COVID-19 Update: We Are Open 24/7 to Service Current and New Clients.

Articles Tagged with kyle rittenhouse

One thing many folks are not aware of is that double jeopardy, the legal concept by which an individual can only be tried once for the same crime, does not apply across jurisdictions. While it is exceedingly rare for the federal government to pursue a prosecution that was already lost at the state level, it is much more likely in cases when the defendant is acquitted. It is also more likely in cases where the federal government has a valid reason to pursue the charges under federal law, and the cases they do pursue after failed state prosecutions tend to be high-profile high-stakes cases like Rittenhouse’s trial.

The jury was made aware by the judge that if they convicted Rittenhouse on any of the homicide charges, it would reduce the likelihood of a second trial filed by the federal government. On the other hand, it increased the possibility that Rittenhouse would be convicted in this trial. In other words, the jurors were instructed as to the consequences of their decision. 

What Federal Charges Could Rittenhouse Face?

The Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial took an interesting turn this week. When a judge excludes a certain line of questioning from a criminal case, neither side can ask questions that would put a witness in the position of answering that question. In this case, the judge excluded evidence that Rittenhouse was going to the protest to defend property. The prosecution had Rittenhouse on the ropes when they broached that line of questioning. Before Rittenhouse could answer through tearful sobs, the judge shut down the proceedings, rebuked the prosecutor, and sent the jury out of the room. 

The defense’s objection raised the point that the trial was not going well for the prosecution. By asking questions that had been specifically prohibited by the judge, the prosecution (the defense claimed) was attempting to cause a mistrial that would have allowed the prosecution to start all over again, perhaps with a better theory of what happened and stronger supporting evidence that could be made. The defense then also moved for a mistrial with prejudice. That would have meant that the trial could not have ever been retried by the prosecution and Rittenhouse would be presumed innocent of the charges for the remainder of his life. 

Understanding What is Happening

With the Kyle Rittenhouse trial now entering its waning hours, much and more has been written about the justifiable use of force in self-defense situations. In the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution is failing to overcome the statutes that make exceptions for the lethal use of force in certain situations.

The prosecution had hoped to introduce evidence that Rittenhouse had gone to the riot in order to “defend property,” but was rebuffed from introducing that evidence. Further, the prosecution was unable to uncover any social media evidence that indicated that Rittenhouse went there for the purpose of doing armed combat with “commies.” That would have been the smoking gun (no pun intended) they needed to pursue a strong prosecution against Rittenhouse. Unfortunately, they never uncovered that smoking gun. And while we can all question why Rittenhouse was allowed to enter a war zone with a gun and the type of parenting failures that had to go into that decision, the jury will not be able to take that into account.

That means that the prosecution is stuck arguing that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense once he got to Kenosha. Since the one guy was going after his gun and the other guy tried to hit him with a skateboard, the prosecution will likely not overcome their burden of proof.

Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen charged with murder of two people during race riots in Wisconsin, has entered the second week of his trial to determine if the teen should face adult penalties for the deaths. Meanwhile, a political war is brewing over whether or not Rittenhouse did anything wrong or even illegal. With polarization on both sides of the issue, some believe that Rittenhouse was doing his best to protect his country from armed mobs. Others believe that Rittenhouse went out there looking for a fight. Depending on who you believe, you may be inclined to think Rittenhouse is guilty or innocent

Despite media claims, Wisconsin does not place restrictions on the ownership or possession of weapons by 17-year-olds. Rittenhouse broke no law by carrying the rifle and his defense team maintains that he acquired the rifle in Wisconsin meaning he did not transport the rifle over state lines. The only question before the jury is whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in discharging the weapon. 

The Question of Self-Defense

Contact Information