Kenosha's shock troops
The first day of jury deliberations in Kenosha in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial brought a plethora of activists (and more) to the courthouse steps.
Apparently, prior to Monday protests were kept across the street at a park. But the lure of cameras and national spotlights are always sure to draw a crowd.
I have to wonder who thought having hundreds of activists - with megaphones and bullhorns - outside the building where the jury was deliberating, would improve already high tensions.
Watching the livestream (I’ve been watching on YouTube - Rekeita Law and his legal guests have live streamed the entire trial if you’d like to go back and watch) protestors could be heard inside the courtroom on Wednesday, which sets up a problematic legal question that the defense should be able to raise if an appeal is necessary.
Beyond the First Amendment right to protest, allowing this circus in front of the courthouse, complete with protestors barricading the court doors, moves quickly towards allowing jury intimidation. There’s no right to protest where the jury sits. Time and place restrictions are allowed by the court, especially during deliberations and in high profile cases.
This is an issue for the defense to raise… not the judge or court. In my opinion, it’s another deficiency for a defense that has been lackluster in many areas this case.
I’d imagine that this intimidation would be a net positive for the prosecution who decided to charge Rittenhouse with little actual evidence, and underlying charges to bolster a crime theory that fell apart as the trial progressed.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers ordered the National Guard to help with security (under limited orders), Kenosha police had their hands full with those who were there for good reasons (I’m reminded of a line… “there were very fine people on both sides”) and those who might be seeking cameras and exposure.
It might also include more than a few feds, undercover of course, and on both sides of this chaos.
I don’t begrudge the feds having undercover agents and informants in the crowd. I begrudge federally paid provocateurs persuasively encouraging more trouble than the general public would willing take on their own behalf.
I’ll bet you a dollar that more than a few of those yelling, carrying signs and creating general mayhem outside have been previous visitors to one of Kenosha’s court rooms.
As a defendant.
Rumors were already abounding on social media of reports of pallets of bricks appearing in different locales around the city.
DSA (Democrat Socialists of America), Antifa and BlackBlock types have identified and doxxed Kyle Rittenhouse’s family, his defense counsel, and their families.
It’s a short hop to identifying jury members. BLM activists on social media have said on video (who’s to say if it is b.s. posturing or truthful bragging - I’m not linking it) they have had people in the courtroom who have video and/or photos of the jury.
I shouldn’t have to say that that’s not how any of this should work, inside or outside the courtroom… yet here we are.
No question, I’ve had more than a few problems with aspects of this trial. First and foremost that there is even a trial.
I have witnessed multiple points of prosecutorial misconduct, including an especially prejudicial 5th Amendment violation in front of the jury by DA Binger, and evidence violations (called Brady Rule violations) including giving the defense a video that was compressed and at a lower resolution than the state’s version of the video. The defense file’s metadata show file creation over 21 minutes after the timestamp of the state’s video.
All should have resulted in a mistrial with prejudice. And might still. The motions for mistrial (both with and without prejudice) are still open.
The only reason the latest violation was caught was DA Kraus admitted in court a video entered into evidence that was played by the defense team (the court couldn’t readily find the state’s file apparently, so the defense team played their version downloaded directly from the state’s dropbox file sharing link) was much better than the video shown multiple times to the judge and jury.
What is even more infuriating, the defenses’s version of the video is at a different aspect ratio than the state’s, so portions of the picture were cut off when compared to the file entered into evidence, and subject to discovery. The state’s version of the file was probably cut from a different, longer video, but the DA must provide the exact evidence it will use at trial to the defendant. Not an inferior version whose save settings had to be manually set.
The prosecution knew this particular video could be inflammatory when partnered with their argument, they were repeatedly admonished by the judge for going down this avenue.
And after earlier in court 5th Amendment shenanigans, I am not really feeling charitable in my interpretations of the prosecution team’s actions. Their claims of incompetence might be a “healing power of and” kind of situation.
The defense has played a couple different strategies throughout the trial. I would have objected, and much more vociferously both in motions and in court, than the defense team has thus far. Partially it’s my argumentative nature.
But this young man is looking at a list of very serious charges, and his defense should leave zero stones unturned in their pursuit for an acquittal.
And while this case is a state case, without precedent setting decisions tied to the verdict, the ramifications from a case like this can and do influence future actions.
As I sit and wait for a verdict, watching the arguments and motions outside of the jury, I found myself yelling at the defense team, for not yelling at the slime ball prosecutors and demanding the constitutionally just ruling for their client.
Definitely not charitable. And did I mention vociferous?
It’s not like the hard left isn’t ready, willing and able to deploy more mob “protestors” in cities across this nation if they don’t get the verdict they want. They claim mobilization across 400 different American cities at the last count.
At some point, we as individual citizens have to find the strength to stand up to these corrupt institutional state actors.
We have to demand our officials follow the intent of the law, not what a lawyer can argue as acceptable to a judge that doesn’t want unfavorable news coverage, locally or nationally.
We should not allow overzealous, corrupt and biased prosecutors to run roughshod over defendant rights, cornerstone principles of our legal system, at least what’s left of it.
I don’t care if their zealousness is over race, class, politics or religion. A willingness to use prosecutorial power to further any narrative, or score political points is wrong.
The boomerang of reactions this type of power politics will eventually lead to isn’t good. For any of us.
•••••
Like what you read? Share it with a friend or subscribe!