quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I hope I am wrong but this judge doesn't have the courage to call mistrial w prejudice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the defense even asked for that, which makes me wonder why.

They did. It was posted last night.

It has been hard to follow this chaotic sequence.

The defense asked for a mistrial w prejudice, and another time they asked for a mistrial w/o prejudice.

I thought they asked for a mistrial several days ago--before closing arguments, then filed a motion for mistrial w/prejudiced a couple days ago?

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I thought they asked for a mistrial several days ago--before closing arguments, then filed a motion for mistrial w/prejudiced a couple days ago?

It was both. The first one was over the prosecutions ignoring judges earlier ruling and questioning KR's 5th amendment right. This time it's about sharing lower quality video with defense than what the prosecutor had.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
^^^^^^^^^
Can we just stop the click bait reports and updates? There is no way a US Marshall had communications with two jurors on this case. Period. End of story. Arguendo, if it had happened, he/she would have reached out to the court and it would have come out in open court.

Finally, we do not know if the jury is deadlocked. Nobody does. If and until the judge issues an Allen charge, it is pure speculation about what is or is not happening on this claim. Period!

Agreed.

'Mistrial w/ Prejudice' in this motion filed on 11/14...

I'm not sure what to think about that judge. I don't know enough about law and courtroom procedure to evaluate it, but at times he appears to lose control of what's going on and is a big baby without the balls to kick some ass.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
It has been hard to follow this chaotic sequence.

The defense asked for a mistrial w prejudice, and another time they asked for a mistrial w/o prejudice.

It's been difficult for everyone. White pill then black pill over and over. Rekieta's stream has been an education. He makes it clear that what's happening isn't unique to this case. Prosecutorial overreach is occurring everywhere and all the time. Barnes and Branca on the stream have been eye-opening.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
It has been hard to follow this chaotic sequence.

The defense asked for a mistrial w prejudice, and another time they asked for a mistrial w/o prejudice.

Correct, that was today's motion, w/o prejudice.

Viva and barnes make for a good counter balance. I enjoy listening to them.

I cant believe i have spent nearly 10 days listening to the invoice of lawyers critique this trial.


It has been fascinating.

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
Viva and barnes make for a good counter balance. I enjoy listening to them.

I cant believe i have spent nearly 10 days listening to the invoice of lawyers critique this trial.


It has been fascinating.

I've listened to more than I care to admit. All of Gauge Grossbiceps and all of KR's plus more.

Never watched OJ much, barely watched Derek C trial. It's actually really good TV.

The prosecutors kept repeating and reliving every detail. How many times do these folks get to drag out the same story?

After a couple days of going nowhere and listening to the facts, I had my mind made up. Not Guilty! Sleepy Joe we’re suing you and others for libel and slander. You poisoned the jury calling Kyle a white supremist, the media ran with it. You folks are the guilty ones.

One thing that bothers me, with all of the money that was donated - this is the best defense team KR could come up with ?
They should have had SD and gun experts lined up out the door
Attorney doesn’t seem like much of a “closer” to me either

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
One thing that bothers me, with all of the money that was donated - this is the best defense team KR could come up with ?
They should have had SD and gun experts lined up out the door
Attorney doesn’t seem like much of a “closer” to me either

barnes goes into this at length in his sidebar with Via posted above.

quote:

Originally posted by ElKabong:
One thing that bothers me, with all of the money that was donated - this is the best defense team KR could come up with ?
They should have had SD and gun experts lined up out the door
Attorney doesn’t seem like much of a “closer” to me either

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Clarence Darrow and Johnnie Cochran are not available. These are Wisconsin attorneys who are familiar with the culture,the Judge and the DA. Gun experts and SD experts can be real snoozers and frankly not too helpful.

What they did need was defense attorneys who knew when and how to object. They didn't do enough to shut down the ADAs. There's value in letting the ADA dig his own hole but they gave them way too many outs.

^^^^^^^^^^
If you object too much you look like a jerk to the jury, and annoy the Judge. It is a delicate balance.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^
If you object too much you look like a jerk to the jury, and annoy the Judge. It is a delicate balance.

I've heard this explanation before, and I don't understand it. If you object, and the judge sustains, then your objection is justified. How can someone hold that against you?

If you frequently object, and the judge denies it, then I can see how you could come off as a jerk. From what I've seen, a lot of attorneys and others in the legal field are puzzled why the defense allowed the prosecution to present so much questionable material and do questionable things that the should have been raised for objection.

Potato, tomato.
Wasn't much delicate balance(ing) going on here.

History in the making boys!

This case has wide ranging implications for all of us gun culture and self defense oriented folks.

I feel bad for Kyle that the jury is made up of 7 chatty women and 5 dudes. Doesn't sound like a jury of his peers to me. Women often don't use logic and use "feels", so even with all the evidence presented, I am almost certain that we have holdouts on both sides. Probably 8 or 9 not guilty, and 3 or 4 guilty. They wont change their mind, it will end up hung.

The state can retry this case 5 times, and it will end up hung every single time. I am certain of that. As long as women and democrats and men and republicans make up the jury, it will always end up hung. This is perhaps the most political case in a generation.

This case is all over the internet, all over social media, hundreds of millions of people talking about it.

At the start of this trial they apparently didn't know who jump kick man is, but now his name has come out in the past few days.

I think the judge is over his head. Small town judge, doesn't have the ability to properly judge a case of this magnitude. My opinion. Why has he not ruled on the defense motions yet?