Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JSOnline)   Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys file for bad court thingy instead of waiting for inevitable not guilty verdict   (jsonline.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3775 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 11 Nov 2021 at 9:22 AM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



549 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-11-11 8:54:00 AM  
At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.
 
2021-11-11 8:57:38 AM  
They need a new judge, the current one is farkwad asshole
 
2021-11-11 9:01:46 AM  
Are they really not confident in the verdict and judge at this point?

/or are there some traffic tickets in there they want dismissed with prejudice as well?
 
2021-11-11 9:02:43 AM  

Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.


No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.
 
2021-11-11 9:09:49 AM  

TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.


Maybe this was the intent.

/Pudding Pops all around!
 
2021-11-11 9:10:26 AM  

TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.


IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.
 
2021-11-11 9:19:25 AM  
Like I said at the start.
Judge has two robes.
Black for day
White for night
 
2021-11-11 9:19:26 AM  
For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.
 
2021-11-11 9:19:36 AM  
Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys have asked for a mistrial. Here's what that means.


It means Kyle's attorneys are hacks who haven't been watching this trial. Don't they know this jury won't convict him?
 
2021-11-11 9:23:15 AM  

Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.


It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif
 
2021-11-11 9:25:26 AM  
I don't think you want this trial to end up happening in the spring/summer
 
2021-11-11 9:27:28 AM  

Badmoodman: Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys have asked for a mistrial. Here's what that means.


It means Kyle's attorneys are hacks who haven't been watching this trial. Don't they know this jury won't convict him?


The jury is still a gamble. It's pretty clear the judge is considerably less so.
 
2021-11-11 9:27:30 AM  
I think he deserves a stiff sentence for being a farking dumbass, but not a murderer.  A very stupid kid who got in over his head, and just happened to have a big farking gun.
don't argue with me, I was watching the trial.

wademh: For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.


That shouldn't even be legal.
 
2021-11-11 9:27:43 AM  

xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif


whynoteveryoneinthecourtroomboth.jpg
 
2021-11-11 9:27:54 AM  

Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.


No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.
 
2021-11-11 9:28:09 AM  

xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif


Or the prosecutors know they lost the case, and don't want a "not guilty" verdict on their record.
 
2021-11-11 9:28:18 AM  
You make a kazillion motions during the trial, not really expecting them to be granted, but because if you don't ask, you can't raise the question on appeal.

This is nothing earth-shattering.
 
2021-11-11 9:29:32 AM  
3. Of course they're asking for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning no re-trial. He just walks and justice is never even approached honestly. Proving-- once again-- that sensibility is off the table in the dystopian 2020s.
 
2021-11-11 9:29:56 AM  

TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.


Only if the judge accepts the request to do so with prejudice.  I'm no law talkin' dude but I think he has the discretion to decide whether to call a mistrial as well as whether to attach prejudice as requested.

Granted, this judge seems like a die hard Trumper and so is likely to do so if he allows the mistrial, but I hold out the slim hope that maybe the judge suspect there would be such outrage as to be more trouble than it's worth grant it with prejudice.
 
2021-11-11 9:29:57 AM  

Badmoodman: Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys have asked for a mistrial. Here's what that means.


It means Kyle's attorneys are hacks who haven't been watching this trial. Don't they know this jury won't convict him?


Except you can't predict with 100% accuracy what a jury will do.  There is still a non-zero chance they'll convict.  Better to get the mistrial with prejudice if you can, because that's certain.
 
2021-11-11 9:30:18 AM  
I'm sure the jurors are top notch.
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-11-11 9:31:10 AM  

cryinoutloud: I think he deserves a stiff sentence for being a farking dumbass, but not a murderer.  A very stupid kid who got in over his head, and just happened to have a big farking gun.
don't argue with me, I was watching the trial.

wademh: For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.

That shouldn't even be legal.


Yes, it should.  It punishes the prosecution for egregious misconduct.
 
2021-11-11 9:31:21 AM  

xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif


I am not a law talking guy, but TFA does seem to make the case that the things that the judge admonished the prosecutors for during yesterday's testimony were not more examples of the judge brazenly being Team Kyle, but legitimate examples of the prosecutors farking up.
 
