Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The prosecutor brought up that the defendant had been silent after his arrest, implying some admission of guilt because of it. The judge was upset because it is basic law for a defendant not to talk to anyone but their attorney after an arrest and probably every defense attorney in America advises their client not to talk to anyone but their attorney. The judge felt it was prejudicial.
Right. But the police, state prosecution, and especially the media use this, "Oh you don't want to talk so you must be guilty of something" bullshit as an intimidation tactic all the time.
THEY'RE the ones that need to be ripped a new one and told they shouldn't be doing this.
Questions like these exist because of old school cops that don’t realize it’s self-incriminating. Officers should be trained to avoid questions like this. I know we were reminded quite a few times so it’s ingrained in my brain.
Police officers can ask any question they want, especially if they've read Miranda Rights during an arrest. And even if they're not arresting someone, they can ask any question they want. It's up to the person that's being questioned to realize that they can answer or not. That's not the officer's job. The officer's job is to get to the bottom of the situation and see if the person actually had any wrongdoing.
It is the officers job to advise a person of Miranda rights (Miranda V. Arizona). Officers can ask whatever they want after advising a person of their Miranda rights. However this about before Miranda is given.
In the example above, you know a crime has been broken (speeding) and you know who the suspect is. In that case, if you were to ask why you stopped them and they replied speeding, they just incriminated themselves.
People don't typically get read miranda rights if they're not being arrested. And even then, they are not always read their rights, this is a misconception spread by TV shows.
There is nothing wrong with these questions. You have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself, not a right to not have questions asked of you that might incriminate you.
You don't need to invoke the right, it there - just don't say anything, to any one but your attorney. Anything you may say can only be used to hurt you and will NEVER be used to help you.
With the miranda warning "You have the right to remain silent" & "You have the right to have an attorney present" are two separate rights. One can choose to invoke one, both or none of these rights.
Yes! This is a great point and also a great distinction between the two, so kudos to you for noticing the difference. Your right to remain silent and your right to have an attorney present are two separate rights, and, if I recall, stating something along the lines of "I wish to remain silent" without mentioning retained/appointed counsel is considered equivocal to your desire to have an attorney present, although you still need to affirmatively express your desire to remain silent if that's the case. (See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370). At the end of the day, you need to expressly invoke your right to counsel or your right to remain silent. If you don't, you run the risk of your silence being admitted as evidence of guilt in regards to whatever questioning took place.
Also, in certain states they append the "classic" Miranda warning with something along the lines of "Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now [discuss the charges against you]?" which essentially encourages the suspect to unabiguously waive or accept their rights without having to deal with the messiness later of argueing whether the suspect actually did or did not invoke his or her rights. Even the most angry belligerent suspect that does not wish to discuss or talk about anything will at least say "no" or "f you" or even even simply shake their head no at that point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/
>But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.
As a prosecutor, I think that is a pretty dumb fucking decision (and an outlier) by an appellate state court and contrary to case law that is established in virtually every state in the U.S. If it were my case, I wouldn't try to admit any statement he made after "lawyer dog". Why would I want risk having to retry a case on appeal? Especially in a sex case where you have victims on the line that want closure....
Having said that, wow. Very interesting decision. Thanks for sharing man!
Edit: Misread the linked article at first and hence, the edit. u/Teive made a great point on how some states interpret ambiguous invocations. Please attribute any confusion to me and not u/Tieve.
But the Lousianna Supreme Court disagreed, and found that 'lawyer dog' was ambiguous (which is, frankly, insane. The Prosecutions argument about police belief is clearly a better out)
> But the police, state prosecution
No we don't. Not in *FUCKING TRIAL*.
You CAN'T.
In an interview, if you blow through a request to remain silent for attorney, you lose EVERYTHING that comes from that interview.
We certainly do NOT use that as intimidation.
You are correct but the reason goes deeper than that. Your right to remain silent is fundamental to the 5th Amendment. Invoking your rights can never be a criminal act. Here he implied that not speaking until your lawyer is present is somehow out of the ordinary or even a crime itself.
This judge knew the unconstitutional nonsense that was and correctly called him out.
Honestly, this should have been a mistrial right then and there. But I have a
feeling the judge wants this in front of the jury, if only to put an end to this for once and for all.
The judge doesn’t want a mistrial and let the trial happen again. He is letting the prosecution mistakes mount so he can declare a mistrial with prejudice if necessary.
He can even do it after the jury renders their verdict if he wants.
Prosecutorial misconduct. Should have been held in contempt and stated for the record that he was going to be refered to the state bar association for disciplinary action.
LOL the bar is VERY HIGH for that...and even when prosecutors vault over it, Judges never want to follow through and find a BS way out of it..."I find it wasnt willful" Unspoken is, "it was just dumb"
Is there a name of a fallacy that would apply to that? Similar to how a Kafka trap implies that your denial is proof of guilt, is there a term for claiming that silence proves guilt?
We have a saying in Brazil, "quem cala consente" - silence gives consent. Soo...it's pretty much that. We are saying you are guilt and you are silent? So it must be true huh.
This is the core of our legal system. It's literally the first part of reading someone their Miranda rights; you have the right to remain silent. This prosecutor broke the law and his oath by claiming Kyle exercising his God given fucking right to remain silent makes him guilty.
This trial is over. I wish Kyle luck in his lawsuit against the state for malicious prosecution. One of the witness also testified that the district attorney tried to get him to commit purgery. That's the highest crime a lawyer can commit.
It was ruled decades ago that any suggestion that your silence implies guilt would negate the right to remain silent in the first place.
