Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense team has made a second request for a mistrial based on the controversial drone footage they described as a ‘linchpin’ of the state’s case against him.
Corey Chirafsi demanded a mistrial without prejudice Monday. This meant that prosecutors couldn’t try the case again after claiming their team had not shared non-compressed footage with them until November 13, after which evidence was closed.
He has now filed another request for a mistrial, this time without prejudice, acknowledging that the state could – and will – retry the case.
Thomas Binger, Assistant District Attorney presented the jury the enhanced drone footage during Monday’s closing statements. He claimed it showed Rittenhouse “pointing his gun” at people which would support his claim that he caused the violence on the night of August 25, 2020.
However, the defense says they were sent an initial 3.6 Megabyte file with a poorer quality image. The prosecution received an 11.2 Megabyte copy.
Yesterday, defense attorney Corey Chirafisi addressed the court and stated that he was referring to a possible life sentence. It must be dealt with.
Now, the jury is asked to look at the footage that has been controversial and to select the best shots from all the shoots. They will have six clips to choose from, which they can watch as often as they wish.
This comes just as the third day of jury deliberations in the politically- and racially charged case case, which has gripped America and raised divisions among Rittenhouse supporters and BLM protesters. The national guard is on alert for any potential violence following the verdict.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense attorney Corey Chirafisi, (pictured yesterday together), has requested a new mistrial based upon the drone footage they called a ‘linchpin of the state case against him
Yesterday, Judge Schroeder was photographed allowing jurors access to the video footage. However, he told the prosecution that he has ‘qualms’ about admitting to it.
As jury deliberations entered a second day, demonstrations broke out outside the court.
Rittenhouse lawyers filed a motion to mistrial without prejudice on the basis of this and other grounds. The defense filed a motion yesterday stating that “The problem is that the prosecution gave to defense a compressed video”.
Chirafisi addressed the main point of yesterday’s proceedings before asking for re-watch footage.
Chirafisi says there’s no denying that defense was hampered by the inability to provide the best quality video of one of most important videos shown to jurors. The state had the better version.
“We would have handled this case differently.” [had we had it].’
He stated that he didn’t know the extent of the evidence available to the state until the case was over, but the parties had already withdrawn, so he said that he would not be closing the case.
“We talked with Mr Rittenhouse, and I am going to ask the court to mistrial. If we really want to get at the heart of the matter, I have watched the video, and can tell you my opinion, but that doesn’t mean it matters what it is because it can’t be put to the jury any more.
James Kraus, assistant district attorney for the state, stated in defense of their position that he felt they were “putting too much stress on a technical problem”.
He admitted for the first-time that the video sent to defense had been compressed.
It appeared for a moment that the state realized the video file was compressed after Detective Martin Howard sent it to Kraus, who in turn sent it to Natalie Wisco, the defense attorney.
Chirafisi stated that if you are a prosecutor your job requires fairness as well as being truth-seeker.
“It is not disputable that it was not fair what occurred.
It’s possible to sit down all day and claim it has been played. But, what if there is another? Is that possible?
James Armstrong, an expert photographer in Wisconsin State Crime Lab testified last week about drone video.
In the Kenosha Shooter Trial, the prosecution withheld evidence that was “at the core of their case,” and only shared the high-definition drone videos (pictured), which they had hung to support their charges after the trial ended.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger played the enhanced drone footage to the jury during his closing statements and claimed that it showed Rittenhouse ‘pointing his gun’ at people – an assertion that opened the door to the state claiming Rittenhouse provoked the violence of the night of August 25, 2020
Judge Schroeder granted jurors access to the video footage. However, he told the prosecution that although he was happy to let them see it, ‘I have persistently warned this state there is a day for reckoning in regard to these things. I had my qualms.
“I warned you, and when you were pressing with it I allowed it in. I think we should just go for it. If they have everything right and the information is reliable, we can be okay.
“But it it it not it will be ugly.”
Defense stated that it had evidence to show the video enhancement program was not intended for law enforcement or considered forensically credible.
Shortly after 3pm all parties returned to the court as they had come to an agreement over how the drone footage should be viewed – over defense objections to it being viewed at all.
While jurors saw the case on large monitors, instead of on laptops in the jury room, the judge cleared the courtroom. At the entrance, a bailiff was placed.
Judge Schroeder urged everyone to exit and said, “If anything electronic is left in this room, be sure to tell them goodbye. You will never again see it.”
The jury requested three videos earlier in the day, each relating to Rittenhouse’s filming of Gaige Grosskreutz.
Grosskreutz was asked to provide footage of his livestream as well as the two videos of him shooting.
Justin Blake, the uncle of Jacob Blake marches alongside supporters after the second day’s jury deliberations on Wednesday in the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
They have asked to view one – presented by the defense’s expert witness Dr. James Black – in both regular and slow motion and up until 10 seconds after Grosskreutz was shot.
Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he had been pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when the teen pulled the trigger on him – a crucial point for the defense’s claim of self-defense.
Judge Bruce Schroeder felt the need to remind the state once again about their dependence upon the drone footage the defense claims they withheld. This is a “high-risk strategy” that could result in their case being thrown out.
The state’s case might ‘fall like cards’, said he, should the footage be found to not have been forensically sound.
Schroeder admitted earlier that he hadn’t had the chance to even read the motion to mistrial, filed by defense. It argued that the state had failed to supply high-definition drone footage crucial to their case in an timely manner.
He did so and returned to the court.
He then asked James Kraus, Assistant District Attorney to clarify the state’s position.
