The Rittenhouse judge channels his inner-MAGA man more than once

Originally published at: The Rittenhouse judge channels his inner-MAGA man more than once | Boing Boing


The Judge is loud and obnoxious, but having read both episodes he made about the prosecution, I agree with him. 1) If a defendant has the right to remain silent, that fact that he didn’t immediately give up that right shouldn’t be used to generate suspicion. There are tons of reasons to stay silent until you have representation. 2) the prosecution tried to present a detail into evidence which had been ruled out of bounds before the trial even started - if a prosecutor wants to re-introduce evidence like that, they aren’t allowed to make that effort in front of the jury. it’s a request that must be made in chambers. The prosecutor knew that, and was rightly scolded.


The fact that the prosecutor did that almost immediately means there should have been a mistrial. (depending on the evidence.)


The judge let the defense use an expert witness with NO NOTICE WHATSOEVER to the prosecution. That is mistrial level malfeasance.


1] The judge is a babbling idiot with a strong tilt toward grandiose senility bloviating.

2] I researched “mistrial” strategy history, if the defense thinks this is a good move, it’s more of a “hail Mary” move, mistrial is not a guarantee that you’ll walk free of your crimes, it’s really more of a guarantee that you will face prison for those crimes.


They are going for “mistrial with prejudice” rather than a simple mistrial. In such a situation, it is as though the defendant has been found innocent and a retrial is not allowed.


The judge is obviously prejudiced and allowed a clearly biased (by the judge’s own assessment!) to be seated, yet the prosecutors are the ones who are ensuring that this little shit is going to walk free. Wonkette has an as-usual brilliant rundown from their resident legal law-person:

Except, in this case, the defense asked for a finding of mistrial “with prejudice” which means that, yeah he absolutely will walk free if the judge rules it so.

Of course, there are federal charges which could actually be far easier to prosecute, but Merrick Garland seems to be taking a “wait and see” approach to fascism, so I’m not holding my breath.

The only joy in this moment is the wonderful gif leading that Wonkette piece. All else is ashen and gray.


The Federal charges [hate crime/weapons crime/plus ?] will then be presented, still no win for the defendant.


(Disclaimer: I haven’t been following this trial at all.)

What about a situation where no mistrial is ever declared but the jury sees that the trial is a dumpster fire and acquits?

1 Like

That’s true even if he is found innocent by a jury.


As stated above, the Federal crimes will be prosecuted.

@cannibalpeas You are correct Sir, but I hold out hope that he’ll [Merrick Garland ] find his cajones.


I’m really hoping that his delay in pursuing the Jan 6th committee’s subpoenas in any meaningful way is simply to ensure there is no legal recourse left and that they can bring real teeth to the situation, but I am currently at a loss as to why he’s done nothing yet. Bob Mueller’s goddamn mug keeps flickering across my imagination, taunting me.


The more I hear about this, the more I think Rittenhouse is going to be acquitted.
The first man killed told Rittenhouse earlier in the evening that he would kill him if he found him alone. Later he chased after him. I don’t see how that doesn’t move it into a gray area where self defense is reasonable.
The second dead man hit him with a skateboard and was about to hit him again when Rittenhouse killed him.
The third man who lived but had his arm blown off approached him with a gun and lied about it later to police.
Each of the shot people did just enough to not get a murder conviction or attempted murder conviction here.
I had the opposite view before the trial began.
It doesn’t make what Rittenhouse did “right.”. It probably makes him non-convictible.
Or is there other evidence that turns the tables here?


No, you’re right. I am quite certain that he will be found not guilty.

Because the real issue here isn’t what happened in the moment- Anyone around him would have been just as justified as shooting Rittenhouse dead and claiming self defense the second he raised his rifle- And I’m sorry that third guy with the gun didn’t do just that.

The real issue is his initial choice to enter that environment in the first place, and to do so armed and prepared for violence. Ultimately, I think he acted as a soldier in an undeclared war. He effectively chose to become an enemy combatant and take up arms against US citizens.

This part is the most relevant, but it happened well before anyone was actually shot, and isn’t what’s actually on trial here.


Also from the same judge when the prosecution wanted to introduce some iPad video:

“iPads … have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms,” the defense team argued. “This isn’t actually enhanced video. This is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there.”


Yes, there’s no doubt he should never have been there in the first place. He came there in some sort of fantasy roleplaying mode. His stupidity killed people. But I don’t see how he can be convicted of any of these charges.

Now the prosecution has to prove that the video is real.

Schroeder responded that the prosecution shouldered the burden of proof that Apple does not use artificial intelligence to manipulate footage.

“You’re the proponent of the exhibit, and you need to tell me that it’s reliable,” he said. The judge also suggested prosecutors find an expert during their brief recess, saying: “Maybe you can get someone to testify on this within minutes? I don’t know.”



I haven’t been following the trial, partly because I was fairly certain he was going to be acquitted once the judge said the prosecution couldn’t refer to the victims as victims, but the defense could refer to them as rioters. The thing to remember about the people he shot was that those people all believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter. They thought they were trying to take down an active shooter, and believed using any means to do so was appropriate. That’s certainly true of victims #2 and #3. That perspective kind of changes things, in my opinion, but it doesn’t seem that that’s the perspective the jury is getting.


The defense will use the angle that Rittenhouse was there as a concerned American citizen who hated seeing innocent business owners get their stores torched by a violent mob. As for his decision to bring a gun, they will argue that he did so legally and it was justified since one of the people he shot was also carrying (illegally) and pointed his weapon at him then lied to police about it. Not the result I wanted, but it’s probably a slam dunk for his legal team.