Anyone watching?

I've been watching the commentary at the end of each day by YouTuber Robert Gruler Esq.

He's a defense lawyer in I think Arizona.

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

From what I've seen so far the prosecution has a really thin case and both evidence presented and prosecution witnesses have both heavily favored Kyle's version of events.

As long as the jurors are in fact unbiased and follow the evidence I see Kyle being acquitted.

ETA: To expand on and add an example of what I'm talking about, yesterday the prosecutor called a Kenosha Detective that investigated the incident and ask about the injuries that Kyle had on him when he talked with him the morning of the incident and the detective gave a whole laundry list of injuries, scratches and bruises and bumps etc. The prosecutor seemed to think that all these injuries were just superficial and was trying to make the point that no one needed to die over such superficial injuries. I don't believe that is how the jury will look at that and it has backfired on the prosecutor.

Another example is the drone FLIR footage that was also entered shown to the jury yesterday. The prosecution is trying to convince the jury that Kyle chased Rosenbaum down the street and instigated the confrontation, but other video evidence shows that Kyle ran down the street and didn't pay any mind to Rosenbaum until he started chasing him. Another witness also stated that Kyle wasn't acting out of the ordinary and that Rosenbaum was the one acting erratic.

Andrew Branca pointed out even more significant holes and deliberate suppression of evidence by the prosecution:

They could not hack Kyle's phone and neither could the FBI. Kyle and his attorney provided the unlock code with the stipulation that the defense get a copy of all evidence. He could have refused.

Warrants were served on witnesses phones to retrieve evidence - but the phone of the "one armed man" was NOT investigated because of bogus claims of "victim's rights". Not bothering to check his phone for exculpatory evidence (or incriminating evidence) is a major oversight by the police detective, and appears to have been due to instruction by the prosecutor. They didn't look because they didn't want to find anything that shows this asshole was a criminal involved in criminal behavior.

After the prosecution rests I would expect a motion for dismissal based on lack any actual case by the prosecution.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Not bothering to check his phone for exculpatory evidence (or incriminating evidence) is a major oversight by the police detective, and appears to have been due to instruction by the prosecutor. They didn't look because they didn't want to find anything that shows this asshole was a criminal involved in criminal behavior.

Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA? I'm thinking of the end of My Cousin Vinny where the cop investigated for Vinny.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
After the prosecution rests I would expect a motion for dismissal based on lack any actual case by the prosecution.

Do you expect the judge to grant it? Doesn't every defense attorney make this motion?

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
After the prosecution rests I would expect a motion for dismissal based on lack any actual case by the prosecution.

Do you expect the judge to grant it? Doesn't every defense attorney make this motion?

Not always. Often the case is clearly just going to the jury, which is true in a lot of self defense cases where the "violent" act isn't contested. But where the prosecutor overcharged and can't prove (or hasn't provided evidence supporting) a required mental state, I could see it argued even though the act isn't contested.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA? I'm thinking of the end of My Cousin Vinny where the cop investigated for Vinny.

If by "DA" you mean "defense attorney" rather than "District Attorney, aka the State aka the Prosecutor", then no, they aren't and they don't. At least not in Washington and I doubt anywhere else either, but am interested if this is different elsewhere.

Often, prosecutors have their own investigators.

However, if a police officer submits a case for prosecution, and the prosecutor decides further follow up is needed, it falls back in the officer to follow up.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA? I'm thinking of the end of My Cousin Vinny where the cop investigated for Vinny.

If by "DA" you mean "defense attorney" rather than "District Attorney, aka the State aka the Prosecutor", then no, they aren't and they don't. At least not in Washington and I doubt anywhere else either, but am interested if this is different elsewhere.

I meant the District Attorney.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA? I'm thinking of the end of My Cousin Vinny where the cop investigated for Vinny.

If by "DA" you mean "defense attorney" rather than "District Attorney, aka the State aka the Prosecutor", then no, they aren't and they don't. At least not in Washington and I doubt anywhere else either, but am interested if this is different elsewhere.

I meant the District Attorney.

Then usually, yes. Or the DA has their own set of investigators (usually detectives or former detectives) actually working for them. Sorry, you asked about the cop investigating for Vinny. Vinny is not the DA, he's the defense attorney.

