Question for criminal defense attorney...can ANYONE claim self defense as their defense?

[Eliot Rosewater]

This Rittenhouse judge saying the prosecution cant use certain words because he is claiming self defense, right?

So can any defendant NO MATTER the circumstances, claim self defense? The jury wont necessarily find it was self defense but if once you use that as a defense if that means the other side cant use certain words, that would make no sense to me.

?

Wouldnt EVERYBODY claim self defense then?

Or is it just this bullshit judge who says since he is claiming self defense the prosecution cant use those words?

[unblock]

1. ianal, but i think the idea is:

the prosecution can't say anything prejudicial to the defense, at least not without evidence to clearly support the claim.

so if the defense is that it was all an accident, then it's not prejudicial to refer to the decedent a victim. both sides agree that victim is the right word, they just disagree as to victim of what, exactly.

but if the defense is that it was justified because of self-defense and the decedent was actually the aggressor, then declaring them a "victim" undermines the defense's case based on word choice rather than evidence.


i don't really have a problem with this. i think more problematic though, is the judge buying this argument but then allowing the defense to refer to the decedent as a rioter and such. afaik, all they can prove is that the decedent was there, not that they were rioting.

[MissMillie]

2. Well, here's what I don't get

He's charged w/ Murder. Since when is murder a victimless crime?

[Tomconroy]

5. In a courtroom, as opposed to internet discussion boards, a

defendant is presumed to be innocent until the state established guilt by proof of the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The argument about the use of the word 'victim' is that it implies a crime has occurred before the state has met it's burden of proof. It isn't established that a crime has occurred until the jury returns a verdict of guilty. At that point the state has met it's burden and established that there was a crime and a victim.
The rule only applies in the courtroom. Outside of it anybody can have an opinion.

[Tomconroy]

3. Criminal defense lawyers will try to keep the word 'victim'

out of any type of criminal case, not just self defense cases.

[Nevilledog]

4. Self defense is what is known as an affirmative defense.

That means the Defense has the burden of proving self defense. States differ as to what constitutes a claim of self defense. For example, not all states have a stand your ground defense, or a castle doctrine. If you don't present evidence that, if true, would amount to self defense, the court will not instruct the jury that they have the option of finding self defense.



I posted in another thread that I believe the reporting on the Rittenhouse judge has been sloppy.

Here's a Twitter thread you can read....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215986018#post14

[Dr. Strange]

6. That Twitter thread is some excellent reading material.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

7. This Is True, Plus...........

........here in Ohio, if you as a Defendant raise the defense of self-defense, not only do you have the burden of proving that you were in fear for your life, but you ALSO have to prove that your fear was reasonable, and that the force you used to defend yourself was not excessive (that you used ONLY enough force to get yourself out of danger and no more).

I've had many cases where my client wants to claim self defense, but I have to tell them that a drunk in a bar taking a swing at them does not entitle them to go their car, get a gun, come back, and then shoot the guy. Or there's a situation where they swung back, knocked the guy down, and then jumped on top of him and continued to pummel him into oblivion. Revenge is not self defense. If you have the ability to get away and don't do it, that's not self defense either. If you use excessive force, that negates self defense. In short, it's extremely tough for a Defendant to win on self defense in Ohio. And don't even get me started on "defense of another."

But then again, Ohio is one of the biggest "get tough on crime" States in the country. The statutes are written so blatantly in favor of prosecution that Defendants start every case with two strikes against them.

In the Rittenhouse case, if I as a defense attorney heard the Judge make a ruling like this one, I'd be high-fiving my client in the hallway at the first break. The Judge has essentially just announced that he's on my side. Which basically means the defense will likely get the benefit of the doubt on every objection and ruling from the bench throughout the trial. It doesn't guarantee a win, but it certainly helps when you've got the Judge's thumb on the scale.

[Tomconroy]

8. The NYTimes is up today with a 25 minute video presentation

on the case which shows the videos of the shootings. You have to watch them a number of times just to figure out who is who. But the kid has stuff to work with. It won't be a slam dunk for the state.

[Hav]

10. I cannot stomach watching these kind of videos

I saw parts of them around the time it happened so my recollection of the events isn't the best anymore. I think I saw people hunted him/charged at him when the last two incidents happened but I don't know about the first murder anymore. I think much will depend on whether the first incident will be accepted as self defense. If the first murder isn't seen as self-defense, then I think what happened after that could be seen as people trying to stop an active shooter.

[Sympthsical]

11. And this is what bothers me about the discussion around the case

The conversation is so driven along partisan lines. "He's definitely a murderer and needs to go away forever!" This is usually followed by statements and opinions that are clearly derived from never having seen the video. The other day, I saw someone say, "Well, white people can kill black people with impunity!" Someone had to explain that the dead alleged victims weren't black. Like, seriously.

If you watch all the available footage of what happened, this is not a clear-cut case by any means.

I feel like people are setting themselves up here. There's a very real possibility he'll get off or convicted of a lesser charge. And people will claim it's all down to his race, or the judge, or what have you. Any reason except the fact that maybe it wasn't that clear cut of a case.

This is what happens when we let other people and sources characterize things for us instead of investigating for ourselves.

[Tomconroy]

13. I really didn't know much about the case until the other day.

I was stunned to find out all the people shot were white. You just make assumptions about things that can be completely erroneous.

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. Thanks

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Thanks, so it is NOT normal, appreciate you providing this...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453065482655907854.html

It’s not as salacious or shocking as this article intends. The only shocking thing is it was granted on behalf of this defendant but never has been on behalf of my defendants… which I believe says something 👀

and

Not that Rittenhouse is being afforded a trial with his rights protected, but that other defendants are denied fair and nonprejudicial trials every single day.
I’m seeing some comments from defense attorneys that this motion is routinely requested and granted in SF and MA. Here, in Louisiana, it’s routinely requested before trial but never granted. All in all the take away is this is routine and should be granted.

And now this...

From humiliating defendants to giving them wide latitude, the ‘confident’ judge overseeing Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial doesn’t shy from controversy

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-judge-kenosha-shooting-20211028-zzh5ma4i65dtbdriaxadk5utdy-story.html

And I read that he made fun of white power signs...this guy is a real prick. Shamed a Woman for shoplifting, as I recall she was Black.