Of concern.
1 Like
It’s also political, and it’s the McMichael case.
On the merits, that appears to be a much tougher case for the defense. And it’s a textbook example of what NOT to do if you are a civilian. Regardless of whether your jurisdiction permits “citizen’s arrests,” it’s unfathomable to me that these guys took it upon themselves to go run this guy down on the suspicion that he had been trespassing at a construction site.
But the merits aside, it is conceivable that Rittenhouse will be convicted out of fear of retaliation for an acquittal and the guys who chased down Arbery found not guilty. I don’t think either result would be just, but such is the world we live in.
Does the Rittenhouse judge have the power to set aside a guilty verdict?
Racist POS’s. If that goes NG I think the social unrest will be far worse than if the Rittenhouse case goes NG.
The body cam of the cops afterwards is disturbing as well. They were outrageously nice to the shooters. Oh how things would have been different if it were 3 black men standing over the dead body of a white man, smoking shotgun in hand.
Heres to hoping the winter cold keeps the social unrest to a minimum.
It’s unfathomable to me as well, but looking at them, it probably is not surprising they did it.
If convicted, he probably wins the appeal and by then, things may have cooled down.
Everything is these days.
1 Like
It’s also conceivable he is aquitted out of fear.
Angsty anarchists in black aren’t the only ones who know how to work a computer. Gravy seal incels do too.
I hadn’t heard about that. It’s horrible, whoever does it, and it should be prosecuted.
Just saying, the folks involved in this trial are getting heat from both sides. If you’re getting intimidation excuses ready for a Guilty verdict, you should recognize that intimidation could also play a part in a Not Guilty verdict.
Maybe a trial lawyer here can answer why judges are loathe to take extra security precautions with jurors and sequester them. I’ll ask my in house counsel when I get home.
In my jurisdiction, the answer would be yes. If the judge believes that, as a matter of law, the evidence does not support the verdict, the judge can enter what we call a JNOV, which is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase for “judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” I am guessing that Wisconsin permits this as well.
I’ve no doubt that fringe right wing internet wackos are out there and even attempting to interfere, but if I’m a juror I’m also confident that these guys can and will be found and prosecuted. I’m not letting an unsubstantiated article about fringe internet behavior on 4chan change my thought process, especially considering the flood of indefensible media narratives surrounding the case.
What you linked, while concerning if true, is a LOT different than a literal mob threatening not just you and your family, but your entire city. The threat of leftist violence is already established as credible. Especially considering the accompanying media narrative and President Biden once again making his opinion on the case very clear, albeit during his most recent campaign for President and not during the trial, like he did with Chauvin.
But yes, if a juror somehow weighed all of that evidence and was firmly convinced that Rittenhouse is a murderer and changed that because of right wing extremists, that’s a problem.
I think the concerns of leftist mob violence with the support of major news media and politicians are a little more tangible, but that’s just how I would weigh the situation.
1 Like
I am a trial lawyer and I have wondered this very thing. Not sequestering in this case strikes me as very dangerous, and I don’t understand why the defense is not pushing hard for it.
This…this was written by someone with no clue.
Maybe they see the constitutional “danger” of essentially detaining the jurors against their will if not absolutely necessary for their safetey? Or something along those lines?
For those who don’t have time to read this article, let me summarize: “Guns scare me. Only bad people want guns. Therefore guns should be banned.” That’s about as deep as his analysis gets.
1 Like
Jury sequestration is quite routine, and to my knowledge, no one has ever argued that it is unconstitutional, any more than compulsory jury service itself would be unconstitutional. So, no, I doubt very much that’s the reason.
Gun to your head, what’s your 1 guess?
COVID makes sequestering difficult? Judge and defense are all out of fucks to give? Family issues with one of the jurors?
If I had to guess I would say that perhaps Rittenhouse’s counsel are so immersed in the case inside the courtroom that they are not following just how tense things are getting outside. That’s totally understandable; when you’re trying a case, especially one with such high stakes, you live and breathe it every waken moment. Usually, that’s a good thing. But in this case, Rittenhouse’s counsel may not realize that the tension building outside and on social media may affect the jurors’ actions. They may not have seen the calls to “burn this shit down” if the jury acquits.