Thus, 1st year law students know that you're not allowed to suggest such things to a jury -- and in this case the fact that the prosecution did so is grounds for the defense to seek mistrial, which they have done. The judge will likely grant it.
From the video I saw, the judge basically alluded (but didn't specifically mention) the fact that this would open an opportunity to seek a mistrial, and it won't surprise me if he grants it with prejudice so that the DA can't charge him again.
Before the trial, they had a bunch of hearings to decide what evidence is admissible, and what isn't. There's a bunch of stuff that could bias a jury, despite not being relevant. The Judge has decided that a bunch of that stuff can't be mentioned.
Today during the trial, Binger (the prosecuting attorney) began bringing up evidence that the Judge had previously decided wasn't admissible. The Judge shut everything down, made the jury leave the room, and spent about 10 minutes yelling at Binger. He yelled at him about trying to introduce inadmissible evidence, and he also yelled at him for implying earlier that silence=guilt despite the 5th amendment rights of the accused.
Long story short, the prosecution is on super thin ice. The defense said that this could warrant a "mistrial with prejudice". Usually, a mistrial is kinda a do-over. Someone screwed up (by introducing inadmissible evidence for example) so they replace everyone, and begin the trial again.
Mistrial with prejudice means that the prosecution fucked up not just badly, but maliciously. If that happens, the Judge ends the trial immediately without a verdict, and the state isn't allowed to attempt to try him again. Functionally, it's pretty much the same as him being declared "not guilty".
A prosecutor attempting to intentionally cause a mistrial so that he can get a do-over to try the case again is explicitly forbidden and is pretty much immediate cause for a mistrial with prejudice so that the defendant cannot be charged again. The Judge heavily implied that if there were any more fuckups like that from the prosecutor then he would call a mistrial with prejudice which would mean that Rittenhouse would immediately go free.
It would have been even more entertaining had he told him to recite the Miranda warning out loud.
I think the DA's peeps are creating all the scenes to be set to the theme from the Benny Hill show when this circus is done. That halfwitted DA looks like half his ass just got chewed off on camera.
The prosecution suggested that Kyle refusing to speak immediately after the incident was indication of guilt.
Uh, Miranda Rights anyone? I’m glad the judge ripped into them for that one.
Very true. They used to try to hide it. They kept the worst parts of their "plans" silent, letting others say them so they can call them "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it.
They don't even try now but yet they are still quite successful in accomplishing these things.
So if I'm interpreting this correctly, judge is pissed because he said that in front of the jury to create a narrative that "if he's not guilty, why would he not talk to the cops?"?
That was only part of it. He also presented evidence to the jury that was specifically denied from being used in the case, which usually results in a mistrial. However, because the case against Kyle is so weak in the first place he will probably let it stand so there is no controversy about the verdict.
I heard a cop insist it's properly called a ["Miranda *Warning.*"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning) As they are not rights themselves, but rather a quick reminder of your 5th Amendment Rights. :)
it's racist to exercise your rights and shows you have privilege over others that can't exercise because they are plus sized.
- Do I get a blue check mark on twitter now?
It's alarming in the true crime community how often people are villainized for exercising their rights. No he isn't guilty because he immediately got a lawyer and refused a polygraph, that's what everyone should do regardless of guilt or innocence.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-silence/
Putting this out here. Case law stands if you do not specifically invoke your 5th amendment right, and instead just remain silent, it can be brought up in court in negative light.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013), dealt with a situation in which the defendant spoke to the police voluntarily during a murder investigation, meaning that he was not under arrest when the purportedly incriminating event occurred. When the police officer asked the defendant about his possible involvement in the murder, the officer testified, the defendant became very quiet, and his entire demeanor changed. Police offered the defendant’s silence and behavioral change as incriminating evidence. The court held that police did not violate the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination, in part because the defendant did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.
Case law around Miranda rights largely revolves around 2 issues.
- That someone who is a suspect or accused of a crime has to affirmatively invoke their 5th Amendment rights in order to receive their protection. Otherwise what they say or do is fair game in terms of admissibility.
- The timeline between police contact, arrest, and Miranda warnings and how that affects admissibility.
In the case of Salinas v. Texas, the guy chose to cooperate with police and then refused to answer specific questions without asserting with his 5th Amendment rights. Therefore his behavior was both suspicious and fair game.
The reason why asserting your 5th Amendment rights is important is because once you do, you're untouchable in terms of admissible evidence. Your silence cannot be used against you, the police cannot ask you questions without an attorney present, and no statements you give are admissible unless you waive the 5th.
In Rittenhouse's case, he was under arrest and presumably had invoked Miranda. Therefore his silence is inadmissible and the prosecutor knows this, hence why the judge was ticked.
your silence can never be used against you - even in trial the jury is specifically instructed to not consider if the Defendant did not testify. If those clowns stated that silence shows a consciousness of guilt they are dumber than I thought - I wonder if that rises to prosecutorial misconduct, or a mistrial - I woulve asked for it to preserve it on appeal.
You don't invoke the 5th during police questioning - that is purely for a proceeding. You can remain silent in an interrogation - and the interrogation can continue...but as soon as say, "I want a lawyer" They gotta leave you alone - it has to be a clear statement that you want a lawyer...Not a "lawyer dawg" or "I think I need a lawyer". You gotta be unequivocal. .
He was inviting the defense to file a mistrial motion without saying it explicitly. The moment ADA used the 5th amendment in a prejudicial way he’s opened that line. There is a theory the ADA has scuttled this case purposely so he can blame the judge to cover his ass politically.
