Does the prosecution have any recourse in the Rittenhouse case after the judge

[Poiuyt]

limited what words could be used? The prosecution can't describe the victims as "victims," but the defense can call the rioters and looters. If it were the other way around, the defense could appeal any decision that went against their client, but are the prosecutors just stuck with what happens?

[elleng]

1. Only on appeal.

[Poiuyt]

2. That's my question. The prosecution can't appeal a decision, can they?

Wouldn't that be like double jeopardy?

[FBaggins]

20. The prosecution can't appeal a verdict

But they can certainly appeal the judge's decisions during the trial.

Not that I expect them to in this case... nor expect that they would win if they did.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

3. The prosecutor can't call them victims because it hasn't been established that they are technically

If they were the aggressors, then they aren't the victims, because Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. The case is to determine if they are murder victims, so calling them victims is prejudicial. And apparently this is fairly common.

And the defense has to prove they were rioters and looters before they can use that language. The reporting on this has been terrible and amplified by people who don't know what the ruling means.

[Poiuyt]

4. But the alleged victims can't defend themselves about being rioters because they're dead

[FBaggins]

21. Those aren't parallel situations

The victims aren't criminal defendants (i.e., they don't have anything to "defend&quot ... and the criminal defendant enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.

[Amishman]

5. Thanks for clarifying, reading up on it you appear to be correct

The defense might be able to stick Rosenbaum with the rioter label, as based on video he does appear to be participating in the lighting of a dumpster fire before the shooting.

This case is quite a bit more complicated legally than it appears at a glance.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

6. Well there's not going to be a trial for the two dead people to determine that they were 'rioters'

or 'looters', now is there?

So what exactly could said 'proof' ... possibly consist of?

There's no equitable situation possible here ... that's the rub for me.

Would we allow defense attorneys to call the dead woman a 'whore' in the trial of the alleged murderer of a (possible) prostitute, even if she's never been convicted for something like that?

I feel like this decision sucks and I'm surprised to see you defend it my friend.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. I'm not necessarily defending it - I'm explaining what I read

But I'd think that if they show video of one of them breaking a window, they can call them a vandal. If that evidence isn't introduced, then not.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, and most of the people ginning the outrage about this ruling aren't either. There are tons of nuances to trials that I don't pretend to understand, but the commentary from lawyers I've read have said this isn't uncommon.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. I get your point, fair enough, I always like to know the facts ...

So I guess my gripe isn't so much with the particular judge as it is with this 'practice'.

To use your example, if it was HIS house/business the brick went thru, which he was defending, then fine.

If he was a LEO on trial, fine.

But some random shithead vigilante wannabe like Rittenhouse from the next state over, who was there to cause trouble every bit as much as any protester there?

FUCK THAT!

[MuseRider]

8. God there has been so much of this but

I think I remember seeing video and those 2 were NOT anywhere near being either of those things but Rittenhouse approached them aggressively and shot them. This is my memory but there was so much of this at that time but it seems like a clear memory. If so that should put this to rest right away.

[Tomconroy]

14. The video is up on youtube. Everyone should look at it. It will be

a key piece of evidence in the trial. I suspect the defense will try to show it many times in slow motion.
I haven't seen the video of the first shooting so I can't comment on it.

[Tomconroy]

13. As I used to point out to the great irritation of prosecutors:

The defendant in a criminal trial has Constitutional rights that guarantee him a fair trial. The state does not.
However, the ruling of the judge was eminently fair. The defense can only refer to rioters and looters in closing argument if there is evidence to support such a claim. If no evidence is produced the defense can not use those words.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

15. Okay, so ... let's say I was accused of killing a (possible) prostitute

And I, as a defendant, can produce a picture of this girl, out on the street one night, dressed in the clothes one might associate w/a prostitute ... my defense attorney can lawfully refer to her as a 'street walking whore' in the closing arguments, cause I 'have evidence to support such a claim'?

But the prosecutors can't refer to the dead girl as 'the victim'.

Is that about how things work?

[Tomconroy]

16. The word 'victim' implies that there was a crime. The use of is

essentially making a legal conclusion. That is the role of the jury to determine after the state has proven it's case. If there is a conviction then it is fair to say there were victims. It is a conclusion for the jury to make.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

17. Okay fine, don't use 'victim' because of it's implication

and at the same time, don't use 'rioter' or 'vandal' on the same freaking basis.

These dead people aren't getting trials for their 'rioting' or 'vandalism' so it shouldn't be enough to allow those loaded terms to be used to describe the dead people just based on 'some evidence' ... when they are NOT CONVICTED ... either.

That's my complaint in this whole situation.

I accept that the reality is that this is 'common' ... but it shouldn't be.

[Tomconroy]

18. If (and it's a big if) the people pursuing Rittenhouse in the video

had engaged in rioting and looting that would be relevant to Rittenhouse's claim of self defense which focuses on his reasonable beliefs about perceived threats. If he was facing rioters and looters that is a different situation from facing peaceful protestors. Let's see where the evidence leads.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

19. Alright Tom I appreciate your taking a stance and arguing for it, I very often do the same

even if it's a 'devils advocate' kind of position

For my part, I would approve of 'potential assailant', something along those lines. But there's nothing about 'rioters' and 'looters' that inherently makes someone a threat to other people to the point you have any sort of right to kill them.

I mean ... was ANYONE killed that night, apart from who THIS kid killed? This wasn't 'The Purge' going on, you know what I'm saying?

And he wasn't defending his own home or business here.

Allowing these words just rubs me the wrong way. You can make your case for self-defense, but still avoid these loaded terms for actions these people can't defend themselves from (cause they're dead).

[Tomconroy]

10. I don't know what is going to happen but the case is more

complicated than many believe. I really hadn't been following it until posts here started appearing about it. There is a long article in the NYTimes Magazine that appeared on line yesterday that gives a lot of background information. There are at least two videos of what happened. One is on youtube taken I guess by somebody with a cell phone. It shows the last two shootings. You can look it up and see what you think of it. Youtube doesn't seem to allow you to link to it as far as I could tell. There is another video taken by an FBI unit in the air that shows the first shooting and what led up to it. I haven't been able to find that one. I think people should not rush to judgment. The case will be broadcast on Court TV and maybe other networks will carry it.
Rittenhouse is entitled to a fair trial, like anyone else. His family does seem to have made one good decision. That got rid of the right wing ideologue lawyers and hired apparently quite competent defense attorneys.
I'd urge people not to rush to judgment based on nonsensical tweets. The pretrial hearings were taped and up on youtube. You can watch them and make an informed decision about the judge's evidentiary rulings.

[AJT]

11. Rittenhouse had already shot at people. The men were trying to get his gun away.

[Tomconroy]

12. Rittenhouse had certainly shot someone. I don't know what the

intentions were of the people pursuing him. One of them had a gun in his hand. You can see that in the video.
Again, unlike many, I don't know what the result of the trial will be.