For what it’s worth, the OJ Simpson jury only deliberated for about 4 hours before announcing their verdict.
I believe the deliberations have the defense panicked. They made another motion to dismiss on a technicality. A better resolution video would not have influenced their case.
Nitpick: the new motion is for a mistrial without prejudice, so its being granted wouldn’t dismiss the charges, it would mean he would be tried on them again.
Nothing personal towards you but I hate when someone says it was a technicality. It tends to lump in everything beyond personal opinions into a category of trivial nonsense. The objections brought up by the defense are on the grounds of well established constitutional issues. In this case the defense says they were not given full discovery which is a huge issue for the prosecution. Calling it a technicality puts it in the category of spelling mistakes on a warrant. Discovery is not a technicality. 5th amendment rights are not a technicality.
Depends on which side was also seemingly “ahead” when the jury started deliberating. My assumption was that they would return a quick not guilty verdict. That they haven’t done so yet seems to favor the prosecution.
Assuming the judge does grant this mistrial, and the case is tried again, would the prosecution be constrained to present the case in the same manner the next time around, or would they be allowed to correct the seeming mistakes they made during this trial?
I understand your position and agree with the need to maintain proper procedures, but this is a matter of proportion. Is the offense worthy of a mistrial? I assume there other sanctions available. Dismiss this trial on a technicality and the resulting riots will be justified.
Once when I was in a jury pool the defense attorney described his case he talked about things like an open bottle in the car did not mean anybody was drinking and the guy in the drivers seat might have been sleeping, not passed out.
I told the judge I had just (within the last week) spent two hours stuck in traffic watching an ambulance crew remove the decapitated remains of 3 people from a wreck. Everybody in the small community knew about the wreck. A drunk had deliberately crashed head on into the couples car.
I explained that the defense attorney had presented his case would be based on technicalities. I said that I would not (not that I could not) render an unbiased view of his arguments. I was dismissed,
NitNitpic
He could be tried
Somehow you are equating anything that is not direct evidence as a technicality.
Major rules of law like discovery and the 5th amendment are not technicalities. They are in place so trials are fair. It has nothing to do with proportion. It can have nothing to do with how outsiders react. It’s all about making sure the procedures are fair whether it’s a parking ticket or a murder. And this is not some esoteric point of law. These are major components that the prosecutor is well aware of but went ahead anyway.
No they are not constrained to do the exact thing. Everything starts over and if anything new will be brought in it will be subject to discovery.
I agree that “technicalities” to me implies violation of things like discovery rules and 4th Amendment protections, and that these are important Constitutional protections that shouldn’t be minimized. It sounds like what Crane meant in his jury duty story was more along the lines of “the facts aren’t in dispute, and the defense strategy is to desperately blow smoke and argue that those facts don’t actually lead to the conclusions they obviously lead to”. I wouldn’t call that an argument based on "technicalities’, but YMMV.
I think of things like “you forgot to establish the crime took place within the boarders of Williams County, case dismissed.” That might be the right result, but it’s a technicality.
As I understand it the mistral requests were for three things. Someone with better information can correct me.
- During cross examination asking KR why he used his 5th amendment right to remain silent.
- During cross trying to back door in evidence the judge already ruled inadmissible.
- Giving incomplete discovery by not giving the defense the entire and enhanced drone footage that was later presented in court.
Not one of those things is a technicality.
I am sure you are correct. However, the majesty of the law must not get too majestic, lest the citizens object. It is possible to abuse the otherwise noble intent of the law:
All those folks carrying weapons around Kenosha had a right to just be on an evening stroll in the middle of a riot and Rittenhouse was defending himself against a threat of imminent death by an unarmed nut case and after killing two people he was still just defending himself against anyone who tried to stop him and, oh yeah, the guy with the painted face and horned hat was just a citizen on a capitol tour
Somehow you are assuming that the words technicality and triviality are synonyms. I personally hate it when people do that.
They are not. A technicality is when procedures are not followed. Sometimes that seems something trivial, like letting a child murderer off because he was not properly Mirandized, but that is still the case of the state not following the proper procedures. It can also be something extremely serious, like prosecutorial misconduct.
That’s exactly what they are.
They are not part of the facts of the case, but rather, the procedures of it. Therefore, technicalities.
My understanding is that the first 2 points were covered in a separate, earlier motion, and the current motion applies only to point 3.
The prosecution position appears to be that there are no significant differences between what they turned over in discovery and what they showed in court, and no reasonable possibility that their error would affect the outcome of the jury’s deliberations. If that is true (I have no opinion about whether it is), I would think it was fair to say the defense is relying on a “technicality”, in the usual mildly pejorative sense of the term.
IOW, when I do it, it’s standing up for Constitutional principles; when the other guy does it, it’s a technicality. 
But the trope “they didn’t do anything illegal” covers more than just benevolent acts
A difference in resolution is a technicality. I’m an engineer so I can say that with authority.
The guy with the painted face and horned hat broke into the capitol on a day it was closed to visitors. Unlike KR legally walking down the street, the painted face guy was trespassing as soon as he entered the building.
Right but I’m pretty sure the earlier mistrial request has not been answered yet so they are all on the board still. I agree the first two appear to be more egregious which is probably why the one request was for with prejudice and the other was without.
And yes one man’s constitutional rights is another man’s technicality.
ETA if the difference between what was given in discovery and what was presented at court was enough to change the defense and it was deliberate on the part of the prosecution, it starts veering from technicality and over to judicial misconduct.