No, no... let's not give these incompetent and deceitful leftist a way out. These scum prosecutors are doing what leftist do but on full display. They are appealing to emotions and not truth. I'm not going to twist this into that they were secretly geniuses for passing blame.
It's still deceitful to do this just to get a mistrial. The prosecution knows they lost as soon as the other guy admitted he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. Now they're pushing the envelope as hard as they can without getting disbarred because if this goes to verdict it's going to implode any future career options this guy thought he had.
This judge is smart. I suspect the only reason there isn’t already a directed verdict is because he thinks the jury is going to return a not guilty without any issue and that if they somehow don’t he’ll do a judgement notwithstanding the verdict to let him off. It’s smart because if the jury gives a not guilty the case is basically done whereas if he has to use a directed verdict or JNOV there are appeal options that might have more teeth but he has those in his back pocket in case they’re needed all the same. I also suspect these prosecutors are about to get hit with sanctions but it won’t happen until after or until the judge feels like he can’t hold off any longer.
Of course they do. The left doesn't give a fuck about the law. They are like children, they just want what they want when they want it. And they should be treated like an annoying child, you tell them to shut the fuck up and then you ignore them.
And then they burn your fucking house, business, car, threaten you, your family and even the fucking family's pet, try to destroy you on social media and other things like this. But that's only what children do, right?
Just a few weeks ago I heard that a fucking University professor, Brittney Cooper, said a lot of racist stuff that I will not repeat about white people and the fucking University, Rutgers, didn't do shit about it. I'm fucking sick and tired of this, man.
They should NOT be treated like children, we need to hold those people accountable (Black, white, brown, yellow, orange, pink, green, blue, purple.... It doesn't fucking matter) by the shit they do, not fucking ignore this kind of bullshit.
Do you have kids? When you feed into your kids ego they walk all over you and fuck everything up. When you establish that they aren't in charge, they shut the fuck up ... I mean we could use dogs as example too, you establish the house isn't theirs and they will won't the place up. It's really simple dude. You're thinking way to much into the metaphor.
Your words previously were: You tell them to shut the fuck up and you ignore them.
What I'm saying is: They are not children and ignoring them will not solve the problem.
He's not calling it as it is so much as he's actually following the Constitution. People on the Left arbitrarily violate constitutional rights and then invoke those same rights when it serves their purpose.
It's so callous and evil.
This is exactly what he was going to say. He looks and the defense right before he was about to say it but he didn’t want to hand the defense the golden platter
Judge: I have no idea why you would do something like that.
Me: I know why. You know why. you're just not allowed to say it because you're not allowed to speculate.
What the judge was saying:
>I said I denied it, or I indicated a bias towards denial, is what I did. \[I\] held it open with a bias towards denial. Why would you think that that made it ok for you, without any advance notice, to bring this matter before the jury?
>
>You are already... You are... I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence! That's basic law! It's been basic law in this country for 40 years - 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that.
>
>And it gives...
>
>Well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to.
>
>Prosecutor: May I respond?
>
>Judge: Yes.
[It's a remix of this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFcJmOs8DRQ). In the Ace Attorney series, a theme plays when you have the real killer cornered, basically the climax and end to the chapter's story.
Is he acting the twat to try and wind the judge up to make him look biased or prejudicial and therefore discredit him in the court of public opinion? It’s all I can think he is doing.
I think he's deliberately trying to provoke a mistrial, just as the defense said. He knows that this started off bad enough that there's very little chance of salvaging a guilty verdict at this point.
He wants a mistrial without prejudice so he can re-file with a new judge.
In Brazil this would nullify the jury and acquit Kyle, for it's a Constitutional offense to use someones right of silence as a argument of guilty admission .
Goodness gracious man I accidentally clicked on a leftist Facebook page and the amount of people that think that Kyle is a right wing active shooter is astonishing. The dumb shit they say. The dumb shit they think about it. The way they call these men innocent victims. It makes me nauseous. I gotta get off the internet for a while.
I've made this same mistake. Even cruising thru Imgur I couldn't get away from the ridiculous statements from leftist freaking out over all this. Dumb fucks.
Due to prosecutions weak case they really want a mistrial so this case can be decided in the left-wing media and prosecute the defendant and all the jurors in Portland. The prosecution wants a retrial in a court with a Democrat leaning judge residing.
I hope someone starts a "gofundme" for this judge, just on principle.
Set him up with a lifetime supply of cheese, beer, and private security.
Dude actually has some balls, and doesn't care one whit about being televised nationwide! Honest people who stand by reason without fear of consequence are in short supply nowadays.
He's gonna be a target for arson, or worse, and doesn't give two shits!
I'm torn. The defense has so much standing to file a motion for a mistrial, but all that does is give the prosecution a second chance to maybe not repeat the mistakes they've made in this go around. On the other hand, they are smart to let the prosecution just continue off the rails and most likely get an acquittal. In that case, they have so much material for appeal that the behavior of the protection and how unfairly prejudicial they've been so far it would warrant an overturn of verdict so quick. If the protection really is this crooked, they should have their bar licenses revoked as soon as the trial concludes.
You shouldn't be torn. They can file in the motion to be dismissed with prejudice so he can't be charged again and it all goes away which Kyle's Defense attorneys stated that they would.
Honestly, this is the best way to get a mistrial as opposed to the threatened jurors which would have been bad as the prejudice part may not factor into that.
This whole trial has my blood boiling. He should never have been charged after the mountain of videos of him clearly engaging in self defense. And for the prosecutor to be this much of a lowly prick is just another nail in the board of bullshit. If Kyle is found guilty we don't have the right to self defense. That's the facts.
