Below is my column in USA Today on the collapse of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial due to a series of prosecutorial blunders. What is worrisome is the highly slanted coverage over the last year, particularly during the trial itself. Many in the media have not focused on the countervailing facts in the case.
Today the jury will get the case following closing arguments and jury instructions. One issue to watch is how Judge Bruce Schroeder handles the gun count, which is based on what I believe is a flawed legal interpretation by the prosecution.
Here is the column:
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse increasingly seems like a legal version of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. By only touching discrete parts of the animal, the men describe vastly different animals. In coverage of this trial, one would think that there were parallel trials occurring in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
One consensus however is emerging: Things are not going well for the prosecution.
But the reason for this developing failure depends greatly on what media you are watching other than the trial itself. It is either the product of systemic errors or systemic racism.
Rittenhouse is facing six charges that range from first-degree homicide to a misdemeanor of being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. At this stage, the prosecution may celebrate even a misdemeanor conviction.
Prosecution’s bumpy start, and finish
The prosecution stumbled out of the gate in the trial. Gaige Grosskreutz was the third person to be shot by Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz admitted under cross-examination that Rittenhouse did not shoot him when he had his hands up after their confrontation. He admitted that it was only after he pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse and moved toward him that Rittenhouse fired.
Likewise, a prosecution witness, Ryan Balch, testified that one of the other people shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, said that he intended to kill Kyle Rittenhouse. Other witnesses described Rosenbaum as “belligerent” or “hyperaggressive.”
Later, the prosecution called Richard McGinniss, a journalist with The Daily Caller who was reporting from Kenosha that night. He was near Rittenhouse when Joseph Rosenbaum was shot. The prosecutor told McGinniss, “I mean you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was ever thinking at any point of his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before.”
McGinnis said, “I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is.”
The prosecutor then pressed McGinnis on how he had no idea what Rosenbaum was thinking because it “is complete guesswork, isn’t it?”
That is when McGinnis delivered a haymaker, noting, “Well he said (expletive) you, and then he reached for the weapon.”
The prosecution’s own medical expert, Dr. Doug Kelly, appeared to confirm that the forensic evidence of soot injuries on Rosenbaum’s hand could be consistent with Rosenbaum trying to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle when the gun was fired.
It got worse from there, including a glaring constitutional violation by the prosecution when Binger began his cross examination of Rittenhouse by commenting on his decision to remain silent.
The judge correctly tore into the prosecutor. Any first-year law student knows that you cannot comment on the silence of a Mirandized defendant after an arrest under the Fifth Amendment – let alone ignore a court order.
Biased media viewers
Even without the unforced errors by the prosecution, this was always a difficult case. Wisconsin has a strong self-defense standard. After a defendant claims to have acted to repel a threat, the burden is on the prosecution to rebut that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instead, the prosecution prompted its own witnesses to create layers of doubt in the case. In doing so, it seems to have reduced the range of possibilities to somewhere between a hung jury and outright acquittal on the major charges.
The problem is that many people may be unaware that the case is collapsing due to such evidentiary or tactical failures. Any hung jury or acquittal will come as a shock, and the level of outrage is likely to be greater. This case began with violent rioting in Kenosha, and the news coverage is fueling the danger of renewed violence.
It is even worse in that some coverage has dismissed the trial as an exhibition of raw racism. Some have criticized Judge Bruce Schroeder after he enforced long-standing constitutional principles and defended the core constitutional right of the defendant against self-incrimination.
MSNBC host Tiffany Cross advocated for Schroeder’s removal and called on columnist Elie Mystal to discuss the matter. Mystal, who stated earlier this month that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans in the 2021 races in part because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it,” not surprisingly, has written that this trial is a sham.
One man – not society – is on trial
MSNBC’s host Joy Reid also attacked the trial and suggested that Rittenhouse’s emotional breakdown on the stand was fraudulent. Her guest, MSNBC legal analyst and Georgetown law professor Paul Butler, concurred and called it “the greatest performance of (his) life.”
Butler declared Rittenhouse “was well-prepared by his defense attorneys to disrupt his image as a trigger-happy vigilante who went on a shooting rampage at a Black Lives Matter protest.”
Butler, who has written that Black jurors should use “jury nullification” to refuse to convict Black defendants in drug cases, insisted in a previous appearance that an acquittal would fuel future violence by white people.
Reid added Wednesday, “If you want to know why critical race theory exists, the actual law school theory that emphasizes that supposedly colorblind laws in America often still have racially discriminatory outcomes, then look no further than the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.”
However, Rittenhouse is not to be judged for society’s historical racism, and such history does not change the underlying facts.
Either Grosskreutz (who is white) was pointing the gun at Rittenhouse’s head or he was not. Either Rosenbaum (who was white) was grabbing the barrel of Rittenhouse’s gun or he was not. Such facts do not change through CRT translations.
Many in the media rightly criticized those who encouraged riots on Jan. 6 with unsupported claims of electoral fraud. However, some of the same media figures offer distorted accounts of this trial. The narrative can overwhelm the facts.
Moreover, if left uninformed of the real legal deficiencies in the case, that narrative is likely to control the response to any failure to convict.
