I honestly think the jury is just taking an “evidence-first” approach. It is five separate charges, with what will be very complex legal particulars for each individual charge that the jury has to weigh. I tend to agree they likely aren’t hung, because usually if they’ve been sitting at 11-1 for a long time with no movement, they start sending notes to the judge saying they aren’t sure they can make any progress. Nothing like that has happened yet.
Jury experts often talk about “verdict oriented” and “evidence oriented” juries. Some juries basically do an initial survey on the verdict, this is common often in really slam dunk cases, where there is some belief by the jury foreman and the other jurors that this could be a fast couple hour deliberation so let’s see where everyone is.
Evidence oriented juries don’t even have jurors indicate where they are on conviction / acquittal until a much more thorough review of the evidence.
Experts have said one negative about a “verdict oriented” jury, is say you have one or two random hold outs from the very beginning, by putting them in a position where they have to be “visible holdouts” in front of the rest of the jury so early in the process, human nature can get involved as can ego. They may be less likely to genuinely evaluate evidence and consider changing their position, because they feel like they’re “making a stand” based on their initial vote.
FWIW reading tea leaves and the questions the jury has asked, if I’m Rittenhouse’s lawyer or Rittenhouse himself I’m sweating bullets right now. Before closing argument, I would’ve said I was at like an 80% expectation of Rittenhouse getting full acquittal on all charges. Now I’m probably almost inverse on that, where I think he’s very likely to be convicted on at least one charge. I am still very, very doubtful he gets convicted of the most serious charges, but we shall see.
It’s confusing because the state has to disprove self defense. So there’s an element that requires the state to prove he did not actually believe his use of force was necessary to protect himself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
So, the jury can convict of first degree intentional homicide only if Rittenhouse did not actually believe he was in that kind of danger, or that force he used was necessary.
If the jury gets to that question and finds that the state did not disprove it – that is, Rittenhouse did have that belief – then they must acquit of first degree intentional homicide, and move on to considering second degree, because he has at least imperfect self defense.
Yes, they do. In either direction, convict or acquit.
If I had to guess, I think he gets at least one second degree homicide conviction, no first degree.
This is where I was and now as well. Before it went to the jury, I thought they would come back that same day with an acquittal. Now I’ve started thinking he’s likely to be convicted on at least one charge.
But that brings in ‘reasonable and prudent’. Would a reasonable and cautious person have felt Rosenbaums’ bare hands were sufficient to cause Rittenhouse great bodily injury and the only way to prevent it was 3 direct hits point blank with a 30 caliber rifle?
Hard to predict the jury verdict with any confidence. But I predict that if the jury convicts on the more serious charges (or possibly any charges) that the judge will effectively overturn the verdict, by declaring a mistrial with prejudice.
From the beginning of the thread people, including myself, have pointed out that Wisconsin allows “imperfect self defense.”
If the defendant
Actually believed his use of deadly force was necessary because someone was about to unlawfully use force against him that could cause him great bodily injury or death,
AND
That belief was objectively reasonable, he is entitled to self defense.
But, if only 1. is true, it’s imperfect self defense, and he gets bumped down to 2nd degree. Of course, if 1 is not true, he doesn’t have self defense.
Because the burden is on the state, the questions are flipped around. But the instructions say what I just said, just in the way the state has to disprove.
It is all about imperfect self-defense. It’s a clause that Wisconsin has but most states don’t. Mine certainly does not. In all states murder is illegal. In each state you will find differences in grading and how different circumstances are handled within the law.
The imperfect self-defense clause only comes into it when a self-defense argument is made. Most cases are not argued as self defense.
How can it be fair at all for a judge to wait until after the verdict comes out before deciding to declare a mistrial or not? Wouldn’t hearing the verdict automatically bias him? You’d think the judge should have to decide on mistrial before the verdict.