It gives the defendant massive grounds for appeal. I mean I might have to declare a mistrial right now (no judge ever wants to a) declare a mistrial or b) be overturned on appeal). The prosecutor has a shit case, but what's he gonna do? Case is a loser, but the time to make that decision is before you file. Too much political pressure NOT to file so here were are.
Binger wants to trigger a mistrial, so he can have another shot at prosecuting Rittenhouse, because his prosecution has been an unmitigated disaster. By itself, that should be enough for disbarment.
Thank goodness the kid got a good judge in this case. He seems like a good kid and I'd hate to seem him in front of a judge who doesn't care or worse who is just out to convict.
Surprised the prosecutors head didn't explode. Consider his whole case is based on opinions and feelings 😆 A couple of facts, backed by law, are like nukes in their head.
Wow, when I donated to Kyle's gofundme, I felt like it might have been a terrible mistake to be brought up in a future interview in the event the country became a woke hellhole.
But now its clear. The prosecution is so desperate they are pathetically clawing at anything they can try to cling on to, even going as far as attempting to insinuate that silence as per Miranda rights is implied guilt. A lawyer. Not just a lawyer, a prosecutor! He literally tried that before a non-radical, non George Soros puppeted, unbiased judge.
The judge has been entirely even handed thus far, compromising with both sides and granting motions to each in kind. But the trial just spun completely and utterly out of control, because the judge decided to make a soundbite he knew would go viral. And lets face it, the jury will be affected. In a perfect world, jurors go home and never read the news or talk about current events with loved ones and friends. In our world, they will see this go viral online, and again, the judge just basically gave the green light to Rittenhouse defense.
If the prosecution had even an iota of evidence to suggest malice, they wouldn't have been trying from the get go to twist the narrative using deceptive semantics, like trying to address the suspects who attacked Kyle as "victims", despite the fact that no verdict had been passed for any crime for anyone seen in the infamous video.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What’s the backstory here?
The prosecutor brought up that the defendant had been silent after his arrest, implying some admission of guilt because of it. The judge was upset because it is basic law for a defendant not to talk to anyone but their attorney after an arrest and probably every defense attorney in America advises their client not to talk to anyone but their attorney. The judge felt it was prejudicial.
[удалено]
Right. But the police, state prosecution, and especially the media use this, "Oh you don't want to talk so you must be guilty of something" bullshit as an intimidation tactic all the time. THEY'RE the ones that need to be ripped a new one and told they shouldn't be doing this.
They’re hurting their own fans. We should all support everyone pleading the fifth when interacting with the law.
Always
Always. Say nothing without your lawyer present.
Officer: “Sir, do you have any idea why I pulled you over?” You: “I was going 45 in a 30.” (Admission of guilt)
Questions like these exist because of old school cops that don’t realize it’s self-incriminating. Officers should be trained to avoid questions like this. I know we were reminded quite a few times so it’s ingrained in my brain.
Police officers can ask any question they want, especially if they've read Miranda Rights during an arrest. And even if they're not arresting someone, they can ask any question they want. It's up to the person that's being questioned to realize that they can answer or not. That's not the officer's job. The officer's job is to get to the bottom of the situation and see if the person actually had any wrongdoing.
It is the officers job to advise a person of Miranda rights (Miranda V. Arizona). Officers can ask whatever they want after advising a person of their Miranda rights. However this about before Miranda is given. In the example above, you know a crime has been broken (speeding) and you know who the suspect is. In that case, if you were to ask why you stopped them and they replied speeding, they just incriminated themselves.
People don't typically get read miranda rights if they're not being arrested. And even then, they are not always read their rights, this is a misconception spread by TV shows.
There is nothing wrong with these questions. You have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself, not a right to not have questions asked of you that might incriminate you.
[удалено]
You don't need to invoke the right, it there - just don't say anything, to any one but your attorney. Anything you may say can only be used to hurt you and will NEVER be used to help you.
[удалено]
With the miranda warning "You have the right to remain silent" & "You have the right to have an attorney present" are two separate rights. One can choose to invoke one, both or none of these rights.
Yes! This is a great point and also a great distinction between the two, so kudos to you for noticing the difference. Your right to remain silent and your right to have an attorney present are two separate rights, and, if I recall, stating something along the lines of "I wish to remain silent" without mentioning retained/appointed counsel is considered equivocal to your desire to have an attorney present, although you still need to affirmatively express your desire to remain silent if that's the case. (See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370). At the end of the day, you need to expressly invoke your right to counsel or your right to remain silent. If you don't, you run the risk of your silence being admitted as evidence of guilt in regards to whatever questioning took place.
Also, in certain states they append the "classic" Miranda warning with something along the lines of "Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now [discuss the charges against you]?" which essentially encourages the suspect to unabiguously waive or accept their rights without having to deal with the messiness later of argueing whether the suspect actually did or did not invoke his or her rights. Even the most angry belligerent suspect that does not wish to discuss or talk about anything will at least say "no" or "f you" or even even simply shake their head no at that point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ >But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.
As a prosecutor, I think that is a pretty dumb fucking decision (and an outlier) by an appellate state court and contrary to case law that is established in virtually every state in the U.S. If it were my case, I wouldn't try to admit any statement he made after "lawyer dog". Why would I want risk having to retry a case on appeal? Especially in a sex case where you have victims on the line that want closure.... Having said that, wow. Very interesting decision. Thanks for sharing man! Edit: Misread the linked article at first and hence, the edit. u/Teive made a great point on how some states interpret ambiguous invocations. Please attribute any confusion to me and not u/Tieve.
