Pro-Democratic Lawyer P. Andrew Torres: Judge's instructions in Rittenhouse case are reasonable.

[brooklynite]

Detailed summary on OPENING ARGUMENTS Podcast link: https://openargs.com/oa538-the-rittenhouse-trial-instructions-explained/

[PortTack]

1. Thank you as I understand it, calling those shot victims implies guilt. They can say alleged victims

I also understand it isn’t an uncommon request

[lame54]

2. But he allows them to be called looters...

Which implies THEY'RE guilty

[Hoyt]

4. I think it's if Rittenhouse's defense can provide evidence that they engaged in those acts.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. Judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'ioters or looters but 'victim' is out

Rittenhouser had no knowledge of these alleged crimes

Link to tweet

Binger, the prosecutor, argued Monday that any behavior Rosenbaum, Huber or Grosskreutz may have participated in that night that could lead the jury to believe they were arsonists, rioters or looters wasn't witnessed by Rittenhouse and shouldn't be part of his defense.

"He can't argue self-defense against things he's not aware of," Binger said. "These other acts are strictly designed to attack the reputation of these individuals, it's designed to paint them in the worst possible light to prejudice them. Two of them can't defend themselves ... because the defendant killed them. And it's unduly prejudicial to the jury to be told about any of those things."

[PoliticAverse]

6. Not unless the evidence shows them to be...

"I would encourage restraint in opening statement, but let the evidence show what the evidence shows. And if the evidence shows that any (or more than one) of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting, then I’m not going to tell the defense they can’t call them that.”

[lame54]

8. Evidence is to be interpreted by the jury...

At the END of the trial

They decide who's guilty

[PoliticAverse]

10. During the trial judges control the admission of evidence based on relevance.

And also in closing arguments the judge can reject claims by the defense or prosecution that are not supported by the evidence.

So for example if the defense in closing says "and he shot men who had been looting" but no evidence was presented in the trial showing that the Judge can admonish them and note that no such evidence was presented.

[gulliver]

9. It's nuts if you can call someone a looter who isn't convicted of it

And it's nuts if you can shoot someone who wasn't engaged in looting when you shot them and then "defend yourself" by saying they were looters earlier in the day.

[marybourg]

11. They are not on trial, and therefore don't have the

presumption of innocence. If there’s evidence that they were looting, they can be called looters.

[lame54]

14. I thought we ALL had the presumption of innocence

[marybourg]

15. The state will protect your presumption of innocence if you're charged with a crime.

Otherwise it has no interest in your guilt or innocence. Although your spouse and friends may. 😀

[Effete Snob]

16. "Presumption of innocence" is an assignment of legal burden

It is the default position assumed of a defendant at trial, which establishes that it is the state’s burden to show otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not some kind of free-floating right in general. Nobody would ever be arrested for a crime if there was some general “presumption of innocence”.

[Igel]

21. And so if they're indicted and tried I assume

that the prosecution wouldn't be able to use those words.

But they're not indicted and they're not on trial.

[PoliticAverse]

3. The judge has actually done it in thousands of cases.

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/

[Me.]

5. Not Quite

“As he set the ground rules for the trial, Schroeder said this week that the label "victim" is a "loaded word" and that even the use of "alleged victim" is too close, telling prosecutors that "complaining witness" or "decedent" are acceptable alternatives.”

[RockRaven]

7. If you actually listen to the explanation, it sounds sorta reasonable, even if I don't like it...

To paraphrase/summarize: Both sides have to refer to them as decedents in their opening statements. Prosecution can't use victims, must use decedents throughout. If the defense proves they were rioting or looting during the trial, they can call them rioters or looters in their closing, but that might be strategically unwise (i.e. backfire with the jury).

[keithbvadu2]

12. Can't call them victims? Call them 'prey'.

Can't call them victims?

Call them 'prey'.

https://democraticunderground.com/100215934293

Rittenhouse's lawyers are arguing he was engaging in "legal hunting" on the streets of Kenosha.

[panader0]

13. Here's the same question I asked before:

Were any of the three victims ever arrested or convicted for rioting, arson or looting? If not, why can they
be allowed to be called rioters, arsonists and looters? Seems quite prejudicial to me.

[Effete Snob]

17. Prejudicial to whom?

They are not on trial. The only prejudicial inequity of interest would be to the defendant actually on trial.

[panader0]

18. It seems to me that the jury would be prejudiced against the victims, that they were bad guys,

and the shooter was doing a big favor for the wonderful policemen.

[Effete Snob]

19. The "presumption of innocence" is intended to BE a bias

That is the point. The field is supposed to be tilted against the prosecution. They start the game behind on points.

[brooklynite]

20. It's not that they CAN be called rioters and looters...

The ruling was that the Defense can call them that IF they FIRST produce evidence that they were engaged in rioting or looting.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

22. Opinion: Are the men Kyle Rittenhouse killed victims? Not according to the judge.

I trust Paul Butler on this

Link to tweet

The most politicized trial of the Black Lives Matter era may be one where all of those involved are White....

But Schroeder crossed the line from jurist to advocate when he forbid prosecutors from saying “victim” because, he said, it’s a “loaded” word, but allowed the defense to say “arsonist,” “looter” and “rioter” — as if those words aren’t just as loaded. Schroeder’s decision supports the defense strategy of putting the victims on trial, to make it sound as though they got what they deserved.

Indeed, Schroeder went so far as to say that the defense lawyers can “demonize” the three men who Rittenhouse killed if they think that will score points with the jury. This is judicially sanctioned slander.

Over the objections of prosecutors, he will allow the jury to see a video of the police thanking a group of vigilantes and handing them bottles of water. The defense will use the clip to suggest that not only was Rittenhouse entitled to be in Kenosha with an assault rifle, the local police were actually glad he was there.

Yet the judge turned down prosecutors’ request to admit as evidence video of Rittenhouse beating up a teenage girl who got into a fight with his sister. Nor will the judge allow video of Rittenhouse stating, 15 days before the Kenosha shootings, “Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them” about people he suspected were shoplifting.

Last winter, Rittenhouse flew to Miami, where he met with the leader of the Proud Boys, a white supremacist-adjacent organization that was active in BLM counterprotests. The judge won’t let the jury know about that, or another occasion on which Rittenhouse hung out with Proud Boys members at a bar.

The prosecutors contend that all of this is compelling evidence of Rittenhouse’s propensity for violence and his criminal intent. The judge insists it’s irrelevant.

.