These protests are part of a larger debate on racism in our country. However, this trial is about the actions of one individual – not society – in 2020. Those actions are increasingly favoring acquittal on the most serious charges.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is also a legal analyst for Fox News.
“. . . racially discriminatory outcomes, then look no further than the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse.”
I realize that facts are not their strong suit, but that’s just bizarre. All of the parties in this case are white.
Unless, of course, the Left want to admit the obvious — that BLM is a party to this dispute. That would mean, of course, that KR is on trial for committing a political “crime.”
“Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal rifle he carried legally in a town where he worked and his family lived” @timcast
“The Rittenhouse case is now a legal gun owner defending himself from a man who threatened to kill him twice and a mob who attacked him as he sought police assistance” @timcast
“It’s also fascinating to me that there’s been so much angst over Rittenhouse’s gun use, but next to no concern about Gaige Grosskreutz, a felon and “socialist revolutionary,” carrying a handgun he didn’t have a permit for in the middle of a riot.” @herminator
————————————
When CNN Anderson Cooper interviewed Gaige on his show, did he even raise this fact? Nope. Cooper, of course, just gave him a big fat platform to spew lies, unchallenged.
Cooper does the same for Pres. Joe Biden when he hosts CNN Townhall with the president. Biden gets a platform to spew his lies unchallenged, uncorrected. Why? Because as Trump correctly says, CNN is Fake News.
People are not under oath when they appear ont he press. Gaige was testifying under oath and there was video of his actions from multiple angles.
We have seen the same not just in the Rittenhouse trial. But in most media reporting.
Sources provide the media with a narative that the media wants, and the media fails to look at the glarring inconsistencies.
Here are established facts much, most, all (?) of the “news” media failed to get right —->
Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed with a legal rifle he carried legally in a town where he worked and his family lived.
“Crossing state lines” amounted to a 25-minute commute.
How many rioters ‘crrossed state lines’ to riot, burn, assault, destroy Kenosha?
Small but important correction. Crossing state lines consisted of leaving the city limits of Antioch. The left sings the chorus “crossing state lines” in perfect harmony, despite the prosecutors filing criminal charges for crossing state lines. Maybe because it is a fact with no relevance.
The left commends illegal crossings of international boundaries by illegals that are murderers and rapists.
Then there’s the elephant in the room – The unwavering support and encouragement that the mainstream media and the Democrat party give to BLM and Antifa when they engage in rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, and murder in the process of destroying a city
I’m glad that Professor Turley’s column was published in USA Today. I hope that many people will read it. It’s troublesome that the broadcast media is populated with so many uninformed media personalities. It’s time for a course in critical thinking in our classrooms.
Separate question: When you are finished with the Rittenhouse trial and prosecution of Pittsburgh lawyers dropping their pants in courthouses, could you provide your perspective on why Steve Bannon is being prosecuted for Contempt of Congress while former officials like Eric Holder simply brush it off without any hint of prosecution? I’m no fan or Bannon, but it sure looks like selective if not partisan prosecution.
It looks like selective prosecution, because it is! Lois Lerner (IRS) also held in contempt and never prosecuted. Two officials who should have been indicted and prosecuted: Eric Holder, Lois Lerner. But they weren’t.
Congress is so worried about punishing deplorable political foes like Bannon, and yet they could care less about prosecuting truly corrupt administration officials who utterly ignored and defied Congress….and it was absolutely meaningless.
Keep up the fight Steve Bannon!
Also —->
“Keep in mind as you watch DOJs Bannon circus, the DOJ TWICE declined to charge an FBI agent with lying to federal investigators related to the Larry Nassar case.
You know, the serial rapist who sexually assaulted hundreds of girls including top Olympic gymnasts…”
Bannon was not part of the whitehouse at the time and had not been for a long time.
Even when he was part of the whitehouse, he was essentially an outside advisor.
Louis Lerhner was not just an IRS employee, but she was not even a political appointment.
Further she was not an advisor, but an actor.
This is both legally trivial – Congress does not have the power to investigate individuals or crimes.
And stupid.
Lets assume Bannon is compelled to testify.
Republicans will likely take the house in 2022 and possibly the Senate.
And they can start their own investigations with the carte blanche that democrats have established with the Jan 6. mess.
We can follow the law and constitution as it is.
Or not.
But we can not expect that only republicans must follow it.
John B. Say,
“ This is both legally trivial – Congress does not have the power to investigate individuals or crimes.
And stupid.”
Actually congress has that power. Since the constitution grants congress the right to make its own rules it can certainly create a committee to exercise an investigation.
“ Congress possesses broad and encompassing powers to engage in oversight and conduct investigations reaching all sources of information necessary to carry out its legislative functions. In the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege
or a self-imposed restriction upon its authority, Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to discharge their legislative functions. This applies whether the information is sought from executive agencies, private persons, or organizations. Within certain constraints, the information so obtained may be made public.
These powers have been recognized in numerous Supreme Court cases, and the broad legislative authority to seek information and enforce demands was unequivocally established in two Supreme Court rulings arising out of the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal. In McGrain v. Daugherty,1 which considered a Senate investigation of the Justice Department, the Supreme Court described the power of inquiry, with accompanying process to enforce it, as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”The court explained:
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not possess the requisite information—which not infrequently is true—recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.2”
https://archive.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Chapter-3.pdf
The very center of the Capitol riot failures was the failure of police to shoot at or near the invaders and assaulters.