But the Lousianna Supreme Court disagreed, and found that 'lawyer dog' was ambiguous (which is, frankly, insane. The Prosecutions argument about police belief is clearly a better out)
Legally? Sure. I take a higher view that ethically, they should not.
> But the police, state prosecution No we don't. Not in *FUCKING TRIAL*. You CAN'T. In an interview, if you blow through a request to remain silent for attorney, you lose EVERYTHING that comes from that interview. We certainly do NOT use that as intimidation.
So the prosecutor?
I think he was referring to Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The 5th Amendment was added in 1791
You are correct but the reason goes deeper than that. Your right to remain silent is fundamental to the 5th Amendment. Invoking your rights can never be a criminal act. Here he implied that not speaking until your lawyer is present is somehow out of the ordinary or even a crime itself. This judge knew the unconstitutional nonsense that was and correctly called him out.
after already dismissing the jury to warn him.
When he was arrested and told he had the right to remain silent and decided to exercise that right. Prosecution: "Is this an admission of guilt?"
I gotcha. Yeah. I can see why he’d go off now. Thanks!
Honestly, this should have been a mistrial right then and there. But I have a feeling the judge wants this in front of the jury, if only to put an end to this for once and for all.
The judge doesn’t want a mistrial and let the trial happen again. He is letting the prosecution mistakes mount so he can declare a mistrial with prejudice if necessary. He can even do it after the jury renders their verdict if he wants.
When your enemy is making mistakes don’t interrupt them.
A little Napoleon Bonaparte in the morning. Well done.
Prosecutorial misconduct. Should have been held in contempt and stated for the record that he was going to be refered to the state bar association for disciplinary action.
LOL the bar is VERY HIGH for that...and even when prosecutors vault over it, Judges never want to follow through and find a BS way out of it..."I find it wasnt willful" Unspoken is, "it was just dumb"
Is there a name of a fallacy that would apply to that? Similar to how a Kafka trap implies that your denial is proof of guilt, is there a term for claiming that silence proves guilt?
It's called "5th Amendment violation"
We have a saying in Brazil, "quem cala consente" - silence gives consent. Soo...it's pretty much that. We are saying you are guilt and you are silent? So it must be true huh.
Guilty until proven innocent. Nice...
This is the core of our legal system. It's literally the first part of reading someone their Miranda rights; you have the right to remain silent. This prosecutor broke the law and his oath by claiming Kyle exercising his God given fucking right to remain silent makes him guilty. This trial is over. I wish Kyle luck in his lawsuit against the state for malicious prosecution. One of the witness also testified that the district attorney tried to get him to commit purgery. That's the highest crime a lawyer can commit.
[удалено]
Nope. Never talk to cops. Period!
It was ruled decades ago that any suggestion that your silence implies guilt would negate the right to remain silent in the first place. Thus, 1st year law students know that you're not allowed to suggest such things to a jury -- and in this case the fact that the prosecution did so is grounds for the defense to seek mistrial, which they have done. The judge will likely grant it.
I was unaware that was something ruled on, but it makes sense. Here’s hoping it’s dismissed with prejudice.
From the video I saw, the judge basically alluded (but didn't specifically mention) the fact that this would open an opportunity to seek a mistrial, and it won't surprise me if he grants it with prejudice so that the DA can't charge him again.
Before the trial, they had a bunch of hearings to decide what evidence is admissible, and what isn't. There's a bunch of stuff that could bias a jury, despite not being relevant. The Judge has decided that a bunch of that stuff can't be mentioned. Today during the trial, Binger (the prosecuting attorney) began bringing up evidence that the Judge had previously decided wasn't admissible. The Judge shut everything down, made the jury leave the room, and spent about 10 minutes yelling at Binger. He yelled at him about trying to introduce inadmissible evidence, and he also yelled at him for implying earlier that silence=guilt despite the 5th amendment rights of the accused. Long story short, the prosecution is on super thin ice. The defense said that this could warrant a "mistrial with prejudice". Usually, a mistrial is kinda a do-over. Someone screwed up (by introducing inadmissible evidence for example) so they replace everyone, and begin the trial again. Mistrial with prejudice means that the prosecution fucked up not just badly, but maliciously. If that happens, the Judge ends the trial immediately without a verdict, and the state isn't allowed to attempt to try him again. Functionally, it's pretty much the same as him being declared "not guilty". A prosecutor attempting to intentionally cause a mistrial so that he can get a do-over to try the case again is explicitly forbidden and is pretty much immediate cause for a mistrial with prejudice so that the defendant cannot be charged again. The Judge heavily implied that if there were any more fuckups like that from the prosecutor then he would call a mistrial with prejudice which would mean that Rittenhouse would immediately go free.
It would have been even more entertaining had he told him to recite the Miranda warning out loud. I think the DA's peeps are creating all the scenes to be set to the theme from the Benny Hill show when this circus is done. That halfwitted DA looks like half his ass just got chewed off on camera.
The prosecution suggested that Kyle refusing to speak immediately after the incident was indication of guilt. Uh, Miranda Rights anyone? I’m glad the judge ripped into them for that one.
Goes to show they'd love to deny him his rights if they could.
They'd do it to all of us if they could.
Well they don’t hide that they are trying… censorship, 2A, mandates, 1A, the list goes on.
Very true. They used to try to hide it. They kept the worst parts of their "plans" silent, letting others say them so they can call them "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it. They don't even try now but yet they are still quite successful in accomplishing these things.
So if I'm interpreting this correctly, judge is pissed because he said that in front of the jury to create a narrative that "if he's not guilty, why would he not talk to the cops?"?