2021-11-11 9:32:05 AM  

cryinoutloud: just happened to have a big farking gun.


i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2021-11-11 9:32:19 AM  

Badmoodman: Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys have asked for a mistrial. Here's what that means.


It means Kyle's attorneys are hacks who haven't been watching this trial. Don't they know this jury won't convict him?


Pretty certain his attorneys know exactly what they are doing, if the judge rules in their favor, everything is over immediately and they win.  Going to a jury is risky.  If one person votes to convict, the State can retry.
 
2021-11-11 9:33:39 AM  

cryinoutloud: That shouldn't even be legal.


It's your Fifth Amendment right to not be tried for the same crime twice. The Defense is arguing the government is overreaching in its prosecution and unfortunately the Prosecutors have provided plenty of ammo for that.
 
2021-11-11 9:33:54 AM  

cryinoutloud: I think he deserves a stiff sentence for being a farking dumbass, but not a murderer.  A very stupid kid who got in over his head, and just happened to have a big farking gun.
don't argue with me, I was watching the trial.

wademh: For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.

That shouldn't even be legal.


Why?  The only time it's ever granted is in the case of blatant prosecutorial misconduct, which is what his attorneys have alleged.  Why the fark should the prosecution get to have another free go at someone if they're caught out openly farking them over in the trial?

As for the alleged misconduct, he was trying to imply that Rittenhouse's invoking of the 5th Amendment after his arrest implied his guilt.  That is a huge no-no.  That's not the prosecutor trying to intentionally throw the case; that's him being so blinded by bloodlust that he's risking sanction in his zeal to nail Rittenhouse to the wall.  I know people are saying he's become the Right Wing's darling, but he's not so important or so rich that lawyers are going to willingly throw away their careers to get him off.
 
2021-11-11 9:34:26 AM  

dittybopper: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.


Okay, let's set up this scenario: Prosecution is trying to throw the case in front of a judge who is more than willing to declare the defendant not guilty. Prosecutors violate Defendant's Constitutional right to get case dismissed. Judge dismisses case.

Years later, they find a element of collusion between prosecutors and judge.

Can the case be retried?
 
2021-11-11 9:34:35 AM  

gunga galunga: xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif

I am not a law talking guy, but TFA does seem to make the case that the things that the judge admonished the prosecutors for during yesterday's testimony were not more examples of the judge brazenly being Team Kyle, but legitimate examples of the prosecutors farking up.


Rights don't matter if you're on the wrong team here.
 
2021-11-11 9:34:52 AM  

xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif


The prosecutor is definitely a moron.
 
2021-11-11 9:35:07 AM  

wademh: For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.



Fark user imageView Full Size


this type of defense motion is routine and perfunctory

/w this judge? they might get it
//that ringtone shiat should have cause the prosecution to request a mistrial
 
2021-11-11 9:35:51 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: dittybopper: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.

Okay, let's set up this scenario: Prosecution is trying to throw the case in front of a judge who is more than willing to declare the defendant not guilty. Prosecutors violate Defendant's Constitutional right to get case dismissed. Judge dismisses case.

Years later, they find a element of collusion between prosecutors and judge.

Can the case be retried?


Nope.
 
2021-11-11 9:35:51 AM  

AnotherBluesStringer: Badmoodman: Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys have asked for a mistrial. Here's what that means.


It means Kyle's attorneys are hacks who haven't been watching this trial. Don't they know this jury won't convict him?

The jury is still a gamble. It's pretty clear the judge is considerably less so.


This.

Kyle bombed big time on the witness stand and the jury could not have been impressed by his miserable performance.

The judge, on the other hand, has been pretty much acting as another one of Kyle's defese attorneys.

***slaps fiver on the bar counter***

Calling it. Mistrial with prejudice before the end of the day.

I realized early on that Kyle was gonna walk. It's just gonna happen sooner than I expected.
 
2021-11-11 9:36:17 AM  

dittybopper: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.


