Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum'Weird' new ruling could undermine Kyle Rittenhouse's prosecution: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin
So it's going to be the victims on trial once again- I wonder if the prosecution will even be allowed to imply that Shittenbag committed a crime?
lark
(23,003 posts)drumpf judges were put in power to desytoy us in favor of the rich and right wing and this one is delivering to turn our country into nothing more than a nightmare for anyone not rich, white and straight.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)This isn't a civil case- Only the defense can appeal if they lose.
Also, I looked this judge up- Although he seems like just the kind of judge Trump would appoint, he's not a federal judge. The people of Kenosha County elected this asshole.
lark
(23,003 posts)If that's possible by the laws of that state, I hope they "cancel" him.
JohnSJ
(91,945 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)JohnSJ
(91,945 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Anon-C
(3,430 posts)...incompetent judge like this one. Do you just build the basis for your appeal primarily, knowing that the fix is in?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)This is a long-held opinion of mine, which very few judges, I guess, share with me, said the judge with reference to his disdain for the particular moniker. The word victim is a loaded, loaded word, and I think alleged victim is a cousin to it.
The judge said referring to the decedent or something similar was more appropriate because it neither implied the defendants guilt nor implied the innocence of those killed.
From: https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/judge-wont-let-prosecutors-say-kyle-rittenhouse-killed-victims-will-allow-defense-to-call-them-looters-and-arsonists-if-warranted/
Walleye
(30,702 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)can establish through the minds of the jurors his victimhood.
If you say "I'm going to prove he was unjustifiably shot and killed" in your opening statement, isn't that really the same thing?
Since the prosecutor will be trying to prove the people were unjustifiably shot with lots of evidence and testimony, I really don't see it as a big deal that the prosecutor can't use the word "victim".
JohnSJ
(91,945 posts)refer to them as looters, rioters, etc.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Giving latitude to the defense isn't just a liberal thing to do, it's how you prevent convictions from being overturned on appeal.
JohnSJ
(91,945 posts)WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)Because- you know- don't want to prejudice the jury.
You can also bet they won't get to show the video of him cheap-shotting that girl in the school parking lot, either.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)the prosecutor should be able to bring up the first murder conviction at trial?
Prejudicing juries against a defendant often results in a conviction being overturned on appeal.
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)But if a judge can rationalize disallowing them in a particular case, he's probably allowed to. How much leeway a judge has in allowing or disallowing things probably varies from one jurisdiction to the next, too.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Generally such convictions are only allowed to be brought up to impeach someone's testimony.
From: https://www.freeadvice.com/legal/prior-convictions-how-can-they-be-used-in-my-criminal-case/
If a criminal defendant chooses to testify, their prior conviction may become admissible for purposes of impeaching their credibility. Such an impeachment asks the judge or jury to question the truthfulness of the defendants testimony. The general rule is if a prosecutor or defense attorney wants to use a prior conviction to impeach a defendants testimony, the prior conviction must be for a felony or a crime involving dishonesty. This means that a defendant may not be impeached with a prior conviction for a minor offense, such as possession of drug paraphernalia, which has nothing to do with dishonesty.
Even if the defendant chooses to testify, a judge will not necessarily rule that a prior conviction is admissible. Most courts use a balancing test to determine if the prior conviction should be admitted. The judge weighs the probative value of permitting the crime to be introduced against the prejudicial impact on the defendant. If the prior conviction is for a similar offense, the judge may determine that the risk is too great. In these situations, the judge uses the reasoning that the jury will decide, If he did it before, he probably did it this time.
Typically, a prosecutor or defense attorney can ask that a prior conviction or set of convictions be admitted as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)Relationship with the Proud Boys because all of the state's evidence related to a meeting in a bar many months after the shootings occurred. The judge also indicated he would reconsider his ruling if the state could show a relationship that predated the shooting.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)that was found to be unfair to the defendant
From: https://www.wisn.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-county-judge-bruce-schroeder/38070134
Schroeder sentenced Jensen to life in prison after a found him guilty of poisoning his wife with anti-freeze.
A conviction that would later be overturned, in part, because of a letter Schroeder allowed to be used as evidence.
The letter said if anything happened to her, her husband should be the first suspect.
Federal judge overturns Mark Jensen conviction
https://cbs58.com/news/federal-judge-overturns-mark-jensen-conviction
multigraincracker
(32,527 posts)Synonyms for victim
casualty, fatality, loss, prey
Webster Dictionary.
personally I like "prey"
Walleye
(30,702 posts)The boy picked up an extremely lethal weapon, travelled across state lines with the intention of shooting people, how is that not murder? He wasnt even legally old enough to be carrying that gun. He wasnt carrying a picket sign or anything appropriate for a protest.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)It can be an offensive or defensive weapon.
Like most weapons.
Walleye
(30,702 posts)yaesu
(8,020 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)yaesu
(8,020 posts)WHITT
(2,868 posts)'facts not in evidence'?
Where's the EVIDENCE that the people Rittenhouse murdered were "rioters" or "looters"?