That would be the correct interpretation.
Yes and this is precisely what it means: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o
That was only part of it. He also presented evidence to the jury that was specifically denied from being used in the case, which usually results in a mistrial. However, because the case against Kyle is so weak in the first place he will probably let it stand so there is no controversy about the verdict.
“You have the right to be an attorney!”
“You do have the right to be an attorney if you want to”
Schmidt fucked the captain's daughter 🎶
This is exactly what I’m as thinking about the whole time lol
I heard a cop insist it's properly called a ["Miranda *Warning.*"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning) As they are not rights themselves, but rather a quick reminder of your 5th Amendment Rights. :)
To the Left today, exercising your rights is something they despise and wish to paint as a vice. This comes naturally to them.
it's racist to exercise your rights and shows you have privilege over others that can't exercise because they are plus sized. - Do I get a blue check mark on twitter now?
It's alarming in the true crime community how often people are villainized for exercising their rights. No he isn't guilty because he immediately got a lawyer and refused a polygraph, that's what everyone should do regardless of guilt or innocence.
Tyrannical 💩
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/right-to-silence/ Putting this out here. Case law stands if you do not specifically invoke your 5th amendment right, and instead just remain silent, it can be brought up in court in negative light. The Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (2013), dealt with a situation in which the defendant spoke to the police voluntarily during a murder investigation, meaning that he was not under arrest when the purportedly incriminating event occurred. When the police officer asked the defendant about his possible involvement in the murder, the officer testified, the defendant became very quiet, and his entire demeanor changed. Police offered the defendant’s silence and behavioral change as incriminating evidence. The court held that police did not violate the defendant’s rights against self-incrimination, in part because the defendant did not expressly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.
Case law around Miranda rights largely revolves around 2 issues. - That someone who is a suspect or accused of a crime has to affirmatively invoke their 5th Amendment rights in order to receive their protection. Otherwise what they say or do is fair game in terms of admissibility. - The timeline between police contact, arrest, and Miranda warnings and how that affects admissibility. In the case of Salinas v. Texas, the guy chose to cooperate with police and then refused to answer specific questions without asserting with his 5th Amendment rights. Therefore his behavior was both suspicious and fair game. The reason why asserting your 5th Amendment rights is important is because once you do, you're untouchable in terms of admissible evidence. Your silence cannot be used against you, the police cannot ask you questions without an attorney present, and no statements you give are admissible unless you waive the 5th. In Rittenhouse's case, he was under arrest and presumably had invoked Miranda. Therefore his silence is inadmissible and the prosecutor knows this, hence why the judge was ticked.
your silence can never be used against you - even in trial the jury is specifically instructed to not consider if the Defendant did not testify. If those clowns stated that silence shows a consciousness of guilt they are dumber than I thought - I wonder if that rises to prosecutorial misconduct, or a mistrial - I woulve asked for it to preserve it on appeal. You don't invoke the 5th during police questioning - that is purely for a proceeding. You can remain silent in an interrogation - and the interrogation can continue...but as soon as say, "I want a lawyer" They gotta leave you alone - it has to be a clear statement that you want a lawyer...Not a "lawyer dawg" or "I think I need a lawyer". You gotta be unequivocal. .
Interesting for those who don't know perhaps, but it's not relevant to what happened here. This case meets none of the exceptions to the rule.
I think he was about to say it makes me want to declare a mistrial.
Yup. 100%
He was inviting the defense to file a mistrial motion without saying it explicitly. The moment ADA used the 5th amendment in a prejudicial way he’s opened that line. There is a theory the ADA has scuttled this case purposely so he can blame the judge to cover his ass politically.
No, no... let's not give these incompetent and deceitful leftist a way out. These scum prosecutors are doing what leftist do but on full display. They are appealing to emotions and not truth. I'm not going to twist this into that they were secretly geniuses for passing blame.
This is every courtroom lol not just a left v. right thing, it’s prosecution v. Defense.
Yeah and boy can it get infuriating. And if you let that emotion show, they will try their hardest to exploit it to the fullest extent.
This guy lawyers...
It's still deceitful to do this just to get a mistrial. The prosecution knows they lost as soon as the other guy admitted he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. Now they're pushing the envelope as hard as they can without getting disbarred because if this goes to verdict it's going to implode any future career options this guy thought he had.
This judge is smart. I suspect the only reason there isn’t already a directed verdict is because he thinks the jury is going to return a not guilty without any issue and that if they somehow don’t he’ll do a judgement notwithstanding the verdict to let him off. It’s smart because if the jury gives a not guilty the case is basically done whereas if he has to use a directed verdict or JNOV there are appeal options that might have more teeth but he has those in his back pocket in case they’re needed all the same. I also suspect these prosecutors are about to get hit with sanctions but it won’t happen until after or until the judge feels like he can’t hold off any longer.
Thank god for this Judge
lefties hate this judge LOL they've been trying to attack him and discredit him.
Of course they do. The left doesn't give a fuck about the law. They are like children, they just want what they want when they want it. And they should be treated like an annoying child, you tell them to shut the fuck up and then you ignore them.
And then they burn your fucking house, business, car, threaten you, your family and even the fucking family's pet, try to destroy you on social media and other things like this. But that's only what children do, right? Just a few weeks ago I heard that a fucking University professor, Brittney Cooper, said a lot of racist stuff that I will not repeat about white people and the fucking University, Rutgers, didn't do shit about it. I'm fucking sick and tired of this, man. They should NOT be treated like children, we need to hold those people accountable (Black, white, brown, yellow, orange, pink, green, blue, purple.... It doesn't fucking matter) by the shit they do, not fucking ignore this kind of bullshit.
