# The Rittenhouse trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 4, 2021, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798 "2021-11-04T14:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/783 "2021-11-15T23:06:58Z")
He’s a personality. Let’s see how the instructions look. I’ve been a juror where the judge essentially handed us the verdict with his rules. I don’t think Schroder will do that, but who knows! ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/784 "2021-11-15T23:17:56Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Much was made of the judge’s insistence that the deceased not be called “victims.” Some judges would have no issue allowing the word victim to be used, Schroeder believes it’s prejudicial and basically says “whether they are victims or not is what they prosecution has to prove.” I can understand that but what I don’t understand is how the judge can rule that you can’t call them victims because we’re in the middle of a trial that essentially decides whether or not they’re victims but at the same time allows them to be called rioters even though they were never charged with rioting, much less received a guilty verdict for it. Calling them victims is prejudicial against Kyle, but calling them rioters is prejudicial against them. ---
**Author:** ![K2500](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f6c823/32.png) [@K2500](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K2500)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/785 "2021-11-15T23:21:16Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > I’ve been a juror where the judge essentially handed us the verdict with his rules. What does that look like? I’ve never been on a jury. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/786 "2021-11-15T23:21:48Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > Much was made of the judge’s insistence that the deceased not be called “victims.” Some judges would have no issue allowing the word victim to be used, Schroeder believes it’s prejudicial and basically says “whether they are victims or not is what they prosecution has to prove.” > > I can understand that but what I don’t understand is how the judge can rule that you can’t call them victims because we’re in the middle of a trial that essentially decides whether or not they’re victims but at the same time allows them to be called rioters even though they were never charged with rioting, much less received a guilty verdict for it. > Calling them victims is prejudicial against Kyle, but calling them rioters is prejudicial against them. The deceased aren’t on trial for one, so they don’t have the same procedural consideration as the defendant. The other element is Schroeder did not give the defense blanket privilege to call them rioters or looters, he said the defense could only do so if it offered up supporting evidence in context to use those terms. Like many have said–it’s fairly routine for a prosecutor to be allowed to call the deceased in a self-defense claim the “victim”, but it’s not something that’s crazy out of bounds either, just unusual. The judge’s discretion is significant in determining things like prejudice and etc, and his ruling in my opinion if it were reviewed by a superior court would not have been found to significantly alter the legal arguments that the prosecutor was being allowed to present. [Note it’s quite unusual for a prosecutor to appeal a judge’s decisions, but there are rare circumstances when it can occur, for minor things like word usage I’m not sure they’d have much ground. The prosecution can appeal rulings or other pretrial orders that it feels impairs its ability to prosecute, but the parameters of that vary a good bit state to state, and generally a lot of deference is given to the trial judge.] ---
**Author:** ![rocking\_chair](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocking_chair/32/2918_2.png) [@rocking\_chair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rocking_chair)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/787 "2021-11-15T23:22:21Z")
The judge gave the instructions this morning before closing. There was a bit of back and forth with the lawyers, then the jury was called in. The judge got a bit confused, called a break, sent the jury out, then more discussion with the lawyers. Then he finished instructions and prosecutors started closing. Last I saw defence was giving closing. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/788 "2021-11-15T23:27:59Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There is not, however, any clear evidence of improper bias in how he has conducted the trial. IDK … that stunt with prompting the jury to applaud one of the defense witnesses for being a veteran (on Veterans’ Day) would have been smacked down by a judge if any defense attorney or prosecutor tried it. It’s even more prejudicial coming from the judge himself. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/789 "2021-11-15T23:30:25Z")
> [@K2500](#): > > What does that look like? The job of the jury is to determine fact. The judge specifies what facts are to be determined. I served on a case where all of the jurors believed the guy did not do anything wrong and that’s how we wanted to vote. But, the judge instructed us to decide only whether or not he had violated a building code. He had, so that’s how we had to report it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/790 "2021-11-16T00:19:28Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > There is not, however, any clear evidence of improper bias in how he has conducted the trial. > > IDK … that stunt with prompting the jury to applaud one of the defense witnesses for being a veteran (on Veterans’ Day) would have been smacked down by a judge if any defense attorney or prosecutor tried it. It’s even more prejudicial coming from the judge himself. I’m not sure what sort of claim you could advance off of the clapping incident. A little weird? Yes. Legally improper? To the threshold it would result in a higher court “reversing” him? I dunno. Judges like this have rules they are supposed to follow and there’s a state agency that can investigate misconduct claims etc, I would be surprised if the clapping thing would even result in a misconduct charge (and such charges usually are simple chastisements, they don’t normally have the power to actually remove a judge from office typically or impose serious penalties.) Note the actual sequence of events that went down–Schroeder announced to the court that because it was Veteran’s Day, anyone in the courtroom who had served in the armed forces should stand up to be recognized. No one did. He remarked that it is unusual to not even have one veteran in court. Then