness testifies that when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him he raised his hands. He also testifies about Rittenhouse racking his weapon, which the witness testifies was an indication that Rittenhouse was preparing his weapon to fire again.
We candidly admit we have not seen the entire direct and therefore our criticism of the prosecution may not be fully correct. But what comes out on cross examination is both shocking and devastating to the prosecution.
The witness chased Rittenhouse down the street. And while there was an encounter when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the witness and the witness raised his hands, Rittenhouse only shot the witness WHEN THE WITNESS LOWERED HIS HANDS, PRODUCED HIS OWN HANDGUN AND AIMED IT AT RITTENHOUSE.
It is a shocking moment, and a moment of cross examination not many lawyers ever get. What we do not know is whether the prosecution brought these facts out on cross examination. The video clip we have seen is clearly edited and it is just not clear what the jury knew before cross examination.
But the direct is fairly powerful for the prosecution...until cross examination began, which shows the power of cross examination and the reason for cross examination in our system.
Of course sometimes your opponent does your work for you. The prosecutor called a witness who saw Rittenhouse shoot and kill Joseph Rosenbaum. The witness, a videographer, was clearly a hostile witness. There came a point when the prosecutor pushed the witness to admit he had no idea what Rosembaum was thinking when he grabbed Rittenhouse's gun before Rittenhouse shot and killed him. To which the witness responded: "Well, he said fuck you and then grabbed the gun."
Ouch.
This the Newsweek article that has the clip of the direct and cross.
14 comments:
Pros clearly trying to throw the case. MAGA.
I feel more comfortable with KYLE RITTENHOUSE with an AR15 …
than ALEC BALDWIN with a .45.
Pray for a not guilty. He is a good kid who was “mad as hell” with the rioting and burning down of property belonging to innocent people and assaults on police and firefighters. Good for him.
He acted in self defense out of reasonable fear against convicted criminals who only wanted to cause injury, death and destruction.
They were not “VICTIMS.” The law must be applied equally.
The Judge in the Rittenhouse trial is totally Former Judge Scott Silverman right?
Same demeanor. Same sense of humor. Same temperament. Same brilliance. Totally.
RITTENHOUSE TRIAL - CLOSING ARGUMENT - RANDOM THOUGHTS:
First, the lead ADA did a great job in his Closing Argument. I would grade him a solid B+. He hit all the bases and really tied everything in nicely with multiple videos and photos.
Second, the lead defense attorney did a decent job in his Closing but, quite frankly, I was expecting a much better job. The defense has been doing very well throughout this trial. The defense attorney has been more prepared that the State and has done a great job in cross. The defense had the entire weekend to prepare their Closing. I thought he could have done a much better job. Grade - C.
Third, the second chair ADA wrapped everything up. He did a lousy job, in my humble opinion. He spent the entire time simply responding to a few select arguments made by the defense in their closing. He didn't need to respond to pretty much anything that the defense attorney argued. He should have reiterated the strongest arguments of the State and he should have tied it all into the elements and the jury instructions. Finally, he should have shown the verdict forms and, going through each one, he should have asked the jury to check the GUILTY box on each of the five counts. (The only caveat I have to these comments is that, maybe in Wisconsin, some of what I am suggesting is not permitted in Closing). Grade D.
Finally, did anyone catch how they decide on the jury panel in Wisconsin? They picked 18 jurors in this case. Twelve will serve as the final jury panel. The 18 are all equal throughout the trial. But, here is where it gets weird. Closing Arguments ended late today. Deliberations begin tomorrow morning at 9 AM. The first thing that the judge will do in the morning is pick six names out of the hat of the 18 names in the hat. Those random six chosen become the alternates and do not deliberate. They are asked to stay around the courthouse just in case any of them are needed. Do any other states do it this way?
While I fully expected an acquittal on the most serious charges before Closing, I think the State may just have saved their case with a strong Closing Argument.
Cap Out .......
The arguments are important, but the high level, fundamentally most important facts make acquittal almost a lock.
IMO they are:
1. Kyle was 17 and he looked 15.
2. Kyle ran from every attacker. He RAN away.
3. Kyle only shot those people who attacked him, and each only at extremely close proximity.
Other than this, the one most important moment was the cross of gage... the concession that kyle only shot when gage pointed the weapon was unbelievably powerful. I mean you as a juror will never forget that moment.
90% acquittal
10% mistrial with a single holdout for prosecution
I have not followed this case too much but I can see that you have 😂
Take out politics and race and this is an absurd case. Overwhelming proof of self defense. And he killed two child molesters so bonus points for that.
If he were a black man, none of this would matter. He would be dead. This is another case of white privilege and two very different systems of justice depending on the color of your skin.
He wasn't a 'good kid', good kids don't run around with AR15's and play vigilante. The protests were about other black men and women that were murdered by the police. We all should be protesting that. You have no right to claim self-defense when you inject yourself into a position of using that deadly force. He may be 17 but he is responsible for what happened. I hope the jury gets that.
Interesting points.
I think from a presentation standpoint I agree with you on Bingers performance. The problem was that his arguments required the suspension of common sense. Its all he had but he presented it well from a forensics and technique standpoint. I agree with your grade on technique. Another criticism I would lodge was that he did not address any of the explosions that occurred in the case such as the cross examination of Grosskeutz.
Have to disagree with you on defense closing. It was a systematic dismantling of the State's case wrapped in a no nonsense "this is not a game"' theme that I think resonated with the audience. I would give the defense an A on that closing. It marshaled the evidence and instructed on the law.
I think if Kyle was wearing a mask I would more likely believe what he was saying and find him not guilty. He was trying to killing people by not wearing a mask before he shot the people which shows he didn't use caution or proper care in the game of life. Mask up folks.
There should be sanctions against the elected DA who green lit this case.
Their fall-back charge was a gun charge that got dismissed by the judge when the state, at the conclusion of trial, admitted that there were no facts to support it. Not that no testimony ultimately supported it -- no FACTS supported it. (It had to do with the measurement of the barrel).
That the state filed and prosecuted a charge regarding a piece of evidence in their possession that was entirely without merit shows the fraud of the entire case.
I would hope vet prosecutors like Binger and the other guy who have had the guts to refuse to prosecute a clear self-defense case with multiple videos, but I have no doubts the elected DA made the final order to go forward for political reasons.
Such a decision completely undermines the legitimacy of the office.
The other big takeaway is to be thankful that WI, like Florida, has open courtrooms and allows cameras. After Gage's testimony, in which he admitted that he lifted both hands in mock-surrender and was only shot when he then pointed a weapon at the defendant's head, mass media astroturfed stories about this "Rittenhouse survivor" testifying how fearful he was for his life.
Absent the ability to watch for ourselves, we would have had zero awareness of the truth of the evidence.
Whatever the verdict is, Americans have had the ability to watch the trial unfold -- and thank God for that.
No defense attorney should ever use the term "my client" in a closing argument. He used that a few times. It is always better to use the clients first name (if permitted by the judge) or his surname instead. Never "my client". Always refer to the state as "the prosecutor" not by his name. The lawyering on both sides was not up to Miami standards. And what is the camera guy standing up taking a photograph in the closing? That never would have been permitted in Miami. I give both sides a C- or a D. And the political comment by the defense was ridiculous.
Judge Scott Silverman you say?
He was the very best. Ever. Brilliant. Kind. Scholar. Ruled immediately with authority.
752, if he were black he would never have been arrested and would be hailed, appropriately, as a hero.
Post a Comment