Kyle Rittenhouse, left, and attorney Corey Chirafisi, during Wednesday’s hearing.
Pool / Getty Images
hide captions
switch captions
Pool / Getty Images
Kyle Rittenhouse, left, and attorney Corey Chirafisi, during Wednesday’s hearing.
Pool / Getty Images
As the jury deliberated for the second day of Kyle Rittenhouse’s criminal trial, the 18-year-old fatally shot two people during unrest last year in Kenosha, Wis. that could be important to the prosecution’s case.
The false claim – which is the defense’s second in the trial – came Wednesday afternoon after jurors asked to review several videos from the case.
That included a video introduced by prosecutors halfway through the trial. Shot by drone from about a block away, the footage shows an aerial view of the first fatality on the night of August 25, 2020, in which Rittenhouse fatally shot 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum. , after being chased through an old car park.
The video, shown to the jury in prosecutors’ closing statement on Monday, is pivotal to their argument that Rittenhouse provoked the encounter with Rosenbaum by pointing an AR-style rifle His -15 is near him, causing him to chase Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse testified that he was afraid Rosenbaum would steal his gun and use it to shoot him.
The jurors spent 46 minutes Wednesday reviewing drone video and other video evidence, including another recording of Rittenhouse’s encounter with Rosenbaum that was filmed from above by a machine FBI flight.
Why are the apologists calling for a false attack
The crux of Wednesday’s defense erroneous claim was the difference in video quality between the prosecutor’s version of the drone video file and what was provided to Rittenhouse’s attorneys. .
Although the footage appeared on Fox News during an interview with Rittenhouse’s original defense attorney just days after the shooting, neither prosecutors nor Rittenhouse’s current attorneys were able to track it before trial begins.
Then, halfway through the trial, a person who declined to give his name came to the prosecutor’s office in Kenosha County with the video, assistant district attorney James Kraus said in court Wednesday.
Prosecutors admitted that the video file was accidentally compressed when they tried to send it to Rittenhouse’s security team. The file size, according to Natalie Wisco, a defense attorney, has been reduced from 11.2 megabytes to 3.6, an indication that the file has lost some visual quality.
Defense attorneys said they did not realize there was a difference until testimony ended last week.
“We would have handled this case a little differently if it were the situation… where we don’t have the quality of evidence the state has until the case is closed,” said defense attorney Corey Chirafisi. ‘ said defense attorney Corey Chirafisi. for a lover.
Chirafisi added that they will claim a mistake without prejudice, meaning that, if approved, Rittenhouse could be retried.
“But then I think we’re all going to have the same information, the same video quality, and I think it’s imperative in a case like this where he’s considering a potentially life sentence. not pardoned if convicted,” he said. “And to not get there until the evidence has been closed? That’s not fair to me.”
Prosecutors have called the discrepancy unintentional
Prosecutors responded that it was an honest mistake and defense attorneys are now only objecting because Rittenhouse testified that he didn’t point a gun at anyone until Rosenbaum started chasing him. .
“We didn’t compress anything,” Kraus said. We didn’t change anything. That would have been something that happened in the transfer without our knowledge. Of course, we didn’t. intend to provide them with another copy”.
Judge Bruce Schroeder said he was “concerned” about the video, but allowed juries to review it. He did not make a judgment on the erroneous claim.
“My view on this now is, where are we – we can track it too, and if they’ve got everything correct and it’s reliable, then we shouldn’t have a problem. And if not, it says Schroeder.
The jurors also asked Wednesday to review several other videos, including outdoor footage of Rittenhouse shooting Anthony Huber, 26, and Gaige Grosskreutz, then 26, and a video shot by Grosskreutz as he spoke. brief conversation with Rittenhouse moments after filming Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz survived the shooting, but Huber was killed. They haven’t seen the footage yet.
The jury has now spent about 16 hours deliberating
The jury deliberated for about 7.5 hours on Wednesday after about 8.5 hours on Tuesday.
Deja Vishny, a Wisconsin-based criminal defense attorney who was not involved in the case, said lengthy discussions were not unusual.
“With such a large number, it is not surprising that they have had to discuss for such a long time,” Vishny said.
Rittenhouse faces five counts for the shooting. The most serious crime – first-degree murder – carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison. The jury may also consider smaller versions of the charges involving Huber and Grosskreutz.
When jurors consider the lower charges in Wisconsin, they must first try to reach a unanimous conclusion on the most serious charge, Vishny said. Only when they can’t can they switch to first second, then third. “It can be a very time-consuming process,” she said.
The defense had previously requested a mistrial after chief prosecutor Thomas Binger was reminded by the judge of two lines of interrogation while cross-examining Rittenhouse. The judge has yet to rule on that motion.