he said “well the next witness, Black, what branch did he serve in?” Black responded he had served in the Army, and then Schroeder said “I think we can give a round of applause to the people who have served our country”, and then the court did applaud. The defense witness was a use of force expert, and his military service was used by the defense to establish some of the basis for his expertise quite extensively in his ensuing testimony, so I don’t really see that the judge was telling the jury anything they wouldn’t already know, and while bizarre–asking for applause for Veterans on Veteran’s Day would be unlikely to constitute an egregious breach of conduct I can imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/791 "2021-11-16T00:28:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > He remarked that it is unusual to not even have one veteran in court. Then he said “well the next witness, Black, what branch did he serve in?” Black responded he had served in the Army, and then Schroeder said “I think we can give a round of applause to the people who have served our country”, and then the court did applaud. So he tried the stunt once, and when it didn’t work, he doubled down using what he already knew (that the defense witness had served in the Army) to get the court to applaud. Sure, the jury would be told the witness’s Army credentials anyway, but that applause was the equivalent of telling the jury “this guy is really worth listening to.” It was cheap and sleazy, and while it might not legally be a breach of conduct you can’t tell me that an unbiased judge would let a defense attorney or prosecutor get away with it. From a judge it’s even worse. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/792 "2021-11-16T00:43:40Z")
We agree to disagree here. I think it boils down to good guy with a gun vs little man with a gun in his hand. Some folks see KR as a good guy with a gun bringing calm to the curfew and some folks see his very presence with a long gun as a provocation. (I might start a great debate on this during Thanksgiving). Certainly, I see it as a provocation. Don’t know how I would react if people in a crowd was shouting there’s the perp that just shot someone after personally hearing gunfire, and seeing the perp running with a gun. But in the heat of the moment, I’d be 99% sure it was an active shooter, ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/793 "2021-11-16T01:00:52Z")
Well, goes to jury now. I can’t get over the stupidity of the whole incident. You bring a gun to a hostile situation, and you’re young and stupid, you’re probably gonna fire it. I’m not even sure where I stand on this. I don’t think it’s first degree murder, but I sure wouldn’t call it self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/794 "2021-11-16T01:04:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > [@Love\_Rhombus](#): > > > > In general, has the judge in this trial done a good job? I’ve heard scattered reports of it, such as the “call them rioters not victims” incident" but haven’t really kept up with the day-to-day developments. > > I don’t think the judge has acted “improperly.” Judges have a lot of power and a healthy amount of discretion. I would say the fairest way to portray the judge’s rulings is that he has a pro-defendant outlook in how he issues rulings. Much was made of the judge’s insistence that the deceased not be called “victims.” Some judges would have no issue allowing the word victim to be used, Schroeder believes it’s prejudicial and basically says “whether they are victims or not is what they prosecution has to prove.” > > AFAIK there is no black letter law, right or wrong on that, it’s a question of a judge’s opinion in terms of ensuring a fair trial is conducted. Much like how I’ve made pains to point out that our system is not algorithmic, judges are not expected to be either. A judge has a lot of latitude within the bounds of the law to run his courtroom, up to basically committing what is called “reversible error”, which is when an appellate court basically finds legal fault with some ruling or action you took and reverses it. There’s nothing I’ve seen from Schroeder thus far (and I haven’t seen 100% of the trial) that would fall into that category. > > Judges have variances. There’s the old trope of the “hanging judge”, meaning a judge known for imposing very harsh sentences. Well, under the law in most jurisdictions the judge simply has latitude in how he imposes a sentence, so a hanging judge is perfectly allowed under our legal system. Likewise, a judge who tends to make cases a little harder for prosecutors is also allowed. > > It should be noted that the judge is probably a right wing Trumper, based on personal details of his that have come out during the trial. There is not, however, any clear evidence of improper bias in how he has conducted the trial. There are interviews out there with local attorneys from the area who say this judge has a reputation for being rough on prosecutors in ways most other judges are not. Some national pundits have called him the towns “worst judge” because of it, but I’ll note that many of those same pundits decry the cruelty of pro-prosecution and harsh-sentencing minded judges in many other contexts. Almost like many pundits simply are playing teamball. > > In any case, in most of America trial court judges are elected, Wisconsin is no different–Judge Schroeder is a Circuit Court Judge, which is an elected position in the State. He was _appointed_ in 1983 by the Governor to fill a vacancy, and was elected to a full term about a year later. Circuit judges in Wisconsin serve 6 year terms, and in all of his recent elections Schroeder has ran unopposed. Prior to being appointed as a judge he had worked in the District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor, and had worked in private practice for about ten years. > > That combination of prosecution / private practice work is very common background for judges. Judges frequently come from some prosecution background, although it’s certainly not unheard of for a judge to come from defense attorney ranks eithers. At least part of the reason it’s probably less common is many private practice attorneys really are working to either build up their own firm / small business, or work themselves up to partner level in the firm they work at, people on that career path often stand to make much better money than a local Circuit Judge. It just tends to be that attorneys who are already comfortable with government lawyer work are the type more likely to get into local judicial roles. Note that at higher levels of the judiciary things don’t hold quite so clearly, for example it’d be unusual for a highly respected corporate