Perhaps they [the Capitol Police] were afraid of hitting federal agents…
The US capital is “the peoples house” – these “invaders” – were protestors, excercising free speech, free assembly, and petitioning govenrment. Unlike BLM rioters who claim to be doing the same – while looting and robbing Macy’s or Target, these people petitioned govenrnent – at the seat of government – the capital – as is their actual right.
When they attempted to do so – they found a public building – the seat of government, the preiminent public forum at which one would petition government was LOCKED – that was an unconstitutional infringement on their first amendment rights.
Pelosi and company are free to assure that congress can cast their votes on the certification of the 2020 election.
They are NOT free to assure that they can do so protected from the angry complaints of those who beleive the election was a sham and expect them to do their actual duty and assure that the election was conducted lawfully and without fraud.
Put simply – the capital was NOT free to close.
The capital police were free to move the securing lines outside the building, to search people entering the building, to limit their numbers, to prevent them from entering private spaces, to prevent them from bring bags, packages, etc. in.
They were not free to deny them entry while congress was in session.
Once again – the left acted LAWLESSLY. Just as the rioting in Kenosha and elsewhere.
Once again – those confronting that lawlessness are the ones facing consequences.
John B. Say,
“ When they attempted to do so – they found a public building – the seat of government, the preiminent public forum at which one would petition government was LOCKED – that was an unconstitutional infringement on their first amendment rights.”
Wrong. It may have been the case at one time, but that is no longer true.
The public don’t have the right to enter the Capitol building anytime they want.
“There was a time where anybody could come walk into the building,” Jane Campbell, president of the United States Historical Society, said.
But Campbell said that time was more than 70 years ago and adds laws have been on the books since 1946 controlling public access to the Capitol. Congress tightened restrictions in the 1970s after a radical left-wing militant group set off a bomb in the Capitol and again in the late ’90s when an armed assailant stormed past a U.S. Capitol security checkpoint and killed two Capitol Police officers.
Now, the only public access to the Capitol is through the visitor’s center and even that has been shut off due to the pandemic.”
… “Just as our freedom of speech doesn’t allow us in a crowded theater to scream fire,” Campbell clarified, “we also can’t come into the Capitol, disrupt the work of Congress and vandalize our most sacred space.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/verify/capitol-riots-justice-for-j6-protest-public-space-acess-us-capitol/65-df5604a9-459f-4c44-a98d-ce73f34d3cb9
It’s the same reason why you can’t just walk around the FBI or Treasury building whenever you want.
They could still protest as loud as they wanted outside the security perimeter.
These “invaders” came to the capital – the seat of govenrment, while it was in session to protest the certification of a lawless election.
That is a right guaranteed them by the first amendment.
They did not come as part of a conspiracy to commit any crime. DOJ has repeatedly confirmed there was no conspiracy.
They did not come with guns or knives or other offensive weapons. DOJ has repeatedly confirmed that.
In your left wing nut delusions, you can pretend this was an insurection, an invasion, and assault.
In reality the only difference between this and the Kavanaugh protests was that Pelosi locked the doors of the Capital.
That is it.
But if you keep your lawless totalitarian nonsense up – you would be right to fear an actual insurrection.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/87/f4/a6/87f4a6f6dd2e68a2acbed087f22a85a6.jpg
John B. Say says, “ They did not come with guns or knives or other offensive weapons. DOJ has repeatedly confirmed that.”
Nope.
“ Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others “stormed the Capitol.”
Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine.”
“ It’s also worth noting that the definition of “armed” is not legally limited to guns — it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and used as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.statesman.com/amp/7963993002
Other items used as weapons Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays. — Svelaz
LOL.
A motley crew of what you call “insurrectionists” bringing crutches, flagpoles and skateboards to overthrow a government protected by numerous well-trained, heavily-armed police and federal agents. I’ll have to remember that one — it’s a knee slapper.
You are a dim bulb. Are you really that stupid, or just blinded by slavish devotion to the left’s radical ideology?
Wonder if anyone offered Kyle a box of tissues when he started crying? I started crying too!
Two prime candidates for Darwin Awards, and a third who only did not qualify because he survived. Which is dumber, trying to take a gun by grabbing it by the barrel or using a skateboard to attack someone with a rifle ? It is a hard question, but both clearly qualify for Darwins. We can only hope they have not spread their genes to another generation of morons. That may not be a problem with one of them who was recently out of prison for pedophilia, he preyed on girls younger than 10.
Watching the actual trail, the evidence, the witnesses testimony, then what is being said/reported in the MSM . . . like two different worlds.
Some of the mental gymnastics MSM went to were gold medal worthy.
Then the mock shock and anger over recognizing Vets on of all things Veterans Day, the lunch logistical crisis joke, a ring tone on a phone, and MSM wonders why the majority of Americans do not find them trust worthy.
Rather than prosecutorial errors, the likely exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse is due to a weak case. The facts just do not support a conviction. The district attorney was compelled to bring charges due to political pressure from the Woke mob.
The prosecutors errors are the consequence of trying to bring a case where there is none.
