(11-17-2021 09:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2021 09:09 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-17-2021 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-17-2021 01:46 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(11-17-2021 01:44 PM)hburg Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

wow.... as someone who works at a law firm and have worked in litigation... this is some major bull****!!!

There is video of the issue of the tape coming up. The judge is reviewing the tape, ostensibly in the course of the ruling on instructions. The prosecutor (Gordo) says 'our tape is much clearer'. Gordo then tries to slough it off, saying 'its just playing weird here', and someone in the back says 'thats not how it works' Gordo gets nervous about it when the defense says 'this exhibit is exactly what you sent us'.....

Go to 1:49:00 or so for this moment.





This is a BIG deal. This is a serious error by the prosecution. Combined with the issue on bringing up Rittenhouse's silence, *and* the prosecution charging into issues that had been struck by the judge ---- not good at all.

Yes, but will it be enough for the jury foreperson get over their own prejudice and vote to acquit the young man? I doubt it.

Jury will never know about the above. Two different issues.

The judge almost has to mistrial. I dont see any way around it.

But as to all three issues in the motion the jury really should have zero insight into any othem --- all they know is that twice the judge stopped the trial and asked them to wait in the jury room. That is while the judge blew the hell up at the prosecutors, but had the temperance and the foresight to do it outside of the jury's presence.

I was watching another clip from today. This judge is stunningly sharp. The lawyers were talking about how many times the jury should be able to view video as an exhibit. One of the cases cited got him saying how he had been the DA for that case, then went down in amazing detail the facts of the case (where it was, etc) and the end ruling --- the case was tried in 1974. Just an amazing show of command of the law and of memory.

Very nice!

It takes a case like this to make me realize two things. First, I should’ve studied law and become an attorney (that upholds Christian principles). Second, and more realistically, I should’ve finished journalism school so I could call out the so-called mainstream media in public a la Bill O’Reilly.

If Rittenhouse is found not guilty of all charges, he should call up Nick Sandman’s lawyers and go after every last “mainstream” media outlet that called him a white supremacist and a terrorist, among other things. He may end up being awarded hundreds of millions of dollars, just like Sandman.