litigator to leave private practice and become a circuit judge. But accepting a Federal judgeship? Even many well-regarded corporate litigators would happily take a Federal judgeship because of the immense prestige, power etc that comes with it. At the higher levels of judicial work you attract some of the best lawyers in the country from a variety of backgrounds (although again, people who have regularly defended clients in criminal courts are not commonly found in the Federal judiciary either–Sonia Sotomayor is one of the few recent Supreme Court justices who has ever defended someone in court on criminal charges.) > > Anyway, judges frequently come at the law seeing things more like a prosecutor does than other types of attorneys. For that reason, I think it’s fair to say most judges have sort of a procedural bias towards the prosecution. This doesn’t mean they rig the trials, or don’t hold fair trials, it just means the prosecutor often is treated with some deference, the judge generally assumes he is acting honorably etc. It appears Bruce Schroeder simply doesn’t come from that school of thought, despite having that background, he appears to simply be more inclined to be skeptical of prosecutions. At least in this case I don’t see where he has veered into legally improper behavior. > > Now that being said Schroeder does have a checkered history. In the mid-1980s he made getting HIV tested a condition of parole for a convicted prostitute. He has also done weird things like impose “public shaming” penalties on shoplifters, where as part of their sentence they basically had to walk around a local mall and more or less ask for forgiveness from local business owners (that particular sentence was reversed by a superior court.) I’m not really ready to say Schroeder is a great jurist, in fact some of his past is checkered and I think he’s probably a below average quality judge, but he hasn’t acted in a way that is clearly contrary to the law in this case. You have obviously looked into his background more than I have. I agree that various things that came up point to him being right wing. But I have also heard he has a reputation of being extremely tough on the prosecution. Hence the ruling on the word victim which is his blanket rule and not just for this case. In general a right wing judge is thought to be friendly to the prosecution and not ride them harder. He was appointed by a democrat initially but that was in 1983 so that probably doesn’t mean much. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/795 "2021-11-16T02:05:30Z")
> [@Locrian](#): > > I’m not even sure where I stand on this. I don’t think it’s first degree murder, but I sure wouldn’t call it self-defense. One thing clear to me is that regardless how the sentencing or lack thereof shakes out, KR may be found “not guilty” but is not “innocent.” ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/796 "2021-11-16T03:29:55Z")
Is it true that Rittenhouse’s possession of the AR-15 did not violate applicable laws, and that the prosecution confirmed this? This seems a very strange development, as over many months I’d heard many commentators state the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![LivingGhost371](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9e5f3/32.png) [@LivingGhost371](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LivingGhost371)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/797 "2021-11-16T04:14:31Z")
Maybe. Seems Wisconsin law on what should be a pretty clear point are a mess, with different interpretations having been made. Minors are prohibited from possessing “dangerous weapons”, including all firearms. But a different section has an exception on long guns if they’re not “violating any hunting regulation”. It would seem the intent of the law is that a minor has to actually hunting but can’t be say poaching deer. But taking it literally would mean that a 16 or 17 year old could walk around Kenosha with one, since they’re not violating any hunting regulations by doing so. > **[Legal for a teen to walk about with an AR-15? Rittenhouse trial judge says yes](https://journaltimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/legal-for-a-teen-to-walk-about-with-an-ar-15-rittenhouse-trial-judge-says/article_0819e151-f01f-55f3-a3fd-c065cc9fabcf.html)** > > Is it legal for 17-year-olds to walk around with AR-15s? Apparently so. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/798 "2021-11-16T04:16:53Z")
I saw some of the Rittenhouse testimony on YT and I have to say, how come the case hasn’t been declared a mistrial yet? Since there were at least two major howlers in it by the prosecutions advocate. Bringing up silencer and attempting to adduce excluded evidence……wow. ---
**Author:** ![LivingGhost371](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9e5f3/32.png) [@LivingGhost371](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LivingGhost371)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/799 "2021-11-16T04:20:14Z")
My take on it is the case is such a hot mess for the prosecution that the Judge figures a conviction is unlikely. Or if there is one an appeals court will throw it out. He just doesn’t want to be the one to declare a mistrial with prejudice or a directed verdict because of the politically charged nature of the case, and the probability of having demonstrators / rioters outside his house if he does. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/800 "2021-11-16T04:20:27Z")
Well, actually, here he would be. It’s an affirmative defence. And it’s not a crime to kill someone in self defence. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/801 "2021-11-16T04:35:15Z")
Is anyone running the pool on how long the jury will be out with it? ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2021, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/802 "2021-11-16T06:42:38Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > Also that one witness was a _prosecution_ witness. No one refuted his testimony. There is no other narrative for the jury to consider. What that witness said about the Rosenbaum shooting is the only story the jury can consider. I know this is going back a ways, but I just wanted to circle back to this point about McGinnis being a prosecution witness. He had to be called by the prosecution because one of the charges was that Rittenhouse recklessly endangered him. So the prosecution needed to call him. If your own necessary witness is also going to say damaging things, conventional wisdom is that you get it all out on direct exam, you don’t let the other side bring it out on cross. You aren’t bound somehow for everything your witness says. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=41)