Trials
“These are the times that try men's souls.”
― Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
A lot of people enjoy watching criminal trials. I'm one of them. Some are covered live, as cameras are allowed in many cases. I also enjoy watching film of old trials on youtube. It is interesting, sometimes fascinating, to listen to the duels between talented prosecutors and defense attorneys. There can be interesting rulings by judges. And one can often evaluate the honesty and accuracy of witnesses.
The media is incorrectly reporting that the jury agreed that it was self-defense. Actually, the jury determined that the prosecution did not prove that Kyle was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a huge distinction. It doesn't mean that the prosecutor did a poor job. What might seem obvious outside a court room has to be presented under the rules of evidence.
A good prosecutor might even have the crimes on film, but that doesn't mean it will be introduced in the trial. Even when films are introduced, a jury may not be convinced -- strange as that may seem. There are factors that even a good prosecutor may have no control over, and no ability to influence. That can include the judge.
One of those factors involves likability. It is a factor in many civil and criminal trials. It includes the parties, their attorneys, the judge, the victims, and even witnesses. It is something that definitely was in play in the Rittenhouse trial. For example, the lead defense attorney came across as more likable than the prosecutor, regardless of either's personality outside the courtroom. Some human beings were able to support Kyle, despite his being rather difficult to find likable. The likability of victims also comes into play.
I've read a number of internet comments saying, approximately: "This gives the alt-right license to shoot us." I think that for many, many citizens, this is not a new reality. For it has long been that way. Leaders like Gandhi and King made it clear that people in the movement might get arrested, go to jail, go to the emergency room, or even to the cemetery. People who march in non-violent marches advocating for peace take those risks. People out after curfew engaged in a variety of activities increase their risks, because other people who think they need a gun for self-defense still opt to make a series of bad choices that result in violence.
Most rational people would agree that jogging should carry fewer risks that confronting a coward with a gun. But that isn't always the case, as many here know. In the Ahmaud Arbury case, of course, a jogger was the victim of a coward with a gun. However, this case has the potential for a more satidfying outcome.
The judge appears to be fair in his rulings. The lead prosecutor is outstanding. I have been very impressed with her throughout the trial. The defense's low-point took place without the jury, when one lawyer was arguing that having black pastors sitting with the victim's mother might influence the jury. But the judge handled that very well.
The defense attorney's attempt to create likability can be best seen by comparing Travis McMichael's mug shot and how he appeared on the witness stand. He hadn't been arrested for DWI, and the mug shot cannot be mistaken for an optical low point. No, that is the real Travis, and that is his essence. He appears to be of the same species as the thugs that were planning to conduct a citizen's arrest of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer in the fall of 2020. Like them, Travis also appointed himself the judge and jury.
The defense has been weak. It is no more important that the father used to be a cop, or the son had been in the Coast Guard, than if they had once been in the Boy Scouts. Or the Junior Woodchucks.
In my opinion, while watching the closing arguments, it would seem that there is a good chance of the jury convicting the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbury. That was not the case in the Rittenhouse trial.
= new reply since forum marked as read