I find judge Shroeder’s claim about Rittenhouse remaining silent not being used in court to be wrong. Did Rittenhouse specifically invoke his right to remain silent? According to the Salinas case one has to specifically invoke the right in order to benefit from it. Furthermore the Supreme Court pointed out that silence CAN be construed as an admission of guilt.
I can’t find any record of Rittenhouse invoking his right to remain silent. As far as I know simply remaining silent doesn’t grant you the 5th amendments protections from self incrimination.
This had nothing to do with remaining silent during current testimony. But prosecution can NEVER ask or insinuate ANY and ALL instances when the defendant DID invoke his rights PREVIOUS to his taking the stand. This is perhaps the worst legal violation an attorney can make, and had the political target been the prosecution instead of the defendant, the trial would have ended IMMEDIATELY, most probably with prejudice (no retrial, all chages dropped), and the violating attorney already undergoing disbarment proceedings.
You are conflating two things. The Prosecution was trying to use Kyle’s silence BEFORE the trial against him. Kyle testified AT the trial, and was cross-examined by the Prosecution. You do NOT have to declare the 5th before trial, you are allowed to simply not give statements to MSM or whoever.
One does not need to invoke a right, one has a right. You don’t need to invoke your 1st amendment right, you don’t need to invoke 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th,… amendment rights.
Anonymous, actually you do have to invoke the right to remain silent, especially when being questioned by authorities. Simply remaining silent is not an invocation of the 5th amendment.
“ Just being silent is not enough. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that a suspect’s silence during informal police questioning can be used as evidence of guilt unless the right is invoked.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak?nav=89-csm_category-topStories
Did Rittenhouse invoke the right to remain silent prior to being arrested?
I haven’t seen any record of him invoking it. Because according to the Supreme Court itself being silent can be used as evidence of guilt.
Are you telling us that Kyle wasn’t arrested. Or are you trying to say that he wasn’t given his Mirada Rights?
I don’t think he was selecting questions that he would answer or not answer which is what the SC was dealing with. There was no question that Kyle’s gun war involved in the three justified shootings and no question that Kyle pulled the trigger.
You saw a blurb on this but didn’t bother to read further. You are full of half information spoon fed to you and therefore end up making errors like you did with regard to the meaning of fascism, your discussion of what Robert Moses did, and even what a paper written by a student said having to do with CRT. You Google provide links you haven’t read or don’t understand.
S. Meyer,
“ Are you telling us that Kyle wasn’t arrested. Or are you trying to say that he wasn’t given his Mirada Rights?”
Nope. I’m asking if Kyle invoked his right to remain silent prior to or after his arrest? In order for him to benefit from the right according to the Supreme Court Kyle must have invoked it verbally. Just staying silent doesn’t imply you’re exercising the right.
“ You saw a blurb on this but didn’t bother to read further.”
No, I read the actual Supreme Court opinion on the matter on the right to remain silent.
“ JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY,
concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’s question. Pp. 3−12.
(a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shield- ing information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
“Nope. I’m asking if Kyle invoked his right to remain silent prior to or after his arrest? “
In other words, ‘Svelaz’, you are talking through your a$$ again. You don’t know exactly what happened which is generally the case when you post. First find out the circumstances before quoting the law.
By the way, when the prosecutor had trouble opening Kyle’s phone because they didn’t have the capability with his operating system, Kyle opened it for them, so they could look all through his phone to find NON-existent connections with radicals. With regard to one of those killed, the prosecutor decided not to bother even looking even though I think he had a criminal record. That demonstrates what conservatives face. Unequal treatment under the law and people that are willing to draw conclusions based on ideology (like you) before accumulating the necessary facts.
You fail time and time again, but like a true leftist ideologue you don’t bother learning from your mistakes. Instead you embarrass yourself without any concern. That is the difference between leftists and the more conservative group. Conservatives are conscious of the truth and gather data before opening their mouths.
S. Meyer,
“ You don’t know exactly what happened which is generally the case when you post. First find out the circumstances before quoting the law.”
If you actually paid attention to what I have been saying you would know that I have been ASKING if anyone knew or if there was a record of Rittenhouse invoking his right to remain silent.
As usual you shoot your mouth off before thinking.
Without knowing the answer to that question and others, you went ahead and drew conclusions. You are now admitting that you shot your mouth off before having the facts in hand.
Now let’s get to what you say you have been ASKING for and forget that you prematurely concluded before you had the facts in. In this case, I don’t know if this is another lie or you actually ASKED the question. I will not spend the time finding the truth, but I will pass that on to you since you said you did. Show us that you were “ASKING if anyone knew or if there was a record of Rittenhouse invoking his right to remain silent.” with the quote and its location. If you can’t do that, then you prove you have lied again.
Svelaz, you have confirmed you lied again.
Remember this thread where you were upset about Rittenhouse’s choice to remain silent. What a doofus.
I will quote my words again Svelaz. “In other words, ‘Svelaz’, you are talking through your a$$ again.”
If you continue the mini thread you will see that you ran away.
S. Meyer,
“ I don’t think he was selecting questions that he would answer or not answer which is what the SC was dealing with. ”
As usual you miss the point of the ruling. It’s not just about choosing which questions to answer. The question before the court was whether simply remaining silent was an implied invocation the right to remain silent. The court ruled that it was not. You HAVE to invoke it verbally in order to benefit from the right.
