After it was revealed that the prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case withheld video proof, turning over a file to the protection that was considerably smaller than the complete file in their possession, the protection requested for a mistrial. On Wednesday, it was introduced because the jury was nonetheless deliberating in the case that the footage would may be shown to the jury. This would prolong their deliberations.
“We, the defense,” mentioned Rittenhouse’s legal professional, “has a real problem with them seeing the drone footage. And what has come out, we have a motion pending before the court based upon disclosure of evidence, and if they want to see that, that’s just tainting this jury more.”
“And I asked the court to consider: the drone footage was turned over by an anonymous person, who we supposedly now know who it is, Mr. Beeman, on the first Friday of the jury. We were provided a copy of that for Mr. Krause that was neither in the length or definition clarity the state had. We did not get the full download that they received until Saturday or Sunday of last weekend, after all the evidence was closed,” the protection said.
The protection had submitted a movement as a result of the file measurement given to the protection was solely 3.6MB whereas the prosecution’s full video was 11.2MB. That the bigger file was not supplied to the protection “…until after the trial concluded.”
“And that’s a real problem. Not to mention, that since doing our research, the specific AMPT owner’s manual says that when using AI to enhance photographs, or videos, it is for investigative purposes only. It is not forensically to be used in a court of law and should be labeled as such.”
The circumstances surrounding the trial have led presiding Judge Bruce Shroeder to query letting cameras into the courtroom once more. Shroeder referenced the therapy of each the prosecution and the protection in media protection of the trial, which has been brutal relying on the place the media pundit’s opinion lands on the case.
“These are five very reputable attorneys that I’ve practiced with for years. And I think it’s shameful some of the things that are being done to these people. And when I talked about problems with the media, when this trial started… we were there, in part, because of grossly irresponsible handling of what comes out of this trial,” Shroeder mentioned.
“I will tell you this,” Shroeder continued, “I’m going to think long and hard about live television in the trial again, next time. I don’t know I always been a firm believer in it because I think the people should be able to see what’s going on but what I’m seeing what’s being done is really quite frightening. Frightening, that’s the right word.”
Shroeder additionally spoke concerning the jury, and the therapy of the jury in the media. Some have reported that jurors are involved that they’ll be doxxed or threatened primarily based on the result of the case. He mentioned that there was “disrespect that courts have had in this country for the juries.”
“These are intelligent people,” Shroeder continued, “they get treated like— There was a time when the people educated people in the town where the physician and the lawyer and maybe the school teacher and the preacher and the rest of the people were farmers, so obviously they weren’t as smart as most educated people, right? Wrong.”
“That’s never been the belief of the founders of our country,” he went on. “It’s never been true. And I think these people are as competent as the educated people. And many of them are educated to make these decisions, and that’s where the founders of our country put the power, not with us. So I think it’s insulting to the jury to tell them that they have to have these restrictions on their viewing but we’re going to sit down with the books we’re going to find out what the exact procedure is. And we’ll await what they want to do. But for now, I will answer do we view the videos in private or in the courtroom and the answer will be in the courtroom.”
The viewing of this footage, if it goes forward, may be in the courtroom, however it’s not but decided if it would be a public viewing, with cameras current, or not. Much of the talk surrounded how and the place the jury would view this footage.
This is a breaking story and can be up to date as particulars grow to be obtainable.