-
Doesn't sound like the defence are too confident of full acquittal to me.
Yup. 3 days of jury deliberation is a good indicator that there’s strife somewhere. FWIW, the defence’s job is to serve their client’s interests as best they can, and a ‘technicality’ in a court of law is as valid as anything. (quotations used because allowing the prosecution to -allegedly- share with the defence subpar versions of the evidence they have is a pretty big deal).
Eseman-
FWIW, the defence’s job is to serve their client’s interests as best they can, and a ‘technicality’ in a court of law is as valid as anything.
Totally agree on this. Technicalities are important.
Reminds me of a series of cases in the UK in the 90s that found that signatures sent in compressed formats were not legally binding and also that video/photo evidence that was compressed as also not admissible in certain circumstances.
Stonehedge
Rittenhouse defence team pushing for mistrial without prejudice based on a technicality>
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/17/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mistrial-defense-attorneys-video
In a nutshell, they are claiming that because the video that showed Rittenhouse lied about not aiming his gun at protestors before the shootings happened was sent to them in a compressed format the whole trial should be thrown out and not be allowed to happen again.
Prosecution team points out that the uncompressed video was used throughout the trial and that the Jury only saw the uncompressed video.
Doesn't sound like the defence are too confident of full acquittal to me. I make that five separate times that Rittenhouse has been found to be lying during or about the events of that night. Will be interesting to see how the jury interprets that.