Did rittenhouse invoke his right to remain silent or did he just decide not to speak without invoking it. There’s an important distinction here. If he didn’t his silence, according to the Supreme Court could be construed as evidence of guilt.
The question before the court was whether simply remaining silent was an implied invocation the right to remain silent.
Wow, you are bone headed.
The Rittenhouse prosecutor told the jury that Rittenhouse refused to make public statements defending himself. The Prosecutor was attempting to make that silence as evidence of a guilty man. This was the prosecutor testifying to the jury. The Judge had all the cause he needed at that moment to declare a mistrial with prejudice. WHY? Because Rittenhouse has the constitutional right to remain silent, and the government cannot direct a jury to consider that silence as evidence of guilt.
The judge forceful reprimanded the prosecutor for making such an accusation because it is a direct violation of Kyle Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent.
You are an idiot trying to conflate the accused right not to make public statements, and a suspect, or witness “Pleading 5th ammendment constitutional protecttions from the Government forcing a person to testify against himself. With that same individual refusing to make public statements declaring his innocence.
The two are not synonymous
Iowan2,
“ The Prosecutor was attempting to make that silence as evidence of a guilty man. ”
The Supreme Court had made being silent can be construed as evidence of guilt. They pointed out that merely being silent is not an invocation of the right to remain silent. One must verbally invoke it in order to benefit from it. Did Kyle verbally invoke his right to remain silent?
Tell us how one invoke’s his right. Does he have to quote the amendment?
The prosecutor should be disbarred.
The Supreme Court had made being silent can be construed as evidence of guilt.
You intentionally fully exposed your idiocy by not addressing my full post.
You are an idiot trying to conflate the accused right not to make public statements, and a suspect, or witness “Pleading 5th ammendment constitutional protections from the Government forcing a person to testify against himself.
The Supreme Court had made being silent can be construed as evidence of guilt.
Svelez is an idiot. He believes after the point law enforcement is required to inform a suspect of their 5th amendment rights that the suspect’s silence can be construed as evidence of guilt. Maybe that’s true in whatever country he has allegiance to, but not the United States.
Svelez is an idiot
Here is an applicable article
How to Become Calm in America
Avoid politics and social media, and take refuge in your family.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/calm-in-america-politicians-anger-family-traffic-serenity-news-media-leftwing-rightwing-11637009769
““ I don’t think he was selecting questions that he would answer or not answer which is what the SC was dealing with. ””
You have yet gotten to first base. Read the decision and stop being so stupid. I won’t conclude how the SC would decide the Rittenhouse case on this issue. First we need the facts regarding the interrogation As usual you don’t have those facts. What we do know was that Rittenhouse had a right to kill all three, but you are too stupid to realize that or what the logic is behind the fifth amendment.
The prosecutor tried to create circumstances that didn’t exist to help the jury convict Rittenhouse. That is not what prosecutors are supposed to do, but ignorant people like yourself don’t realize that.
Anyone can read up or down to see how Svelaz’s arguments don’t hold water.
I can’t find any record of Rittenhouse invoking his right to remain silent. As far as I know simply remaining silent doesn’t grant you the 5th amendments protections from self incrimination.
That’s apparently not that far. You’re approach to 5th amendment rights is consistent with your worldview of other rights commonly referred to as natural rights; they are only to be secured if you approve of their security. The right to remain silent doesn’t come into existence because law enforcement Mirandizes a suspect. Nor does that right come into existence because a suspect invokes it. In other words, that right is always enabled unless positively disabled by the suspect.
By constantly trying to find a workaround of our constitution, you present yourself as hostile to the security that the rule of law was intended to provide.
Olly, the Supreme Court itself made it clear you HAVE to invoke the right to remain silent in order to benefit from the constitutional protection.
“ In affirming the Texas court, the Supreme Court said on Monday that Salinas’ Fifth Amendment claim “fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer’s questions.”
In effect, the court said Salinas could not take advantage of his right to remain silent by merely remaining silent.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak?nav=89-csm_category-topStories
Keep in mind that it was the majority of conservative justices that ruled you need to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. Simply remaining silent is not enough.
Prosecutors can use a suspect’s silence during informal police questioning as evidence of guilt at a subsequent trial, the US Supreme Court said on Monday.
However, in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecutor wasn’t merely citing silence during informal police questioning, he was insinuating his silence up until he took the stand would be evidence of guilt. That’s complete BS as he would have his 5th amendment protections at least once under formal police questioning.
Olly,
“ U. S. 609, in which this Court held that the Fifth Amend- ment prohibits a prosecutor or judge from commenting on a defend- ant’s failure to testify, should not be extended to a defendant’s silence during a precustodial interview because Griffin “lacks foundation in the Constitution’s text, history, or logic.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
It seems that the prosecutor’s strategy was within legal bounds. He was within a hair of pushing the line. But it is permissible for the prosecution to use his silence prior to trial as evidence of guilt.
The question still not being answered thought did Rittenhouse invoke the right to remain silent or not?
It seems that the prosecutor’s strategy was within legal bounds. He was within a hair of pushing the line. But it is permissible for the prosecution to use his silence prior to trial as evidence of guilt.