FBI Lost HD Video of Rittenhouse Shooting Showing Kyle Chased by Mob

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/...-kyle-chased-by-mob/

The Federal Bureau of Investigation admitting to losing a high-definition aerial video capturing the events of a shooting involving Kyle Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum during the second day of trial proceedings on Wednesday.

A less clearer version of the footage reveals Rittenhouse fleeing from a mob of left-wing rioters, with one man firing a 9mm pistol in his direction before he’s assailed by Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was shot and killed after an altercation with Rittenhouse in which he reached for the Rittenhouse’s rifle.

According to Jack Posobiec of Human Events, who published the standard-definition aerial footage on Tuesday, the FBI admitted to having possession of clearer footage of the events in downtown Kenosha on August 25th, 2020. When further pressed by Mr. Rittenhouse’s defense team for access to the footage- which could amount to a major piece of evidence in the trial- an FBI representative rebuffed the request. An FBI representative is said to have revealed that the high-def footage no longer exists, raising serious questions about the custody of video evidence in the case.

Mark Richards, one of Rittenhouse’s defense lawyers, is said to have described the FBI’s misconduct regarding evidence in a homicide trial as “preposterous.” The defense of Rittenhouse never had access to the evidence, which could ultimately make or break charges that could place Mr. Rittenhouse in prison for the rest of his life.

Judge Bruce Schroeder ended discussion over the FBI high-def footage, informing the state and the defense the matter of the footage would be discussed later and directing proceedings to legal arguments over the standard footage.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith
Sorry, you asked about the cop investigating for Vinny. Vinny is not the DA, he's the defense attorney.

Yes, I understand the confusion. Vinny asked the cop to investigate and he said it wasn't his job and then did it anyway.

So the cops here in Kenosha, could they have investigated to their own satisfaction or were they constrained by the DA?

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:...
Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA? I'm thinking of the end of My Cousin Vinny where the cop investigated for Vinny.

I think not.
The Sheriff was investigating the crime on behalf of his jurisdiction, so his efforts were to find evidence to support the charges against the defendants, based on the assumptions of credible and likely guilt of the crime. (and the admission/confession) "I shot the clerk.(?)"

Vinny needed a credible investigatory person to check his hunch, and asked the Sherriff to do it as a favor.|
|
As the Sheriff did state "Do your own research.", but Vinnie persisted and so the Sherriff agreed to do it.

Sorry! I should have been more clear. DA=District Attorney. Vinny was most certainly the defense attorney. I want to know about the ability of the police to investigate without the constraining bias of the DA.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The Sheriff was investigating the crime on behalf of his jurisdiction, so his efforts were to find evidence to support the charges against the defendants, based on the assumptions of credible and likely guilt of the crime.

I'd really like to think the DA's and the police's investigatory effort is with the goal of finding the unbiased truth, not to find evidence to achieve a conviction. It's clear to me that the prosecution here, at least, is doing the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

FBI Lost HD Video of Rittenhouse Shooting Showing Kyle Chased by Mob

Yeah, they "lost" it real good there.

What a bunch of fools. Keystone Kops

quote:

Are cops obligated to investigate at the direction of the DA?

What was cited in this instance was Wisconsin's Marsy's Law which gives "victims" certain rights. So the prosecutor probably cited this law and scared the detective into not executing that warrant for that phone.

That's exactly what I was driving at. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:...
I'd really like to think the DA's and the police's investigatory effort is with the goal of finding the unbiased truth, not to find evidence to achieve a conviction. It's clear to me that the prosecution here, at least, is doing the latter.

That is why there is a prosecutor and defender, because each has their own place in the contesting for the victim and the alleged.

The desire to fully seek justice for the victim, and to fully protect the rights of the innocent until "proven" guilty. (or not).

The prosecutor should do all in his/her power to "prove". The responsibility to "protect", is upon the defender.

Like it or don't, most anywhere else in the world, is less thrilling a thought to how they do this messy business.

quote:

The prosecutor should do all in his/her power to "prove". The responsibility to "protect", is upon the defender.

The problem in this case is that the defense doesn't get Judicial Warrant powers and cannot compel a witness to provide evidence. Otherwise they would have the contents of "lefty's" phone and might be able to prove the defense's case or show that the prosecution's witness is not reliable.

I'm sure there's a good reason for it but I'm not seeing it in a case where the prosecution purposely does not obtain all evidence.

Their job, IMHO is to not only protect the rights of the victim, but to also protect the rights of the innocent. Which everyone is until proven otherwise.