Rittenhouse: Where people have no idea what basic technology is

[Sympthsical]

This is painful. They're arguing over the drone video the prosecution is using to prove provocation.

A defense attorney just buried the prosecution about the fact the state did not give the defense the same video they possessed.

Now the judge wants a hearing and testimony under oath.

It's a 6th Amendment issue.

[jimfields33]

1. Prosecution has been second rate throughout this trial

I almost believe if rittenhouse walks, it the prosecutions fault.

[sop]

2. That's why Zimmerman walked, the prosecution in the Trayvon Martin murder was incompetent.

[jimfields33]

5. True. Is it the pressure of being in the eye of the world?

They get nervous?

[Lochloosa]

9. Zimmerman was overcharged. Most likely on purpose.

[calguy]

3. Maybe they're doing it on purpose?

[jimfields33]

4. Definitely could be right.

[Skittles]

6. he would walk regardless

gun humpers have won in America

[WHITT]

7. If They Just Passed Along

what the FBI gave them, where's the intent?

[Sympthsical]

10. They didn't

The file the defense received was different.

The how/why of that is what much of the argument is about, where the defense attorney (I don't know her name) buried Kraus. Once she laid out how the state handed over evidence, it all became questionable.

They need to get an expert in there to sort this out. It's a mess. No one's going to trust this process until it's cleared up by an impartial witness.

And now that you've thrown in a potential 6th Amendment violation, I'd almost be surprised if this doesn't end up in a mistrial. The prosecution's messes are just piling up.

[Tomconroy]

15. So is this all coming up because the jury wanted to watch

The video?

[Sympthsical]

27. I think so

The defense brought up the issue in a written motion to dismiss on Monday, but the judge didn't read the motion until today. So, there's that.

[WHITT]

23. In The Prior Thread:

The story is the FBI 'lost' it, and then found the video either right before trial, or right after the trial started.

I just assumed that was the story.

[Sympthsical]

29. It has to do with the state giving that file to the defense

The lost FBI file was given to the state. The state then were required to share it with the defense.

But what they gave to the defense was not the same video. The resolution was sixteen times worse, and the video the defense received is cropped.

Under the 6th Amendment, both sides have to have the same evidence. In the matter of this video, they do not.

[pinkstarburst]

36. Wow... that's... not good

[Kingofalldems]

8. So what amendment applies to the two murder victims?

[Sympthsical]

11. Are you saying defendants don't have Bill of Rights protections?

Interesting response.

[Sympthsical]

13. So you don't think constitutional protections are a thing

I have to make an assumption based on an avoidance to the question.

I'm in favor of a fair trial with facts, evidence, testimony, and the law taken in totality.

It is troubling that some do not wish for such things out of political bias.

[Kingofalldems]

16. It's my understanding that the video does not help

the defendant. True?

[Sympthsical]

19. Up to the jury.

From what I've seen, I don't believe so. But the prosecution laid provocation claims almost entirely on an image hard to make out. It becomes a Rorschach test. Even if what the prosecution says is true - the person in the photo is raising a rifle - it's in their left hand. Rittenhouse's rifle is right-handed. So, plenty of doubt there.

But if you want to see a rifle there, you will see it. If you don't, you won't. Personally, no idea. It's too fuzzy an image.

[RayTy]

20. Maybe its time to change that outdated document so the gun obsessed stop shooting people and getting

away with it.

[jimfields33]

34. Easy enough. Constitutional convention.

You need 26 state houses on your side. Should be easy.

[sop]

14. Not following this particular development, but I thought the case had already gone to the jury.

Is the judge deciding whether to restart the trial? Declare a mistrial with prejudice? WTF is going on?

[Sympthsical]

17. The jury does have the case

However, the jury asked to review a video. The video was objected to by the defense in a motion for dismissal before deliberations began. But the judge hadn't ruled on it yet.

What we're finding out is that the prosecution sent the defense a very different video than they possessed. This could be a violation of the 6th Amendment, where the defense and prosecution are supposed to be working with the same evidence. (A defendant's right to confront witnesses and evidence).

The trial isn't over. The judge can bring in an expert and others to testify under oath about the matter. So, the jury deliberations would simply be paused until the issue is resolved.

[Tomconroy]

18. Sounds like this it's going to be quite a while before jury

Deliberations resume.

[Sympthsical]

21. I'd be surprised if they resumed today

This seems like a mess. It sounds like they need to get some people in there to testify.

If I were the defense, I'd be pushing mistrial with prejudice a lot more strongly right now. It's yet another thing from the prosecution. And if the provocation argument hinges entirely on this piece of evidence, it's a problem. But it seems like the judge really wants the jury to have a crack at it first. If the judge dismisses it, there are political implications. And as we saw earlier today, this judge is definitely reading the papers.

[Tomconroy]

24. Judges hate mistrials.

[sop]

28. Thanks for the info.

The most obvious question would be why wasn't this defense motion ruled on by the judge before allowing the video evidence and sending the case to the jury? This trial is a disaster.

[Sympthsical]

30. It's a good question

The motion to dismiss was filed Monday, I believe. But the new information about the video wasn't discovered until over the weekend.

Mess. Mess. Mess.

If the judge had read the order before the deliberations, they could've hashed this out then.

[brush]

31. This doesn't sound good. Did the prosecution do that purposely or is it just incompetence?

If the killer walks or there's a mistrial, it'll fall on prosecution errors.

[Sympthsical]

32. They're claiming incompetence

If they admitted to it purposefully, the trial would be over and they'd risk being disbarred.

I couldn't even follow all of their explanation. The prosecutor couldn't even keep his story straight. I think they ultimately landed on blaming a technician?

I think. It was reeeeeeeal messy.

[Hav]

33. Looks like incompetence

Somewhere along the process of sending the video in question by e-mail, it apparently got compressed while it wasn't compressed when it was sent through other ways. It was honestly painful listening to the prosecution. But they also pointed out that the higher resolution video was used during the trial, the jury had seen it as well and the defense could have noticed that it differed from the version they had.

I also have to point out that many here claim that the judge is so biased. He actually seemed very fair in this instance although his disbelief in how the prosecution could mess this up was visible.

[Kingofalldems]

22. So maybe they should have brought it up earlier.

Looks like a ploy by the defense getting worried about the long deliberations.

[Sympthsical]

26. They didn't know about it earlier

They put it in the motion to dismiss on Monday after they learned about it over the weekend. The judge hadn't read the motion until today.

[Thunderbeast]

25. Two different prosecutors screwed up the Federal cases against the Bundys

Now the nutcase son (Ammon) is running for Governor in Idaho.

My money says he wins.

[Patton French]

35. A comedy of errors by the prosecution

And it’s not very funny.