As revealed by DailyMail.com, the defense stated in their motion that the prosecution provided them with a file that was 4MB in size while they possessed a file that was 11MB – and provided that one to the state’s crime lab for enhancement.
Kraus maintained that he had sent the exact same file to himself and claimed that the Android phone that was used for the transmission or the email defense received it compressed it.
This was the version that defense vigorously rejected.
Natalie Wisco was the defense attorney and addressed the court as a first witness in these proceedings.
After Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse through a parking lot, Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum (left), with an AR-15-style semiautomatic gun. He then threw a bag at Rittenhouse just before midnight on August 25, 2020. Rittenhouse, 26, shot and killed Anthony Huber, 26 (right), as he was speeding down the street. He had been following Rosenbaum across a parking lot.
She said that she never had viewed the footage on her cell phone, and that the file name of the footage that was provided to the state by November 5 and the creation time were different from the one of the high definition footage which they discovered later.
She explained that Friday’s difference was revealed in court because the state didn’t have an exhibit for the judge. So she played the defense version, which was significantly different.
“This is your most beautiful picture?” asked the judge of the blurry image – a request that prompted Kraus’s admission that they had better.
Wisco was blunt on Wednesday
ADA Kraus cannot be believed because the filename [we received]should have exactly been the same as that provided to state crime lab’, she stated.
Kraus retorted, stating that as an officer of court he had been ‘insulted at’ the claim that he would lie.
However, in an astonishing move Judge Schroeder put him to his feet and stated: ‘We are going have to testify under oath.
“This requires expert testimony, under oath.
“I repeat my…” [earlier]Comments: Given the cloudy picture of the exhibit, this strategy or state is high-risk.
“It was a strange feeling, and it’s only now that I am more uncomfortable about it.”
Kraus proposed that all relevant exhibits be saved to a thumb drive, and that the courtroom could then be turned into the jury room for jurors to view it.
According to him, the court will have to be searched and cleared for devices that could record deliberations.
Mark Richards, defense attorney, stated Wednesday that he doesn’t know which exhibits jurors want to see.
We have problems with drone footage.
“We have a motion in progress based on disclosure. They can see it if they wish.
DailyMail.com revealed that the state provided only a partial file of the incriminating footage on Saturday, November 13th, two days before closing.
Richards’ objection led the judge to reply to remarks he said he saw in the media by experts, expressing shock that he hadn’t ruled on defense’s motion to mistrial.
He stated that he had not yet read the motion to disqualify. It arrived yesterday, and it is my opinion that the state should respond before I read.
He stated that any motions must be taken under advice unless they are crystal clear.
Judge Schroeder added, “It’s shame that irresponsible comments are being made.” So long as it’s something I am talking about [let’s talk about]It is important that people are not identified as “victims” in the company of others.
The judge’s decision that Rittenhouse’s men could not be called ‘victims’ by Judge Schroeder sparked a lot of criticism.
DailyMail.com found that hate mail has increased by a lot.
On Wednesday, he stated: “How would I like to stand trial for a criminal offense and have the judge introduce the case before the jury by introducing me as the defendant as well as the accuser as victim?”
“Is it difficult to use the term “complaining witness”?
The judge also addressed the criticism he had received over the unusual method with which the alternate jurors had been selecting – Rittenhouse drew their numbers from a tumbler in court.
Schroeder stated that the same method was used in a Racine murder trial two decades earlier.
According to him, “There was a black defendant as well as 13 jurors — one was black.”
The clerk pulled the name from the tumbler. It was the only one that was black. [juror].
“It was OK, but I felt it was bad optics.” It makes people feel happier when they can control their lives.
Before returning to the case in hand, the judge went on to defend the five lawyers involved in the case. Although he didn’t go into detail about the specifics of his opinion, he stated that the court thought the’shameful things’ being done.
He called some of the coverage ‘grossly reckless’ and stated that he was going to think about live TV again during a trial.
“When I look at what is being done, it’s frightening. It’s frightening. It’s the best word to describe it.
He turned his gaze back towards the jurors’ questions and the judge agreed with them that they must return to the courtroom for any exhibits.
Some discussion was held about the number of times that they were allowed to view this video.
Judge Schroeder felt it was an insult to jurors intelligence that they were limited in the number of times they could rewatch footage or view still images.
Richards said that it was fine to watch or rewatch a video ‘three, four or more times’ but that too much time could cause undue focus on one piece.
After the defense had had a chance to review legal precedents, the judge permitted the jury to see Wednesday’s proceedings.
Meanwhile two people were arrested on Wednesday evening as violent scuffles broke out outside the courtroom in Kenosha.
Tensions rose when a 20-year-old man wearing a ‘F**k Kyle’ T-shirt, Bart Simpson backpack, and Chicago Bulls beanie was arrested after scuffling with prominent Rittenhouse supporter Emily Cahill.
Before Cahill threw his protest sign, the two exchanged insults.
He tried to wrestle it back with other anti-Rittenhouse protestors, but he pushed one reporter into the jaw as he was being pulled from Cahill.
Other protestors tried unsuccessfully to lead the man away and calm him down, but he then went on to strike several other people — including a DailyMail.com photographer — before being pinned to the ground and hauled away in a paddy wagon.
His mother was unaffected by the fact that he called for him as the vehicle drove away.
Both the victim and the other woman were taken into police custody. The two were then taken to a nearby van by police.
According to Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department the man, aged 20, was taken into custody for battery and disorderly conduct as well as resisting arrest.
For disorderly conduct, the 34-year old woman was taken into custody.
Cahill said that she was feeling a bit hurt, and therefore had to get out.
“I’m going try and come back tomorrow.”