If the prosecution of The State v. R. was so bad, why was the defence forced to call him?

And seeing the guy on the stand sends the message to the jury "nothing to hide"

Prosecution is doing a shitty job, Judge is biased.

Kyle is walking.

Calling an accused to testify is an admission the prosecution did a good job.

Focus should be on fact an accused is being forced to testify…in his own murder trial…cause the prosecutors presented a case strong enough to force the issue.

Testifying in any trial by an accused is either an act of supreme confidence or one of supreme stupidity, there is no in between,

I tend to think that if the defence has confidence the jury would aquit they would not have called him to face cross examination.

Why would you call your client to the stand if you had confidence, legally speaking, your client will walk without taking that enormous risk?

I await the cross x.

The prosecution has been terrible, starting off with a big LIE in their opening statement.

The cross is now and it's weak.

The judge has repeatedly derailed the prosecutor's cross examination with all manner of incoherent nonsense. We'll see what happens when the trial resumes.

No way I call the defendant, if the state really was losing. Not a chance in hell.

being cross examined by a seasoned prosecutor. Huge huge risk…why take it?

mark my words.

for a directed verdict, the defendant has to testify. I think it's 50/50 whether there is a directed verdict.

Rittenhouse is super well coached. He's answering yes / no all the time, and his answers are really, really short.

even if you feel the case was badly presented by the prosecution.

If they're confident they'll win, then he can use it to boost his image for a later career.

Heaven help us....

They wanted to call him. Many times you don't want to have the defendant testify because of baggage. Legal, emotional, mental. R doesn't have these to any significant degree.

Will the prosecution score points in their questioning? Sure, but the average juror will probably ignore that. They know its a trained interrogator going against a 18 year old.

I'm not an attorney but it's my understanding that if the Defense intends to file a motion for a directed verdict/dismissal, that the defendant has to testify, to give the prosecution an opportunity to cross exam him.

So even if the Defense thinks that they have an excellent chance with the jury, from a tactical standpoint, especially given some of this Judges rulings, it made sense to put Rittenhouse on the stand and hope that the Judge will then dismiss the case with prejudice, before it ever gets to the Jury.

That makes a lot of sense and is the only reason that I can see for putting him on the stand. All it takes is one juror to hang a jury and I suspect the defense decided it was a lower risk to put him on the stand and hope for a dismissal than to let it go directly to the Jury.

Yes, it was before the Jury but as I understand it, after the testimony is concluded, but prior to closing arguments, the Defense can make a motion for a directed verdict/dismissal. If the Judge grants that motion, with prejudice, then the trial is over, the defendant goes free and can't be re-tried and it never gets to the Jury. I suspect that is what the defense is hoping will happen.

If it goes to the jury, it just takes one jury to hang it and then the prosecution has the option of seeking a new trial, differnt judge and jury, etc.