More likely, he wants a mistrial without prejudice.  The prosecutor crapped the bed early and often and probably wants to learn from all his mistakes.  A lot of his own witnesses were more valuable to the defense than to the State's side.  So if he gets a new trial, the State can get a competent DA who doesn't f up as much.
 
2021-11-11 9:37:55 AM  

Thingster: xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif

The prosecutor is definitely a moron.


OJ Simpson, Cliven Bundy, Bill Cosby...

I'm seeing a pattern here.
 
2021-11-11 9:37:56 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: Okay, let's set up this scenario: Prosecution is trying to throw the case in front of a judge who is more than willing to declare the defendant not guilty. Prosecutors violate Defendant's Constitutional right to get case dismissed. Judge dismisses case.

Years later, they find a element of collusion between prosecutors and judge.

Can the case be retried?


If the Court of Appeals declares that judicial misconduct occurred and that the mistrial with prejudice was improperly granted, then yes.
 
2021-11-11 9:37:58 AM  
More than likely, the state wants a not-guilty verdict so that the police can go in a bash heads in the protests and demonstrations that follow.    Assuming there are a good assortment of Qtards in the courtroom, they are probably hoping this launches the new Civil War II Electric Boogaloo.   Nothing of the sort will happen, but that is what they seem to want.
 
2021-11-11 9:38:00 AM  
If you saw the video you saw the way that prosecutor was talking down to the judge.  That's kind of a no-no regardless of whether or not its appropriate.  In this case - if you are the defense - a mistrial with prejudice not only gets Rittenhouse off the hook but also hurts the prosecutors career.  Its not only winning - but it also spikes the ball in the end zone.  If that were my lawyer I'd be pretty happy about that, and likely so would you.
 
2021-11-11 9:38:06 AM  

Jake Havechek: They need a new judge, the current one is farkwad asshole


I'm think the judge could quit the bench, then join the defense team.

He could blaze a new trail, abandoning the old "So my client killed his mother and father.  He's an orphan and must be innocent." replacing it with "My client has been the victim of judicial misconduct."
 
2021-11-11 9:38:50 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: Okay, let's set up this scenario: Prosecution is trying to throw the case in front of a judge who is more than willing to declare the defendant not guilty. Prosecutors violate Defendant's Constitutional right to get case dismissed. Judge dismisses case.

Years later, they find a element of collusion between prosecutors and judge.

Can the case be retried?


No.  Our justice system is written to be biased in favor of the defendant (and requires a lot of ratfarking to go the other way).  It's hard-coded in that the prosecution only gets one go per crime, because continuously retrying someone until the state got the verdict they wanted was in vogue in Europe (and still is in Italy).

The scenario is silly on the face of it, however.  The prosecution wouldn't collude to violate someone's Constitutional rights to get them off; ditty is right when he says the DA is risking disbarment doing that.  Maybe you could find someone willing to take that kind of fall and become that kind of villain for Trump himself, or maybe Bill Gates if he offers enough of his fortune, but not this little shiat of a kid who had to crowdfund his defense.
 
2021-11-11 9:39:22 AM  

WilderKWight: 3. Of course they're asking for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning no re-trial. He just walks and justice is never even approached honestly. Proving-- once again-- that sensibility is off the table in the dystopian 2020s.


And they should get a mistrial w/ prejudice. Think what you want about Rittenhouse - murderer or defending himself - that's not the point.

The point is the prosecutor acted unethically by trying to get a redo since they screwed up the case. They shouldn't be rewarded with one.
 
2021-11-11 9:39:25 AM  

Jake Havechek: They need a new judge, the current one is farkwad asshole


There was a post of the judge's phone ringing and someone commented it was the song trump takes the stage to in his rallies.
 
2021-11-11 9:39:32 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: dittybopper: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.

Okay, let's set up this scenario: Prosecution is trying to throw the case in front of a judge who is more than willing to declare the defendant not guilty. Prosecutors violate Defendant's Constitutional right to get case dismissed. Judge dismisses case.

Years later, they find a element of collusion between prosecutors and judge.

Can the case be retried?


Not in the same court that heard it, and only in another court if that court has jurisdiction (which is BS).

