Rittenhouse trial judge sitting on mistrial motion as jury enters second day of deliberations
This post was originally published on this site
After more than eight hours of deliberations on Tuesday, the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse case appears no closer to a verdict. Little was revealed from yesterday’s proceedings, save for the fact that jurors requested additional copies of the 36 pages of instructions they received. The jury reconvened at around 10 AM ET on Wednesday—two days after the defense filed a motion for mistrial with prejudice that Judge Bruce Schroeder has failed to rule on.
Rittenhouse’s defense team asked for a mistrial with prejudice last week and formally filed their motion on Monday. In their motion, Attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi claim that the defense did not receive a higher quality version of the drone video presented by the prosecution and instead were given a compressed version. They believe that video is crucial in their case, writing that “the video footage has been at the center of this case.”
“The failure to provide the same quality footage in this particular case is intentional and clearly prejudices the defendant,” the motion reads. The defense also takes issue with a video showing Rittenhouse weeks before he fatally shot two people and injured another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, discussing “what he would like to do to people he believed were looting.” That video was barred as evidence in a pretrial hearing, but had been alluded to by prosecutor Thomas Binger while questioning Rittenhouse, earning him a swift rebuke from Schroeder.
Also during Binger’s questioning of Rittenhouse, he claimed that this was the first time the teen was telling his story of what transpired last August as protests unfolded in Kenosha in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Binger had to amend his comments and the jury was reminded that Rittenhouse has a constitutional right not to talk following his arrest.
As experts interviewed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel note, it’s unusual for a judge to essentially sit on a mistrial motion like this during jury deliberations. Criminal law professor Michael O’Hear, who teaches at Marquette Law School, told the paper Schroeder likely doesn’t anticipate granting the mistrial given his decision to turn things over a jury.
University of Wisconsin Law School professor Keith Findley backed up O’Hear’s claims: “The only reason I can think of for waiting is perhaps he wants to give the jury a chance to acquit so he doesn’t have to, but that’s speculation on my part.”
Given Schroeder’s conduct and seeming sympathy for Rittenhouse, the judge will most likely decide on whatever benefits the defense regardless of if that invalidates a conviction from jurors. Rittenhouse faces five charges with penalties ranging from monetary fines to life imprisonment.