No. It comes as no surprise that your argument is a flat out lie. The prosecutors in this case blew right through the line and the judge correctly reprimanded them.
Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may “plead the Fifth” and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.
In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.
However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogations or questioning that occur prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give the Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.
If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. To determine if a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver has occurred, a court will examine the totality of the circumstances, which considers all pertinent circumstances and events. If a suspect makes a spontaneous statement while in custody prior to being made aware of the Miranda rights, law enforcement can use the statement against the suspect, provided that police interrogation did not prompt the statement. The Fifth Amendment right does not extend to an individual’s voluntarily prepared business papers because the element of compulsion is lacking. Similarly, the right does not extend to potentially incriminating evidence derived from obligatory reports or tax returns.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
Olly,
“ However, courts have since then slightly narrowed the Miranda rights, holding that police interrogations or questioning that occur prior to taking the suspect into custody does not fall within the Miranda requirements, and the police are not required to give the Miranda warnings to the suspects prior to taking them into custody, and their silence in some instances can be deemed to be implicit admission of guilt.
If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights. An actual waiver occurs when a suspect has made the waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. ”
You don’t have to wait until they read you your Miranda warning In order to invoke the 5th. You waive your right the moment you start talking, answer any questions, or make any statements.
In Salinas the Supreme Court clarified this by emphasizing that in order to be protected from self incrimination one MUST invoke verbally the right to remain silent and by silent then meant literally being silent completely. Any gesture or answer to a benign question can be construed as waiving that right. You should read the Salinas opinion. They made the right to remain silent much more narrow than it used to be.
Ironically the dissenting justices in the Salinas case made the same argument you and judge shroeder made.
The Supreme Court made it easier to assert that remaining silent can too be used against you.
The Supreme Court made it easier to assert that remaining silent can too be used against you.
Rittenhouse was arrested on August 26th. Once Rittenhouse is in police custody and being questioned, Miranda rights are in effect. Absolutely once he was arrested, those rights are in effect. That means at a minimum, Rittenhouse had a constitutional right to remaining silent from August 26th and beyond.
Olly,
“ Rittenhouse was arrested on August 26th. Once Rittenhouse is in police custody and being questioned, Miranda rights are in effect.”
There are no Miranda rights. There is only Miranda WARNING. Rittenhouse doesn’t automatically get his rights unless he verbally invokes them.
“ That means at a minimum, Rittenhouse had a constitutional right to remaining silent from August 26th and beyond.”
Just because he was read his Miranda WARNING he doesn’t automatically get his rights. He still had to assert them. If he didn’t after being warned anything he said or didn’t say could have been used against him. If he had his lawyer with him he would still have to invoke verbally his right to remain silent.
Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one…If law enforcement fails to honor these safeguards, courts will often suppress any statements by the suspect as violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, provided that the suspect has not actually waived the rights.
You are so full of $hit. Once law enforcement is duty bound to mirandize a suspect, the suspect has 5th amendment protection from self-incrimination, regardless of whether the suspect positively asserts them or not. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to confirm the suspect understands the rights that have been read to them. If the suspect does not assert the right, or assert they understand the right, then law enforcement shall not assume the silence is a waiver of the right. It’s only if the suspect positively waives these rights.
Your worldview of U.S. Law and our Bill of Rights lead me to believe you’re not a citizen of this country, but rather a citizen of some totalitarian regime.
“According to the Salinas case . . .”
How many times are you going to misinterpret and misapply the same case?
At the time in question, Salinas was neither under arrest nor Mirandized. KR was both. Salinas — while neither in custody nor Mirandized — voluntarily answered a series of questions, then remained silent on the next one (about shotgun casings). *That* scenario, which does not apply to the KR case, is the essence of Salinas.
When applying court precedent, the facts of a case matter.
Sam:
“How many times are you going to misinterpret and misapply the same case?
************************
Pearls … Swine … Remember? Don’t feed the trolls – especially the ones who manifest Dunning-Kruger.
Sam,
The invocation must be made regardless on whether you’re under arrest or not. Here’s the the ruling verbatim,
“ Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving Miranda warn- ings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection, the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the pros- ecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed.
JUSTICE ALITO, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY,
concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’s question. Pp. 3−12.
(a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shield- ing information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
Your handwaving aside, the “verbatim” quote does not even speak to key issue: Custodial versus non-custodial police interviews.
In fact, if you had read the entire decision, you’d see that the Court bent over backward to specify the context of its ruling: A non-custodial, non-Mirandized interview, et al. The fact pattern matters. Salinas was non-custodial; KR custodial.
“The invocation must be made regardless on whether you’re under arrest or not.”
The majority opinion in Salinas disagrees with your attempt to doctor their decision:
“Second, we have held that a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. Thus, in Miranda, we said that a suspect who is subjected to the ‘inherently compelling pressures’ of an unwarned custodial interrogation *need not invoke the privilege*. 384 U. S., at 467–468, and n. 37. Due to the uniquely coercive nature of custodial interrogation, a suspect in custody cannot be said to have voluntarily forgone the privilege “unless [he] fails to claim [it] after being suitably warned.” Murphy, supra, at 429–430. (Emphasis added.)