Jeopardy is absolute
 
2021-11-11 9:40:07 AM  

Eightballjacket: dittybopper: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No, it would be with prejudice, meaning no further charges could be filed.

Prosecutor flirted with violating Rittenhouse's constitutional rights in front of the jury (specifically, tried to impute his not talking before the trial as is his absolute right under the Fifth Amendment was somehow bad), and violated a couple of the judges orders.

It's like the prosecutor is not only trying to throw the case, he's trying to get himself disbarred.

More likely, he wants a mistrial without prejudice.  The prosecutor crapped the bed early and often and probably wants to learn from all his mistakes.  A lot of his own witnesses were more valuable to the defense than to the State's side.  So if he gets a new trial, the State can get a competent DA who doesn't f up as much.


Also something the prosecution isn't supposed to be allowed to do. Witness tampering and violating the Fifth aren't "oops, let's try again" mistakes, they're "the charges are dropped and jeopardy applies" errors, and potentially "the bar will be reviewing your conduct" errors in addition.
 
2021-11-11 9:40:14 AM  

NEDM: cryinoutloud: I think he deserves a stiff sentence for being a farking dumbass, but not a murderer.  A very stupid kid who got in over his head, and just happened to have a big farking gun.
don't argue with me, I was watching the trial.

wademh: For those who don't read, the motion is for a mistrial with prejudice, meaning he can't be retried.

That shouldn't even be legal.

Why?  The only time it's ever granted is in the case of blatant prosecutorial misconduct, which is what his attorneys have alleged.  Why the fark should the prosecution get to have another free go at someone if they're caught out openly farking them over in the trial?

As for the alleged misconduct, he was trying to imply that Rittenhouse's invoking of the 5th Amendment after his arrest implied his guilt.  That is a huge no-no.  That's not the prosecutor trying to intentionally throw the case; that's him being so blinded by bloodlust that he's risking sanction in his zeal to nail Rittenhouse to the wall.  I know people are saying he's become the Right Wing's darling, but he's not so important or so rich that lawyers are going to willingly throw away their careers to get him off.


So much this...
 
2021-11-11 9:40:42 AM  
What I'm really wondering is if Kyle's mom will ever stand trial.   She indoctrinated him, armed him, and sent him to the protest.     Since he is a minor, she is clearly responsible for much of what happened.
 
2021-11-11 9:42:07 AM  

gunga galunga: Thingster: xanadian: Garza and the Supermutants: TommyDeuce: Psychopusher: At this point maybe that's not such a bad idea.  Hold a new trial and get some prosecutors whose idea of passing the bar isn't a limbo contest.

No dice, if this is accepted by the judge, they can't re-file charges.

IANAL but if that's the case, given everything we know about the judge, he'll accept it. The fix is in.

It could also imply one of 2 things:  the prosecutor is in on it, or the prosecutor is a moron

/whynotboth.gif

The prosecutor is definitely a moron.

OJ Simpson, Cliven Bundy, Bill Cosby...

I'm seeing a pattern here.


You don't become a state attorney because you're the best and brightest, you do if you have political aspirations or can't get a job anywhere else and have someone that can get you a patronage position.
 
2021-11-11 9:42:42 AM  

gyorg: Jake Havechek: They need a new judge, the current one is farkwad asshole

There was a post of the judge's phone ringing and someone commented it was the song trump takes the stage to in his rallies.


It's Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA".  The song has been in vogue for longer than Trump has.  It's cheesy, sappy, and popular with Republican boomers for decades, but I'm not about to just surrender the entire farking thing to Trump because he walks out to it.  I didn't even know he used it like that until people said it yesterday
 
2021-11-11 9:43:15 AM  

gyorg: There was a post of the judge's phone ringing and someone commented it was the song trump takes the stage to in his rallies.


It was literally "I'm proud to be an American".  It predates Trump's campaign by a few decades.
 
2021-11-11 9:44:19 AM  
According to LeBron James, when the kid was putting on his crying show, no tears actually manifested.

That fits with my he's a psychopath theory.

Psychopaths can emulate emotions but don't actually feel them.
Thus no tears.
 
Displayed 50 of 549 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.