I mean even if he’s acquitted of everything, if the prosecution really did make serious enough mistakes for a mistrial shouldn’t it be tossed even if the verdict was good for the defendant? I mean the trial wouldn’t have been conducted fairly right? Or is “fair” meant to mean “in the defendant’s best interests”, rather than a fair examination of the facts following proper procedure, regardless of which side they favor?
A fair trial is not in the defendant’s best interest. The results of a fair trial may be a guilty verdict which are not in the defendant’s best interest. A fair trial is one that ensures the defendant’s right to due process is followed. It’s an important difference.
The instructions are clear and specific. If the answer to all elements is yes then the defendant is guilty. If the answer to any element is no then the defendant is not-guilty. There is no provision for an imperfect defense and I did not see it raised during the trial.
The instructions for self defense specify “only if:” three elements are met. The elements are connected by inclusive ‘ands’. No imperfect self-defense is described.
I think a judge would rather not have to shoulder the resposibility of vindicating Rittenhouse if he can get to the same place by other means. Especially since the jury verdict would also be more widely accepted by the public.
So even if the judge might think a mistrial is - or might be - proper in this case, he might think it’s better to see if the jury comes back with the same verdict anyway, and not have to end things on what many people will consider a “technicality”, and at any rate take some of the heat off himself. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, especially on the more serious counts, then the judge has to take the responsibility.
You can read the statute that has been posted at least twice. In the instructions, they would acquit of first-degree intentional homicide and move on to the next charge for that victim, second degree intentional homicide. If the jury answered “no” to whether the state had disproved that Rittenhouse had the actual belief part of self defense, that means Rittenhouse had that belief. So, the jury will then go on to consider in the context of second-degree homicide whether the belief was reasonable. If they answer yes, then his self-defense claim has succeeded. If they answer no, then he has been found to have imperfect self defense, and he’ll be convicted of second-degree homicide.
I do think it’s a bit confusing to a lay person, but these instructions do exactly what the law lays out. The jury just has to go through them step by step.
The judge in this case has explained why he has not ruled on the mistrial requests, he has said he is waiting on the prosecution’s response to the motion for a mistrial, which is not unusual.
The ruling of a mistrial with prejudice can be appealed by the prosecutor, so in a scenario where the judge egregiously abuses the processes his word wouldn’t be final.
Judges can actually overrule a jury verdict and outright declare an acquittal, or a conviction on a lesser charge (standard caveat that we have 50 states with 50 different court systems, not everything is true in every state); but that only happens in extreme cases. One of the more famous cases where this happened was the (then infamous) “Au Pair” case of Louise Woodward, a baby in her care died, there was some evidence of “shaken baby syndrome”, she was charged with murder. The jury found her guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced her to life with the possibility of parole in 15 years.
The defense attorneys filed for post-conviction relief from the judge. The judge agreed, and ruled that he believed based on the evidence that it would be a fundamental miscarriage of justice for her to be convicted of second-degree murder as nothing in the evidence fit that crime. He overruled the jury’s verdict, and sentenced her to involuntary manslaughter and time served. The prosecution appealed, lost the appeal, and she was free to go. It was actually a case where the jury seemed confused about the legal issues around intentional vs unintentional homicide. In post-trial interviews the jurors said “none of them felt she intended to kill the baby”, which intent is a key element in the crime of second-degree murder in Massachusetts. [As an aside, forensic pathology has improved since the late 1990s when this case occurred–it is now believed that some of the beliefs about “shaken baby syndrome” don’t jive with the actual physical pathology evidence in that case, and that the Au Pair was very likely charged when no one had abused the child at all.]
This is interesting… though there still seems to be a built-in motivation to abuse the system if the mistrial question can be addressed after the verdict.
Doesn’t that give the prosecution incentive to wait and if the verdict is “not guilty”, to then say “oh yeah judge we totally blew it here, the defense is correct: mistrial it is”. And then they can get another chance, even if they have to appeal the “with prejudice” ruling (which they could set themselves up for success at by carefully wording their response to the motion).