Be an advocate. That’s great. But don’t just make stuff up.
“I find judge Shroeder’s claim about Rittenhouse remaining silent not being used in court to be wrong.”
This comes from a person wrong on almost everything, yet is willing to repeat his errors over and over again. Have you bothered to finally look up what fascism, socialism and nazism have in common? Probably not.
Have you finally gotten it through your head that the article you quoted was by a student, not a PhD. You couldn’t even admit you were wrong after the bio from the article was copied where it said he was a student. Probably not.
Have you bothered to look up you errors on Robert Moses (roads, bridges, tunnels, parks and parkways)? Probably not
It puts smiles holding back laughter watching you expose another dimension of your ignorance. Go ahead.
S. Meyer, the only thing that is ridiculous here is the fact that you’re still hung up on discussions long gone and of which YOU ran away from or simply got too silly on your end for them to be considered sincere discussions.
“of which YOU ran away from”
Svelaz’, I’m here and always here to the end waiting for another foolish reply from you. Eventually you will run out of predigested talking points and disappear like you always do.
I’ve already asked for the date surrounding the issue. I know the SC case. This defendant later convicted, talked freely to the police until they asked him if the shells from the murder would match the shells in his gun. Then he became defensive and refused to answer the question.
Rittenhouse was very open. He knows the way leftists act and wanted legal protection and the like. When the prosecutor couldn’t open Kyle’s phone for a look he immediately granted that look to them. They found nothing, but did they look at the phone of one who attacked Kyle? No. That is prosecutorial bias something you don’t understand. I think the prosector should be discharged and perhaps have his license to practice law revoked.
If you provide the dialogue without omission of the time that Kyle wouldn’t answer, I’ll talk about it, but you have only enough space in your brain to know how to Google things and read predigested material from left wing websites. You have proven yourself superficial on virtually everything, but you are about the only thing the left has because in your world even stupid people look smart. Where I come from you couldn’t compete with the dumbest of the dumb.
Svelaz, I am just checking in. Are you running away again?
Yes, Svelaz you are running away again while accusing others of running away. Can’t you get anything right?
Svelaz, Svelaz, are you there? I am waiting for you to stop running.
Svelaz, you ran away from almost every argument that was disputed and now you have started a new fallacious argument about SSI and censorship. Don’t you ever stop and think?
Yes, Svelaz ran away again.
Svelaz is gone. He will be back repeating the same disproven theories.
Here is another one Svelaz. Deal with the issues you ran away from instead of dealing with the same issues by repeating the same garbage.
Allan can’t let the thread go. He was beaten soundly as per usual and can’t deal with that reality.
Anonymous the Stupid, you can lie, twist and turn or do whatever, but you can’t escape the truth. You and Svelaz are knuckleheads. I repeated my last comment and you can go back to the rest of the thread, so that even an airhead like you should be able to discern the truth.
Your defense of doltishness doesn’t help your reputation.
—
“of which YOU ran away from”
Svelaz’, I’m here and always here to the end waiting for another foolish reply from you. Eventually you will run out of predigested talking points and disappear like you always do.
I’ve already asked for the date surrounding the issue. I know the SC case. This defendant later convicted, talked freely to the police until they asked him if the shells from the murder would match the shells in his gun. Then he became defensive and refused to answer the question.
Rittenhouse was very open. He knows the way leftists act and wanted legal protection and the like. When the prosecutor couldn’t open Kyle’s phone for a look he immediately granted that look to them. They found nothing, but did they look at the phone of one who attacked Kyle? No. That is prosecutorial bias something you don’t understand. I think the prosector should be discharged and perhaps have his license to practice law revoked.
If you provide the dialogue without omission of the time that Kyle wouldn’t answer, I’ll talk about it, but you have only enough space in your brain to know how to Google things and read predigested material from left wing websites. You have proven yourself superficial on virtually everything, but you are about the only thing the left has because in your world even stupid people look smart. Where I come from you couldn’t compete with the dumbest of the dumb.
Jury nullification can occur in three ways, either the jury consciously uses ends justifying means to render its ideological decision or a completely stupid jury nullifying an obvious verdict (like the OJ trial), or nowadays juror intimidation, being fearful of being harmed or killed for a non-politically correct decision. The third case is particularly scary now since TV has shown threats to the jury ( “We know who you are”)
The Professor is right on the mark in the real issues at hand in this case.
Never mind the “facts” and “evidence”….the media and race baiters will continue to stand on their own particular soap boxes and create as much discord as they can.
Rittenhouse is innocent of all charges….proven by the facts and evidence and an incompetent Prosecution.
In light of the facts and evidence coming out in the trial….one can rightly question why there is a Trial at all….as the Prosecution must have known about the large amount of exculpatory evidence and testmony well ahead of the start of the prosecution of this case.
Does this rise to the level of the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecution down in North Carolina that led to the incarceration of the Prosecutor of those innocent young Men?
What is really important….the coverage of this Trial and the Media’s continuing lying to the public needs to be indicted and prosecuted by some impartial media organizations if not a criminal prosecution.
When the Riots start…the buildings burn…the automobiles set alight…Police Officers and Citizens inured or killed……as a direct result of the media’s reporting….there must be retribution for that.