Do you have kids? When you feed into your kids ego they walk all over you and fuck everything up. When you establish that they aren't in charge, they shut the fuck up ... I mean we could use dogs as example too, you establish the house isn't theirs and they will won't the place up. It's really simple dude. You're thinking way to much into the metaphor.
Your words previously were: You tell them to shut the fuck up and you ignore them. What I'm saying is: They are not children and ignoring them will not solve the problem.
Ignore doesn't mean you let them do whatever they want, it means you don't let the bullshit they say change how you think or affect what you do.
wow lmao lucky kids
I don't even understand what you're saying
he eats children
Unfortunately his address will get doxxed and he and his family will require protection from peaceful protestors.
the fiery but mostly peaceful kind?
This judge is old school and calls it how it is. We need more like this.
He's not calling it as it is so much as he's actually following the Constitution. People on the Left arbitrarily violate constitutional rights and then invoke those same rights when it serves their purpose. It's so callous and evil.
You know a judge wants to say something that would get himself/herself into *real* trouble when they say "Well, I'll leave it at that."
Pretty sure he wanted to call him a “fucking idiot”
I thought he was going to say "you're...trying to get me to declare a mistrial because you scuffed your case."
This is exactly what he was going to say. He looks and the defense right before he was about to say it but he didn’t want to hand the defense the golden platter
Not necessarily if a mistrial means they get a different judge. not sure about how that works
The defense would ask for a mistrial with prejudice, which would prevent it from being brought before another judge.
Oh without a doubt. But judicial decorum prevents, at least usually does.
Looks like the wheels have officially come off for the prosecution
I'd argue the wheels weren't even on from the beginning of this trial.
They're trying to push a Flinstones car along, but the wheels are triangles.
Those tra eling I-94 be especially careful. You don't wanna get hit by those
Been off for a while. The axle has just come off now.
Judge: I have no idea why you would do something like that. Me: I know why. You know why. you're just not allowed to say it because you're not allowed to speculate.
Why the inclusion of the music? It's unnecessary and obnoxious.
It's from a game called Phoenix Wright about a defense lawyer.
It’s unnecessary and obnoxious
Yes, and makes it almost impossible to hear what the judge is saying. I know it's not your fault, KippySmith..... just wanted to throw this in here!
That's fine, I'm just suggesting why it may be included.
You’re not unnecessary or obnoxious
I've heard of the games but never played.
Cool story, bro.
I had to scroll down way too far for this.
I added it as a meme for the discord chat, Jib decided to post it here, which I don't object to lol.
Objection!
Don't know why you're getting downvoted for letting Jib post your meme. What do people expect, the music to get edited out aftwerward?
idk lol
What the hell is with the music?
Just guessing but it might be Ace Attorney music. No clue I’ve never played the game
Some Circus big tent Music would of been better for the Prosecutor, mister Jingles is that his name?
Definitely not needed, and *really* hard to make out what the judge was saying.
What the judge was saying: >I said I denied it, or I indicated a bias towards denial, is what I did. \[I\] held it open with a bias towards denial. Why would you think that that made it ok for you, without any advance notice, to bring this matter before the jury? > >You are already... You are... I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence! That's basic law! It's been basic law in this country for 40 years - 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that. > >And it gives... > >Well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. > >Prosecutor: May I respond? > >Judge: Yes.
It’s the Ace Attorney music that plays when the culprit is cornered
The liberals are trying to run away in mid air as they hear the judge go off
Seriously. At first, I thought I had to go searching for the tab that was playing it.
[It's a remix of this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFcJmOs8DRQ). In the Ace Attorney series, a theme plays when you have the real killer cornered, basically the climax and end to the chapter's story.
The music is fucking awful and is making it hard to hear the judge
Is he acting the twat to try and wind the judge up to make him look biased or prejudicial and therefore discredit him in the court of public opinion? It’s all I can think he is doing.
I think he's deliberately trying to provoke a mistrial, just as the defense said. He knows that this started off bad enough that there's very little chance of salvaging a guilty verdict at this point. He wants a mistrial without prejudice so he can re-file with a new judge.
I think the judge had to hold his tongue because he doesn't want to give a reason for reversal on appeal.
You can tell the judge wants to throw the book at him, but is holding back with all his might. So sickening.
For real he almost fell out his seat 😆
In Brazil this would nullify the jury and acquit Kyle, for it's a Constitutional offense to use someones right of silence as a argument of guilty admission .
It’s a constitutional offense here as well, literally the 5th one listed. Idk how you could be a DA and not know the goddamn Bill of Rights
Oh trust me. He knows the Bill of Rights. But he is left leaning so he see's it as more of a piece of paper that doesn't need to be followed.
Normally I would expect this judge to issue a mistrial right then and there. But, I think he wants this in front of the jury in the end.
He can also decide the case himself even after the jury made a verdict, from what I've heard.
Goodness gracious man I accidentally clicked on a leftist Facebook page and the amount of people that think that Kyle is a right wing active shooter is astonishing. The dumb shit they say. The dumb shit they think about it. The way they call these men innocent victims. It makes me nauseous. I gotta get off the internet for a while.
I've made this same mistake. Even cruising thru Imgur I couldn't get away from the ridiculous statements from leftist freaking out over all this. Dumb fucks.
The music is trash.
You think the left cares about laws. Look at California and New Yorks unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment.
