Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

That seems a little unusual. The jury instructions would have been read into the record so they are public information, but jurors aren’t supposed to look up anything about the case at home so they wouldn’t be allowed to access a trancript or recording of the instructions online or anything from home. The juror might not actually do anything improper with the instructions at home, but it just doesn’t feel right. Jury deliberations are supposed to be done as a group, not a solo activity.

Did either side object to the request? If not, then I guess they don’t view it as an issue.

Wow. That did not happen when I was on a criminal jury (here in MD). When we were done with our first day of deliberation and had to come back, we were told that we had to leave all materials from the court, including instructions, our notepads, and the evidence sample photos that we were given upon request, in the deliberation room. All of the materials were locked in the room until our return the next morning. We were explicitly told not to bring out anything that was not a personal item that we brought with us to court in the morning. The only exception, which they stated, were the bottles of water that we were given.

That is strange that the judge and the two counsels allowed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

That seems a little unusual. The jury instructions would have been read into the record so they are public information, but jurors aren’t supposed to look up anything about the case at home so they wouldn’t be allowed to access a trancript or recording of the instructions online or anything from home. The juror might not actually do anything improper with the instructions at home, but it just doesn’t feel right. Jury deliberations are supposed to be done as a group, not a solo activity.

Did either side object to the request? If not, then I guess they don’t view it as an issue.

I only have a few years of criminal law experience but I've never heard of a juror being permitting to take instructions home. I was not watching the proceeding, but did the judge inquire as to why? My primary concern as a prosecutor or defense lawyer would be the juror looking up particular terms on the internet or asking a spouse/friend/significant other their interpretation of an instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

That seems a little unusual. The jury instructions would have been read into the record so they are public information, but jurors aren’t supposed to look up anything about the case at home so they wouldn’t be allowed to access a trancript or recording of the instructions online or anything from home. The juror might not actually do anything improper with the instructions at home, but it just doesn’t feel right. Jury deliberations are supposed to be done as a group, not a solo activity.

Did either side object to the request? If not, then I guess they don’t view it as an issue.

I only have a few years of criminal law experience but I've never heard of a juror being permitting to take instructions home. I was not watching the proceeding, but did the judge inquire as to why? My primary concern as a prosecutor or defense lawyer would be the juror looking up particular terms on the internet or asking a spouse/friend/significant other their interpretation of an instruction.

PP here, exactly this. Maybe the juror just wants some quiet time alone to review and think about the instructions, but the risk that they will inappropriately consult other sources seems too great.

[Anonymous]

According to Breitbart (barf), both the prosecution and the defense objected to the juror taking the instructions home. WTF is this judge thinking?

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2021/11/18/rittenhouse-juror-asks-to-take-instructions-home-after-third-day-without-verdict/

[Anonymous]

Apparently a former Ferguson police officer was hanging around outside the courthouse today carrying an AR-15 and shouting obscenities about BLM.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-ferguson-police-rifle-20211118-ksh3rsy6pfaqndweeetwhvhsnu-story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently a former Ferguson police officer was hanging around outside the courthouse today carrying an AR-15 and shouting obscenities about BLM.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-ferguson-police-rifle-20211118-ksh3rsy6pfaqndweeetwhvhsnu-story.html

I used to think complaints of racism were overstated. But seeing how a big chunk of the population loses their goddamn minds over black lives mattering is pretty illuminating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge is letting the jurors take the jury instructions home with them??? Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

That seems a little unusual. The jury instructions would have been read into the record so they are public information, but jurors aren’t supposed to look up anything about the case at home so they wouldn’t be allowed to access a trancript or recording of the instructions online or anything from home. The juror might not actually do anything improper with the instructions at home, but it just doesn’t feel right. Jury deliberations are supposed to be done as a group, not a solo activity.

Did either side object to the request? If not, then I guess they don’t view it as an issue.

I only have a few years of criminal law experience but I've never heard of a juror being permitting to take instructions home. I was not watching the proceeding, but did the judge inquire as to why? My primary concern as a prosecutor or defense lawyer would be the juror looking up particular terms on the internet or asking a spouse/friend/significant other their interpretation of an instruction.

PP here, exactly this. Maybe the juror just wants some quiet time alone to review and think about the instructions, but the risk that they will inappropriately consult other sources seems too great.

Very likely they want to ask their partner. Not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently a former Ferguson police officer was hanging around outside the courthouse today carrying an AR-15 and shouting obscenities about BLM.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-ferguson-police-rifle-20211118-ksh3rsy6pfaqndweeetwhvhsnu-story.html

I used to think complaints of racism were overstated. But seeing how a big chunk of the population loses their goddamn minds over black lives mattering is pretty illuminating.

So true! So triggered by a property destruction. They love their property, lord knows it!

[Anonymous]

Why isn't this jury sequestered? I can't remember the last time I heard about a jury being sequestered. Do they just not do that anymore?
When was the last notable trial with a sequestered jury?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha police are investigating a report that a "media person" followed one of the jurors home.

So?

It’s not a crime to follow a publicly owned bus and it’s not a crime to photograph people in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what a legitimate press organization does - they uncover things in the public interest that are being unethically hidden. The names and images of the jury members are relevant to the public interest regarding this case. The media is doing it’s job. The public has a right to know who these jurors are, their names, where they live. These are people in their community and the public has a right to be informed about them.

Now the judge has committed an extreme violation of the first amendment in prohibiting a credible news agency from covering the trial. This outrage will not be permitted to stand. And this judge has sealed his own fate for disbarment from the bench.

Jurors have an expectation of privacy while the trial is ongoing. To seek them out while they are doing their job can be seen as akin to jury tampering. It's illegal.

No, they don’t.

And if one of my neighbors voted to acquit someone like KR, I’d want to know about it. They have no expectation of privacy, nor should they. They are accountable for their decision as part of a jury, and they damn well better remember that. And be reminded of it.

You’re an utter imbecile and not unlike Rittenhouae with your wannabe tough guy rhetoric.

I’ve never been called a guy before. But I can assure you I’m plenty tough. I’ve been out in the streets fighting for justice many times, getting teargassed, hit rubber bullets, beaten by police batons. So yeah, I’m a hell of a lot tougher than you are, snowflake. And I’m the polar opposite of KH. Which probably explains why you hate/fear me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A kick to the face =/= a bullet from a machinegun.

What?

???

Are you daft? It means that someone kicking you in the face doesn’t mean you now have the right to shoot with a military grade weapon.

[Anonymous]

At this moment, most of us are "kick man" where Rittenhouse is concerned.