Anyone with an open mind who watched the Rittenhouse trial should come to the conclusion that Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty on all counts.
This is so obvious that Miguel and I have written posts based on the social media accounts of Liberals who came out and said how deceived the were by the pre-trial media coverage.
So it’s scary to me that deliberations have taken more than 15 minutes.
So here is my question:
We know that activists (arguably domestic terrorists) have threatened to dox the jurors.
Someone already tried to take pictures of the jurors, the judge warned the jury about that already.
The Wisconsin governor has put 500 National Guard troops outside the court house because of the threat of riots.
So if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, how much leverage does the defense have to say “we proved our case, the jury was clearly intimidated by the mob, we want the verdict vacated.”
Clearly jury intimidation by the mob is a real threat in this case, what recourse does the defense have?
I don’t want Kyle to spend one day in prison, I’m sure he won’t survive the first night.
The scuttlebutt is that two jurors were hold outs citing fears of being doxxed and attacked if they didn’t charge him as guilty. Judge asked to speak to two alternate jurors before dismissing them yesterday.
I read the same thing..
It was dangerous and irresponsible for that to be reported 1) while deliberations were ongoing 2) with an unsequestered jury and 3) purportedly coming from a member of the law enforcement agency responsible for the safety and security of the jurors.
This is jury tampering.
The “that” I was referring to is the “two jurors are holding out because they’re scared of riots, says a US Marshall”
Um, I think the actual jury tampering is the threat of violence, not the reporting of the threat.
Oh I very much think that a juror reading that law enforcement can hear their deliberations and are leaking the contents of those deliberations to media would alter those jury room conversations today.
Good point. I assumed that the LE report came from someone who was told this by a juror, as opposed to someone eavesdropping. If the latter then we have two cases of tampering: one by the threats of violence, and one by the violation of jury secrecy.
Wizard, I think you have it all wrong. What I want to know is
How is it that they admit they agree that he should be found
Not Guilty, the judge knows, and that is not enough to call it done?
https://www.duhaime.org/Legal-Dictionary/Term/JurySecrecyRule#:~:text=Jury%20Secrecy%20Rule%20Definition%3A%20A%20rule%20of%20law,origin%20and%20has%20found%20a%20home%20in%20statute.
Read carefully
“ I don’t want Kyle to spend one day in prison, I’m sure he won’t survive the first night.”
He wont make it out alive, thats for sure.
It will Require Standing Up.
And being stone cold
https://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/10/one-hundred-heads.html?m=1