• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(W#4255)The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse for the intentional first degree homicide of 2, injuring of 1

longview said:
No the Supreme Court ruled on jury nullification back in the early 1900’s
Click to expand...
Regardless of what the SC has ruled in the past, a judge has the discretion to dismiss a juror who has made their intent of jury nullification clear. And that judge is extremely likely to act on that discretion.
 
Cardinal said:
Regardless of what the SC has ruled in the past, a judge has the discretion to dismiss a juror who has made their intent of jury nullification clear. And that judge is extremely likely to act on that discretion.
Click to expand...
Yes, before the jury is seated!
 
ASHES said:
Bookmarked. You may not understand how badly the prosecutor screwed up throughout this case.
Click to expand...

Judge screwed up as well. Especially in his messed up jury instructions. If I were on an Appellate Court, that'd be grounds enough for me to order a re-trial.
 
Cordelier said:
Judge screwed up as well. Especially in his messed up jury instructions. If I were on an Appellate Court, that'd be grounds enough for me to order a re-trial.
Click to expand...
A retrial? On an acquittal? Do you know anything about criminal law?
 
Cordelier said:
Judge screwed up as well. Especially in his messed up jury instructions. If I were on an Appellate Court, that'd be grounds enough for me to order a re-trial.
Click to expand...

What was messed up about his jury instructions?
 
Tlrmln said:
What was messed up about his jury instructions?
Click to expand...

The reasonableness standard the jury was instructed to apply. They were told to measure Rittenhouse's actions according to what a 17 year-old would have seen to have been reasonable - not what they themselves deem reasonable. That would have been a valid instruction for juvenile court... but Rittenhouse was being tried as an adult, and so the judge's instruction was in error.
 
Cordelier said:
Judge screwed up as well. Especially in his messed up jury instructions. If I were on an Appellate Court, that'd be grounds enough for me to order a re-trial.
Click to expand...
No. That deserves a place on the “bad legal takes” Twitter feed.
 
Cordelier said:
The reasonableness standard the jury was instructed to apply. They were told to measure Rittenhouse's actions according to what a 17 year-old would have seen to have been reasonable - not what they themselves deem reasonable. That would have been a valid instruction for juvenile court... but Rittenhouse was being tried as an adult, and so the judge's instruction was in error.
Click to expand...

That's the legal standard. If you don't like it, vote for someone who will change it.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
You should look up double jeopardy, since you seem to have a dictionary handy.

edit: actually, just go look at the Bad Legal Takes feed. Plenty of examples such as yours.
Click to expand...

Double Jeoaprdy isn't going to apply if the acquittal is reversed.
 
www.msnbc.com

Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill

The shooter’s homicide acquittal coddles conservatives and may lead to even more violence.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
pocket aces said:
C'mon do you really think he just ran into them there, and just happened to be wearing the "Free as ****" shirt? Now don't lose your shit. I am in no way saying he is a white supremacist or anything like that, but I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

The prosecution examined his phone, his computer drives, his social media postings. They came up with ZILCH on contact with any such group. (And everyone interviewed after the incident denied knowing each other before their encounter in the bar).
 
Cordelier said:
Not yet. But I'm not exactly an expert on Wisconsin Criminal Law.

If it were a Federal case, though, under Rule 30 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor would have had to have objected to the instruction before the jury retired for an Appellate Court to take up the matter.
Click to expand...

That's odd because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal#United_States

With one exception, in the United States an acquittal cannot be appealed by the prosecution because of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled:

If the judgment is upon an acquittal, the defendant, indeed, will not seek to have it reversed, and the government cannot. U.S. v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310 (1892). Ball v. U.S., 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896)A verdict of acquittal, although not followed by any judgment, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Ball, supra, at 672.Society's awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit the Government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 479 (1971)Whether the trial is to a jury or, as here, to the bench, subjecting the defendant to postacquittal factfinding proceedings going to guilt or innocence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986)

It was decided in Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962) that a judgment of acquittal by a jury cannot be appealed by the prosecution. In United States v. Jenkins, 420 U.S. 358 (1975), this was held applicable to bench trials. In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984), it was ruled that in a bench trial, when a judge was holding a separate hearing after the jury trial, to decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, the judge decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose a life sentence instead of death was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law by the judge, the finding of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty and thus death could not be imposed upon a subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand.

Seems rather definitive, don't you think?
 
Cordelier said:
Not yet. But I'm not exactly an expert on Wisconsin Criminal Law.

If it were a Federal case, though, under Rule 30 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor would have had to have objected to the instruction before the jury retired for an Appellate Court to take up the matter.
Click to expand...
Alright, I’ll wait for you to find a precedent for this, though I suspect I’m going to be waiting a long time.
 
maxparrish said:
www.msnbc.com

Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill

The shooter’s homicide acquittal coddles conservatives and may lead to even more violence.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com


The prosecution examined his phone, his computer drives, his social media postings. They came up with ZILCH on contact with any such group. (And everyone interviewed after the incident denied knowing each other before their encounter in the bar).
Click to expand...
Rittenhouse also said he was a trained EMT and that Rosenbaum pulled a gun in him. Sorry if I don’t but what he says.
 
Cordelier said:
Judge screwed up as well. Especially in his messed up jury instructions. If I were on an Appellate Court, that'd be grounds enough for me to order a re-trial.
Click to expand...
were his extensive instructions not the result of the defense seeking to have the same terms (self defense, for instance) explained in each of the counts? the judge explained that he would prefer to explain those recurring terms only once but advise they applied to each count; however, he expanded his instructions as requested by the defendant to avoid a basis for appeal
if any members watched that portion of the trial and find my description inaccurate, please chime in for accuracy's sake
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom