with prejudice. It's clear this judge has been beyond biased and unprofessional from the start. Unfortunately, the prosecution royally screwed the pooch early on, giving the judge and defense the out they needed for a mistrial with prejudice. I think the Judge has been so flippant talking about hoping to get to a lunch break by 1 PM and "the Asian food" being delayed at the port, and mean spirited and insulting to the prosecution (telling him to speed up his cross examination of Rittenhouse, essentially calling him a liar, calling him out for a perceived "look on his face", etc.), because he knows he's going to blow everything up before it ever goes to the Jury. He's making the prosecution work hard only to realize at the end, that they've wasted their time with him.

Jedi Guy

(3,259 posts)

17. You realize the prosecution lied in their opening statements, right?

Reply to spudspud (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 12, 2021, 03:09 PM

Nov 2021

And that they skated riiiiiiiiight up to the line of violating KR's Fifth Amendment rights? And that they tried to bring in evidence that the judge had specifically forbidden without asking if they could do so?

If the judge does dismiss with prejudice, it'll be because the prosecution are clowns and did it to themselves. They gave the defense the opening to make the motion by doing stupid things.

spudspud

(511 posts)

19. It's clear you didn't actually read my post.

Reply to Jedi Guy (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 12, 2021, 04:11 PM

Nov 2021

Literally the second sentence in my post: "Unfortunately, the prosecution royally screwed the pooch early on, giving the judge and defense the out they needed for a mistrial with prejudice."

Jedi Guy

(3,259 posts)

21. No, I read it just fine.

Reply to spudspud (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 12, 2021, 04:42 PM

Nov 2021

I just don't see why you take the judge to task for being biased and unprofessional, but characterize the prosecution differently. Lying about evidence and attempting to violate someone's Fifth Amendment rights is the very definition of bias and unprofessional behavior, not just "screwing the pooch." It's not a mistake. It's misconduct on the prosecutor's part, and it's stupid shit like that that gives a savvy defense lawyer openings to make things happen. Prosecutorial conduct like that is how you end up with a guilty verdict getting overturned on appeal.

That said, I don't think the judge is going to dismiss with prejudice, as that would produce far too much outrage even though the prosecution's conduct might warrant it. He'll let it go to the jury, and the jury will do whatever the jury does.

spudspud

(511 posts)

22. Not sure why you felt the need to twist my post

Reply to Jedi Guy (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 12, 2021, 05:02 PM

Nov 2021

into a defense of the prosecution. If you want to interpret "screwing the pooch" as me not chastising the prosecution sufficiently, that's on you. What the prosecutor did jeopardized the entire case. However, this Judge absolutely deserves all the back lash he's getting for his behavior.

Jedi Guy

(3,259 posts)

23. There's also a ton of misinformation floating around where this judge is concerned.

Reply to spudspud (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 12, 2021, 05:50 PM

Nov 2021

The most popular one is that he wouldn't allow the victims to be named as such in court, but would allow Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz to be referred to as "looters," "rioters," or "arsonists" in order to aid the defense.

The rule about people being called "victims" is a longstanding thing with this particular judge. People are behaving as if this is a rule he brought out just for this trial, and that's not true. Regarding the looters/rioters/arsonists thing, he did allow the defense to make that assertion if the evidence showed that those men had engaged in those behaviors, and advised them against doing so regardless. Again, people act like he just gave the defense carte blanche to make the assertion, but that's not true.

The other popular one is about pinch-zooming altering the image. The judge admitted he didn't understand the technology after the defense objected. He's 75, so why is this a shock? After a back-and-forth with the attorneys while the jury was not in the room, he ultimately allowed the images into evidence. So that was a win for the prosecution, when all was said and done.

Then there's the "Asian food" remark. So what? A 75-year-old white dude made a joke that someone might perceive as racist? Stop the presses so we can all clutch our pearls. Inappropriate? I guess, if you want to be super uptight about every word a judge utters. It's a non-issue, far as I'm concerned, and has no impact on the trial.

Then there's the "God Bless the USA" ringtone. The song is from 1984. The judge is 75 years old. Surely it's shocking and scandalous that he likes an old country song. Let us pause for more clutching of pearls. If Trump had come up with an original campaign song and that was the judge's ringtone, I could understand the reaction.

The judge is catching heat because he's ruling against the prosecution on procedural matters in a case where many people want the defendant convicted regardless of the evidence. When he rules against the defense, though, everyone is okay with it. That's the long and short of it.