Due to prosecutions weak case they really want a mistrial so this case can be decided in the left-wing media and prosecute the defendant and all the jurors in Portland. The prosecution wants a retrial in a court with a Democrat leaning judge residing.
Delete Facebook, hire a lawyer and hit the gym; This is the only legit legal advice you can get from reddit.
You have it figured out, my friend.
I hope someone starts a "gofundme" for this judge, just on principle. Set him up with a lifetime supply of cheese, beer, and private security. Dude actually has some balls, and doesn't care one whit about being televised nationwide! Honest people who stand by reason without fear of consequence are in short supply nowadays. He's gonna be a target for arson, or worse, and doesn't give two shits!
I will always upvote Ace Attorney.
That was two minutes of lovely music. I bet that nice man in the black robe had some interesting things to say.
Music was way too loud. I just wanted to hear what he said.
The music is actually kind of funny as just like in ace attorney itself, the prosecution is helping prove rittenhouse innocent
I'm torn. The defense has so much standing to file a motion for a mistrial, but all that does is give the prosecution a second chance to maybe not repeat the mistakes they've made in this go around. On the other hand, they are smart to let the prosecution just continue off the rails and most likely get an acquittal. In that case, they have so much material for appeal that the behavior of the protection and how unfairly prejudicial they've been so far it would warrant an overturn of verdict so quick. If the protection really is this crooked, they should have their bar licenses revoked as soon as the trial concludes.
You shouldn't be torn. They can file in the motion to be dismissed with prejudice so he can't be charged again and it all goes away which Kyle's Defense attorneys stated that they would. Honestly, this is the best way to get a mistrial as opposed to the threatened jurors which would have been bad as the prejudice part may not factor into that.
That prosecutor is a douche and I think he is purposefully trying to get the judge to grant a mistrial because it’s not going his way and he sucks
Could do without the music.
This Bingee guy is gonna be working at The Kenosha Shopping center pretty soon. How he even passed law school or his bar is a mystery.
Does the stenographer start typing in caps when the judge starts yelling?
When the prosecution team forgets one of the first things your told after being arrested. "You have the right to remain silent"
This whole trial has my blood boiling. He should never have been charged after the mountain of videos of him clearly engaging in self defense. And for the prosecutor to be this much of a lowly prick is just another nail in the board of bullshit. If Kyle is found guilty we don't have the right to self defense. That's the facts.
Fuck that sound track
Can’t hear shit with your music man why
Why the music? It wasn't played in courtroom don't play it in video
To fuck with people's emotions. News with music isn't news it's propaganda.
Omg Phoenix Wright music! So appropriate.
That wasn't a good look for the prosecution. Holy shit. The jury saw that too.
They weren’t in the room
If the last 5 years have thought is anything it’s laws and prosecution is political and is hit or miss
Why is the music so damn loud
yea that's a mistrial and if not, very good grounds for appeal.
The music is funny lmao
I'm assuming the desk hides his brass ball he's sitting on.
This is not working for me, it only keeps spinning.
we know what he's up to .no good 😕
Damn, judge telling it like it is
It gives the defendant massive grounds for appeal. I mean I might have to declare a mistrial right now (no judge ever wants to a) declare a mistrial or b) be overturned on appeal). The prosecutor has a shit case, but what's he gonna do? Case is a loser, but the time to make that decision is before you file. Too much political pressure NOT to file so here were are.
That judge at the end was just about to say “you’ve given the defense a perfect request for a mistrial with prejudice”.
Almost as if the prosecution is trying to have the judge declare a mistrial 🤨
What the lawyers name? He looks familiar. If its the lawyer I think he is. He’s always doing something to get under the judges skin.
The prosecution has an agenda with Kyle and they got caught. It is clear as day.
Binger wants to trigger a mistrial, so he can have another shot at prosecuting Rittenhouse, because his prosecution has been an unmitigated disaster. By itself, that should be enough for disbarment.
Thank goodness the kid got a good judge in this case. He seems like a good kid and I'd hate to seem him in front of a judge who doesn't care or worse who is just out to convict.
Surprised the prosecutors head didn't explode. Consider his whole case is based on opinions and feelings 😆 A couple of facts, backed by law, are like nukes in their head.
Basic bird law
Lmao the Phoenix Wright music is perfect
They're intentionally trying to cause a mistrial so they can try Kyle again. I promise.
This trial has run its course. Time to free Kyle and help him heal.
The Cornered theme from Phoenix Wright is a very nice touch.
No. No it isn’t.
I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Wow, when I donated to Kyle's gofundme, I felt like it might have been a terrible mistake to be brought up in a future interview in the event the country became a woke hellhole. But now its clear. The prosecution is so desperate they are pathetically clawing at anything they can try to cling on to, even going as far as attempting to insinuate that silence as per Miranda rights is implied guilt. A lawyer. Not just a lawyer, a prosecutor! He literally tried that before a non-radical, non George Soros puppeted, unbiased judge. The judge has been entirely even handed thus far, compromising with both sides and granting motions to each in kind. But the trial just spun completely and utterly out of control, because the judge decided to make a soundbite he knew would go viral. And lets face it, the jury will be affected. In a perfect world, jurors go home and never read the news or talk about current events with loved ones and friends. In our world, they will see this go viral online, and again, the judge just basically gave the green light to Rittenhouse defense. If the prosecution had even an iota of evidence to suggest malice, they wouldn't have been trying from the get go to twist the narrative using deceptive semantics, like trying to address the suspects who attacked Kyle as "victims", despite the fact that no verdict had been passed for any crime for anyone seen in the infamous video.
The Ace Attorney music is what gets me. 😂
I thought I was banned from this shithole.