Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

Here's a good thread on the "victims" and "rioter and looters" ruling.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453065482655907854.html

Quote:This is a routine defense request that pros not be allowed to refer to victims as such bc it alleges a crime has been committed prior to the determination that a crime has been committed.
Unroll available on Thread Reader



It’s not as salacious or shocking as this article intends. The only shocking thing is it was granted on behalf of this defendant but never has been on behalf of my defendants… which I believe says something ? 


The article above is purposefully misleading as to the rioters, looters, arsonists bit. The judge will not allow the defense to describe the victims as rioters, looters, or arsonists during opening statements or throughout trial

but will permit them to use those terms in closing arguments if during trial they have evidence to support it. This is normal during closing arguments, it’s when both sides use evidence during trial to make final arguments to jury. Likewise, the pros can call him a murderer. 


Should the defense have evidence that is admissible of criminal acts on the victims part and admit it during trial, it is completely normal to be able to label the victims as such based on the evidence of their criminal acts. 
Label the victims as such in closing based on the evidence of their criminal acts admitted during trial ***

Wanted to be clear during closing arguments only 
Victim in this sense is a legal term with a legal proposition that a crime has been committed. It’s prejudicial. This is the ruling that should be made on behalf of all defendants just never is in cases of poor BIPOC Black clients… that’s the upsetting part here. 


Not that Rittenhouse is being afforded a trial with his rights protected, but that other defendants are denied fair and nonprejudicial trials every single day. 


I’m seeing some comments from defense attorneys that this motion is routinely requested and granted in SF and MA. Here, in Louisiana, it’s routinely requested before trial but never granted. All in all the take away is this is routine and should be granted. 


An article properly stating it’s common amongst the country to not allow victim to be used in trial, especially where self defense is at issue.

This article also correctly pointed out the bad acts character evidence is limited in scope to bad acts the evening of the shooting. So only evidence that crimes were committed by the deceased the evening of their death can be presented to a jury and argued in closing.
And as support for earlier tweets, the judge provided clarity that the article QT’ed here neglected to provide. Both sides can use harsh terms they supported at trial in closing. This is how it works, folks. The question on whether you want to as defense is more concerning.
Here the journalist points out that now allowing the prosecution to use “victim” throughout trial is standard practice in all his criminal trials. What we are witnessing is Rittenhouse just seems to be benefitting from a judge who isn’t heavily prosecution leaning…

Something we all wish for in every case. 


In the end, what I want is an absolutely above-board, fair, not prejudicial trial with a conviction where his rights were upheld. There’s no need nor should we want the pros to cheat here folks, he deserves his fair trial & jury of his peers to make the guilt determination 


Updating this for you all with attorneys saying it’s common and routine to grant motions to exclude pros from using “witness” so you all can get how inflammatory that article truly was and what is standard practice


In NYC routinely granted to give perspective

[url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCqWejUXIAAcj-T.jpg][/url]