Rittenhouse’s attorneys have raised the warning shot as part of their defense, so it is definitely part of the argument they are making to the jury. Rittenhouse’s testimony is one piece of the trial, not the exhaustive entirety of it.
Probably…check YouTube.
I think more damaging is the pathologists testimony. Each shot needs at least the same justification as the others. The last two shots don’t sound like self defense.
I think there’s a strong argument Huber and Grosskreutz probably should have just not gotten involved. AFAIK neither was a direct witness to Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz testified he was a block away and started traveling “towards the sound of gunfire” so we know he wasn’t. Huber is dead so I’m not sure what he saw.
But the videos of the shooting (some of the earliest ones) of Huber / Grosskreutz start off with a large number of people moving down a street, some are going past Rittenhouse, some are following him. A few voices ring out “hey get that guy, he shot someone”, or something to that effect. Then a few people go after him–one guy who actually knocks him down I believe has never been identified, he is the one who knocks KR to the ground and then keeps running. The other two are Huber and Grosskreutz, Huber leaps at him with his skateboard and it looks to hit KR around the shoulder, KR shoots and kills him, then turns to Grosskreutz who has his hands up (with pistol in one of them), then Grosskreutz brings his hand down to point the pistol directly at KR which is when he gets shot too.
The thing about using force on someone with a gun, that you believe to have acted unlawfully…is you better be fairly certain you’re right, because of all the complications that can come with such a scenario. I would say by default you should not physically engage other people to “stop them” from committing a crime unless you have a high certainty they actually committed a crime.
According to the Washington Post, the judge has dismissed the underage weapons possession charge.
As I’ve noted above, my reading of the statute is that it does not apply to Rittenhouse, so I think I agree. But, I can’t find the judge’s reasoning.
The Washington Post says that it “was dismissed on a technicality related to the length of the barrel of the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle Rittenhouse carried.” But that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
Wisconsin is a big hunting state and a LOT of kids go hunting with their parents. IIRC a law was passed/changed a few years back that allowed kids under 18 to carry a gun as long as the barrel is longer than some certain length (16 or 18 inches I think). Of course he wasn’t with his parents and he wasn’t hunting, but if the length of the barrel came up, I’d WAG that this is what it’s about.
The statute defines dangerous weapon as one with a barrel length of less than 16 inches and an overall length less than 26 inches. The weapon used, an MP15, didn’t fall under this head. The prosecution did not dispute that.
It not just Wisconsin. Even jurisdictions where firearms are heavily restricted, there are significant leeway for ownership of rifles and shotguns. Laws tend to concentrate on restricting handguns and shortbarreled rifles and shotguns.
I agree, and the prosecution is hammering this home to the jury. He is also claiming that Rosenbaum’s threat is a fabrication from Rittenhouse and his buddies to bolster his self defense claim. Should be interesting to see how they present that to the jury.
We know through jury nullification that the jury can acquit someone although they violated the law because the jurors disagree with the law or its implementation in that specific case. I’m wondering about the reverse - technically the defendant is innocent but like in this case, he went there to create trouble, he did and people died because of it so the jury convicts. I don’t think that will happen but if the jury knew what we know viz. two weeks prior he wanted an AR to shoot suspected looters, it might be warranted.
The Wisconsin statute (948.60) defines “dangerous weapon” to include “any firearm, loaded or unloaded” (among other things). And then generally prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing a “dangerous weapon.”
But (and this has been my argument all along), the prohibition “applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun” if that person is also violating one of three other sections: (1) possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun; (2) the laws relating to firearm possession by those under 16; or (3) hunting without a license.
So a 17 year old (and probably 16 year old) in possession of a regular rifle and not unlawfully hunting doesn’t violate 948.60.
That said, if the prosecution’s theory is that Rittenhouse violated the “short-barreled” rifle statute, then the length of the rifle is hardly a “technicality.” It’s a fundamental element of the crime. But I didn’t think that was their theory.
Yep, it’s only a misdemeanor for Rittenhouse to use an AR-15 to go hunting for animals without a license. Drive from out of town to show up to a protest with an AR-15? Not dangerous at all. And as to whether he might have actually been hunting people, well… can you prove it? After all, a 17-yo has a right to put himself in a crowd with an assault rifle, just so long as he doesn’t go hunting for squirrels on the way home.
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.
Just watched the Prosecutor’s summation. Good job - he addressed many of the issues raised upthread. Especially the concepts of the crowds right to self defense and the presence of the gun as a provocation
Couldn’t find a copy of the judges instructions.
They haven’t been given yet. The instructions come after both side make closing arguments and before the jury starts to deliberate. It might be tomorrow.
Yeah, I thought they were given just before the jury retires. I guess the current TV reports are about wrangling over what the judge is considering not the actual instructions.
Varies by jurisdiction (and sometimes by judge).
I vastly prefer that the jury is instructed first.
That would be valuable during the summations.
Exactly. While most of the instructions can be predicted, the most controversial instructions are the important ones to argue and explain to the jury. If the court hasn’t finalized those, it could be really dicey.
The defense summation is amateur hour, I especially like the part about the crowd could not have thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter because Rittenhouse had only fired 8 of his 30 rounds at them.
He said jurors had received instructions.
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.