Journalists must be held accountable….they must not be allowed to cause such violence with their words and be immune from penalties for inciting such violence.
When BLM and ANTIFA….which both exist and have offered violence in the past and promise violence again when they disagree with a Verdict in Court…..they too must be held accountable for their conduct.
Will it have to be the People or the Police and Courts that do that is the question.
If Government refuses to live up to its obligations under the law….will that then fall to the People.
We best hope not.
Accountable? Let’s send Kyle to visit each of these racist journalists.
@Ralph,
Innocent no.
Not guilty, yes.
He presented an affirmative defense. So he’s not innocent.
Are you a lawyer? If so, I feel sorry for your clients. Stay anonymous.
Weird logic.
That affirmative defense is self defense.
You are INNOCENT of murder if you killed a person in self defense.
You still Killed them. But there is no “killing a person” crime.
In the US juries find defendants guilty or not guilty.
Not guilty where the facts are not in question is the same as innocent.
There is no doubt Rittenhouse killed 2 people and shot a 3rd.
If that was in self defense he is not merely not guilty – he is INNOCENT.
This case should not be turned over to a jury. I am not aware of any facts that are desputed between the prosecution and the defense.
The only question for the jury is a legal one, and that is the domain of the judge.
“This case should not be turned over to a jury.”
John, what do you think will happen if the judge did the right thing as you suggest? Don’t you think there will be rioting by the violent left?
John, this just popped up:
“Judge in Rittenhouse trial throws out misdemeanor dangerous weapon charge as closing arguments begin”
“ But there is no “killing a person” crime.”
Actually there is. Involuntary manslaughter.
The self-defence argument may be undermined depending on the judge’s precise instructions about “provocation.” That having been said, it is hard to see how the jurors could find unanimously that any of the charges had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the charge of possession seems unlikely to prevail, because of the odd way it appears not to apply to those who are 16 or 17.
Though I still think it was very poor judgement for him to be there in the first place, these folks are pi**ed by the simple fact that people will fight back against their elitist and ignorant totalitarianism, and that’s that. To them, the rest of us were supposed to roll over and we have done the opposite, and within the confines of the law, which makes it a double crisis for them. They attack not only the individual but the rule of law itself, and they do it over and over again.
Bingo. That’s what Kyle’s on trial for, effectively fighting back against his dem army attackers and not allowing himself to be humilated by them and most likely killed by his own gun. To the left it sets a bad example that others may follow.
Why is it poor judgement to be there in the first place ?
The point of the prosecution is to preclude others from defending their person and property so that riots are more politically successful.
One should not be confused that the BLM rioting was nothing more than an angry reaction.
It was also a political message – “give us what we want or we will burn everything down”
The response of the left to 1/6 is to assure that only those ont he left, can organize, protest, petition the government.
Regardless of the outcome of the rittenhouse case – or that of the jan 6 protestors the message being sent is clear:
If you are not on the left, sit down and be silent and acquiesce – or you will be punished.
Even if acquited – the judge should have granted a directed verdict long ago – the message is still clear. “Cower or we will kill or destroy you”
Even if Rittenhouse prevails, and becomes a successful celebrity, very few of us would choose to be in his shoes.
And if we are unable to be Rittenhouse – if we are unwilling to defend our own lives, our own property and that of others, then we will be the victims of leftist tryanny.
John B. Say,
“ Why is it poor judgement to be there in the first place ?
The point of the prosecution is to preclude others from defending their person and property so that riots are more politically successful.”
Kyle wasn’t there to defend his property. The car dealership never asked for him to stand guard. Furthermore what business did he have going there in the first place? He was not deputized, he was not in law enforcement. So why was he there? He was playing vigilante and ended up killing someone.
I can Understand defending ones own property, but others property without their consent? In another state?
How does the name Svelaz mistakenly be written as Abelard? Maybe too much smoking in the bathrooms of W. Hollywood.
Furthermore what business did he have going there in the first place?
Rittenhouse had exactly the same “business” to be there as the rioters, arsonists and thugs. Kenosha is his community.
Just compare the shooting in the Nation’s Capital Building on Jan 6th and this shooting. Compare the Media’s coverage. Something is rotten in Denmark.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” (John Adams)
Why are we even talking about “reactions?” The Rittenhouse trial and any reaction by street thugs are two separate issues. The trial goes how the jury says it goes. Street riots – not peaceful protests, riots – are handled with force – however much it takes, including gunfire if necessary. Easy-peasy.
The trial and the reaction of street thugs to the verdict are two separate issues. The trial goes how the jury says it goes. Rioting – not peaceful protest – is handled with force – however much it takes, including gunfire. Easy-peasy.
Rittenhouse was using force to defend himself in the midst of a riot.
The entire point of this trial for the left is to quash the use of force to stop rioting.
It’s not just the use of force. It’s the limits of what citizens can do when it comes to “law enforcement” by civilian actors.
What gives citizens the right to defend someone else’s property in another state?
He was protecting a community where his parents live and he frequents.
What gives citizens the right to defend someone else’s property in another state?
Voluteers travel to render aid in emergencies all the time.
What gives rioters the right to destroy property?
After months of rioting and destruction, the Government proved themselves unwilling to defend and protect citizens and property. Citizens have every right to protect their community.