The Rittenhouse Judge should declare a Mistrial

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Now we arrive back to the point i was making. Protesters outside being construed as intimidating could make that argument.

Consider this me "letting you know."

originally posted by: JinMI
Protesters outside being construed as intimidating could make that argument.

No, they cannot. Jury tampering is a very specific thing.

What intimidates the marys here might not be intimidating to the people on the jury. You know how you can tell? Not one of them as said anything.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
He didn't say it was up to the Judge to apply any strategy. He said the Defense should have requested a complete barrier.

Let me know when the defense uses this 'lawyers' strategy. Or better yet, why don't you alert him. Bring that YouTube video down and teach him a thing or two about the law.

You have a special talent. Most people would not be able to post this many comments without actually addressing the comments you are replying to.

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
You have a special talent.

Yeah, it's called 'not trusting internet randos and actually looking at what's happening'.

You should try it. If you did you'd see that no one has employed the magic words your YouTube winner suggested.

Deadlocked.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're right, it is specific.

Whoever, with intent to influence any person, summoned or serving as a juror, in relation to any matter which is before that person or which may be brought before that person, communicates with him or her otherwise than in the regular course of proceedings in the trial or hearing of that matter is guilty of a Class I felony.

You're also right that no juror has claimed such.

The discussion I took up simply for the perspective is where free speech turns into the above statue.

For the hearing and reading impaired, I'm not claiming any juror brought forth a complaint to juror tampering.

originally posted by: JinMI
The discussion I took up simply for the perspective is where free speech turns into the above statue.

It turns into that statute when someone does what's listed above and protesting isn't it.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
The discussion I took up simply for the perspective is where free speech turns into the above statue.

It turns into that statue when someone does what's listed above and protesting isn't it.

What's going on with a Statue?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Great, now we're getting somewhere!

Are the protesters attempting to influence the jury?

I get it, it's a loaded question. Even the notion of proving intent is a legal nightmare.

However can location, number of protesters and message factor in to intent given they are protesting a hypothetical at this point in time?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
The discussion I took up simply for the perspective is where free speech turns into the above statue.

It turns into that statue when someone does what's listed above and protesting isn't it.

What's going on with a Statue?

My phone thinks it knows how to spell and what word I want to use better than me.

originally posted by: carewemust
What's going on with a Statue?

About the same thing as your deadlocked post, nothing.

originally posted by: JinMI
Are the protesters attempting to influence the jury?

Did they communicate with anyone on the panel? No? Guess not then.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There has been many comments that protesters outside can be heard inside the court.

Not to mention blowhorns.

I also get there is a distinction between intimidating and being intimidated.

Winkwink

a reply to: carewemust

Wrong.

We need tough, arse-hole judges to be Neutral. That's their job.


I think this judge did a decent job. The prosecutor was, several times, completely out of line in his behavior, and tactics--and the judge did well to curb him.

Would he have done the same is the defense had misbehaved? I hope so.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Otherwise known as "jury tampering".

If that's the case, mistrial with prejudice is the only route to take.

Of course, were I Rittenhouse in that case? I'd be tempted to move, as far away as possible. 'Cause sure as the sun'll rise tomorrow, someone is going to do something stupid.

a reply to: seagull

Give him his rifle back.

a reply to: seagull

I want judges on our side who are willing to fight fire with fire.

If we had not nuked Japan, we'd be under control of communist today.

When going up against evil you have to fight dirty.

If Kyle Rittenhouse is found not guilty, that will help our side be able to do to them what they've been doing to us, and much worse, legally.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There's a whole lot of gray there.

If the jury isn't sequestered, then all of those outside influences, or attempted anyway, could have a deleterious effect upon their deliberations.

But...

That's not our decision to make. That would be the judge.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'm fairly sure that he's of the opinion that he's killed enough people for one lifetime--or even several.

originally posted by: JinMI
There has been many comments that protesters outside can be heard inside the court.

As soon as the jury is making those comments then you might have something.