"Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint"
https://www.newsweek.com/gaige-grosskre ... New Testament-1647042
"Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint"
What evidence did the judge exclude that you claim should have been allowed? A claim that juries "often" get it wrong doesn't mean that this jury got it wrong.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:55 pmPerhaps if the judge would have allowed more evidence in court.
"New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong"
https://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter ... uries.html
Here's the crucial testimony from Grosskreutz, which was not in his direct examination, but in his cross-examination by the defense attorney:doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:03 pm"Gaige Grosskreutz Testifies Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' His Weapon While Holding Him at Gunpoint"
https://www.newsweek.com/gaige-grosskre ... New Testament-1647042
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/states ... 021-11-19/Under examination by prosecutors, Grosskreutz testified that he believed Rittenhouse needed to be stopped and he had never intended to use the handgun he was holding, only moving toward the teen because he thought Rittenhouse was preparing to fire.
Then defense attorney Corey Chirafisi elicited a major concession. Using still images of the seconds before Rittenhouse fired a bullet into Grosskreutz's arm, Chirafisi pressed the witness twice on what triggered the shot.
"When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" Chirafisi asked.
"Correct," Grosskreutz responded.
"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Chirafisi continued.
"Correct," Grosskreutz said.
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
Under the rules of evidence, I believe the judge was correct to exclude that evidence. He didn't use deadly force against people who were shoplifting or causing other types of damage to property.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pmTrue, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
Our justice system is founded on appealing to the authority of 12 of our peers selected in a fair process between defense lawyers and prosecution.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pmTrue, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
The judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:17 pmOur justice system is founded on appealing to the authority of 12 of our peers selected in a fair process between defense lawyers and prosecution.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pm
True, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
"Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. It involved a video that showed Rittenhouse witnessing possible shoplifting and saying if he had a gun he would shoot the people."
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 73ee3ff753
I’m curious what system you would prefer over this.
Did R get to choose his judge?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 pmThe judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.
Even if they are, it doesn't mean your point is valid. It's not an invalid appeal to authority. It's overgeneralization.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:44 pmTrue, but drumdude and others here are appealing to authority.
Not that I know of. In some jurisdictions, there are rules requiring recusal under certain conditions. And the ethics rules would require a judge to recuse under some circumstances. But I've never heard of a defendant being able to pick their judge. Or a civil litigant either. Judges are generally assigned by the court administration.drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:26 pmDid R get to choose his judge?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 pm
The judge does get to decide what evidence gets presented to the jury. And the Evidence Rules can get pretty complicated. But I think this example is pretty clear. Some R said about hypothetically shooting shoplifters is irrelevant to the case because there was no shooting of shoplifters or anyone damaging property. It would also be prejudicial to R to admit an inflammatory statement he made when it has no relevance.