Do you have a cite for this? I’d like to see how that works. In my state, I’m pretty sure they have to turn over what they have, but not necessarily in the exact form they will present it (like the photo enlargement example above).* Would the prosecution have to turn over a poster-sized enlargement of a photo if that’s how they intended to present it?
*The rule is based on federal constitutional law, but could have variation in different jurisdictions in the details, depending on that jurisdiction’s laws.
But that’s not what happened. To tweak your metaphor, it would be like if the prosecution had 27 8x10 glossy photographs, but had them reprinted in a smaller size before handing them over to the defense during discovery.
At some point, this becomes an issue. 8x10s shrunk down to 4x6s? Maybe that wouldn’t be an issue. Shrunk down to postage stamp size? I can’t see how that’s fair.
Digital evidence seems more straightforward. At some point, compression artifacts and loss of detail from decreasing resolution would matter. Does it matter in this case? I have no idea. But to take it to the extreme, if the prosecution shrunk a video from 640x480 down to 6x4, that’s obviously not gonna fly. So where’s the line? How much can they degrade the quality of the evidence before it becomes an issue?
To prove a Brady violation (based on Brady v. Maryland), the defense has to establish that the evidence was 1) exculpatory, 2) suppressed by the prosecution (intentionally or inadvertently), and that 3) the suppression resulted in prejudice to the accused. So that is the constitutional right directly at issue.
There may be state laws pertaining to discovery that also apply. Those can vary by jurisdiction, and may encompass different sanctions.
There can also be due process issues (so constitutional rights, again) if there’s a state procedure that was not followed. That would also require a showing of prejudice, typically.
Is the cost to the defendant for a potential second trial taken into consideration when they seek a mistrial? I’m assuming that if the case gets re-tried Rittenhouse will need to pay for another defense. I know a family court trial can cost $30,000 per day considering all costs involved. This trial would have cost close to half a $million to defend at least. Can Rittenhouse afford to pay that again, or would he need to go with a presumably less skilled public defender?
I seem to remember OJ couldn’t afford to hire the same dream team that got him off the first time which may have led to him losing the civil case…
Rittenhouse is basically covered by a big right wing legal defense fund in addition to multiple lawyers who have donated time to the case (not all of his team, but some of them are ideological right wingers doing it pro bono.)
So if I were a member Rittenhouse’s defense team, and I saw the drone footage was fuzzy, why wouldn’t I have tried to enhance the video on the chance a sharper version might have shown something helpful to my client’s defense?
KR was violating curfew. (As were a lot of other people.)
Again, it was not like KR walked out his front door over to the neighbors with his firearm strapped across his chest and got swept up as a totally unexpected bystander in a protest that turned violent.
I know you were responding to Joey but I’m left wondering how severe of an offense the curfew violation really was. It looks like that same curfew is being disputed in other cases from the same place.
Every time someone mentions him being charge with the curfew violation I wonder to myself if they could have made a good jaywalking case stick, if only they had tried.
Question for the legally informed. Why is there a difference?
On page14 of the judges instructions it says:
“When first degree intentional homicide is considered, the reasonableness of the defendants belief is not an issue. You are concerned only with what the defendant actually believed.”
The element is - he did not actually believe he was in danger or that the force he used was necessary.
If they move on to second degree, reasonableness returns. So, reasonableness is not a universal test. In this case it’s just the immediate whim of a 17 year old kid. He thought he was in danger and had a gun so he shot the guy.
First degree intentional homicide convictions must be rare.
Sounds like it’s the old notion of “imperfect self-defense”. A person who genuinely, but unreasonably, believes that they are in danger isn’t justified in his actions (the way a person who genuinely and reasonably believes), but has a lower level of culpability than someone who is not acting in a genuine belief that his actions are necessary (it’s a mitigation not a justification).
That doesn’t actually seem all that strange to me. The basic idea is that first degree murder requires “malice” and a person acting in an honest fear of his life doesn’t have “malice” (although, malice as a legal concept is kind of weird, since it is generally defined as an intent to do injury, which even someone acting in justified self-defense generally has).
I do wonder how often someone successfully argues imperfect self-defense. I’ve never been (and likely will never be) a juror, but I would be very skeptical of the “genuine but unreasonable” argument. Maybe someone of the battered woman cases.
Would a reasonable person with the defendants characteristics in similar circumstances have believed there was a threat.
The important point is that, it’s prefaced with “reasonable”.
The old law school caution “a reasonable person. Not a short tempered pscychopath”.
Just a WAG, but my interpretation of the length of time this is taking is due to them probably being ready to convict, but that they are unsure of which level of charges is the most appropriate.
But seriously, the time taken signals to me the jurors are also trying to be thorough with the instructions and evidence, they did not come out of the argument with a slam dunk one way or the other on all counts. I’d also say another day at least. Would not be surprised if it went all the way to Tuesday, though.
