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 lawyer Corey Chirafisi (pictured together yesterday) has made a new request for a mistrial based on the controversial drone footage that they described as a 'linchpin' of the state's case against him

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

Judge Schroeder (pictured yesterday) decided to allow the jurors to view the footage but told the prosecution he had 'qualm's about admitting it

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.

Outside the court, protests erupted with clashes between police and demonstrators as jury deliberations enter a second day

As jury deliberations entered a second day, demonstrations broke out outside the court. 

Lawyers for Rittenhouse filed their motion for mistrial with prejudice based on this and several other grounds. According to a motion filed yesterday by the defense, 'The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video'

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, a photographic expert in the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, testified about drone video during the trial last week

James Armstrong, an expert photographer in Wisconsin State Crime Lab testified last week about drone video.

Prosecutors in the Kenosha shooter trial withheld evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case,' only sharing the high-definition drone video footage (pictured) on which they have hung their prosecution after the trial had concluded

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

 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, uncle of Jacob Blake, marches with supporters, following the second day of jury deliberations in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Wednesday

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, 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.

Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum (pictured), 36, with an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle after Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse across a parking lot and threw a plastic bag at him shortly before midnight on August 25, 2020

Moments later, as Rittenhouse was running down a street, he shot and killed Anthony Huber (pictured), 26, a protester from Silver Lake, Wisconsin

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.

How serious are the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse? 

Kyle Rittenhouse killed two men and injured the third during protests against police brutality last year in Kenosha. Rittenhouse claimed that Rittenhouse fired because he was being attacked by two men. 

Below are the allegations that were brought into court by the prosecution. The judge can also bring lesser charges to the jury’s attention in the final instructions.


The felony charges are related to Rittenhouse’s first victim, Joseph Rosenbaum. A bystander video captures Rosenbaum running after Rittenhouse and tossing a bag at his face. Rittenhouse follows Rosenbaum, who flees behind the car. At trial, video showed Rittenhouse moving around and firing while Rosenbaum followed him. Richie McGinniss testified Rittenhouse was following him.

Intentional homicide is different from reckless homicide because the prosecutors don’t claim Rittenhouse wanted to kill Rosenbaum. They are claiming that Rittenhouse is responsible for Rosenbaum’s murder in conditions showing utter disregard for human lives.

Paul Bucher, former Waukesha County District Court Attorney said the decision by prosecutors to indict reckless murder instead of intent homicide is a sign that they aren’t sure what Rittenhouse or Rosenbaum did and how Rittenhouse thought it was.

This charge can lead to up to 60 years imprisonment. Additional five-years are required for the dangerous weapon modifier.

Judge Bruce Schroeder was asked by prosecution to allow the jury to consider second-degree reckless killing. It does not have to find that Rittenhouse showed utter disregard for human lives. You could be sentenced to as much as 25 years prison. Schroeder, however, stated that Rittenhouse’s attorneys had objected and that he was not going to provide such instructions. According to him, he believed that a guilty verdict would not be given on this count because it was being added by the defense.


The Rosenbaum shooting is the subject of this felony. McGinniss admitted to investigators that he was right in the firing line when Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum. This charge can lead to 12 1/2 years imprisonment. An additional five-year sentence is possible for weapons modifier.

Schroeder was asked by the prosecution to allow jurors to consider an additional degree of this charge. This second-degree version does not require that Rittenhouse was found guilty of a crime that is utterly inhumane. Schroeder stated that he would allow the instruction to be given, but he did not make any final decisions. This charge can lead to up to 10 years imprisonment.


Unidentified man appears to be leaping towards Rittenhouse in an attempt to kick him. Anthony Huber, on his skateboard, moves toward Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires two rounds at Rittenhouse, but it appears that he misses the man as he runs off.

The charge of felony is punishable with 12 1/2 years imprisonment. Another weapon modifier would increase the sentence to 5 years.

Schroeder indicated that he wouldn’t agree with prosecutors’ demand for jurors being allowed to look at this case in the second degree.


Huber’s murder is the reason for this charge. Rittenhouse can be seen sprinting down the street following the shooting of Rosenbaum. Huber leaps at him. He swings his skateboard at Rosenbaum’s neck and head, and attempts to grab Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse starts firing. Huber is alleged to have been shot by Rittenhouse in the criminal complaint.

Intentional murder is when someone deliberately kills another person. Bucher stated that Rittenhouse could have pointed the gun at Huber, and then pulled the trigger. This would be intentional homicide. But self-defense will override the charges.

Bucher stated, “Why I wanted to kill that individual makes the distinction.”

A mandatory sentence of life is imposed on the count. This would allow for a weapons modification of up to 5 years.

Schroeder was asked by the prosecution to offer the jury three options: second-degree intentional murder, second-degree reckless killing and second-degree recklessly homicide in Huber’s death. Schroeder replied that he had embraced the second degree reckless homicide accusation.

A fallback offense is second-degree intentional killing. It’s when a defendant believes that he is in imminent danger or great bodily injury and that force must be used. But either belief wasn’t unreasonable. You could be sentenced to as much as 60 years prison.

Huber’s first-degree reckless murder charge is identical to the original Rosenbaum death charge. Jurors would have to determine that Rittenhouse was responsible for Huber’s death and show utter disregard for human lives. This could lead to up to 60 years imprisonment.


Rittenhouse was charged with shooting Gaige Grosskreutz at Gaige Grosskreutz’s arm just seconds after he had shot Huber. Grosskreutz then approached Rittenhouse holding a firearm. Grosskreutz survived. Video captures Rittenhouse shooting a single shot at Grosskreutz while pointing his gun at him.

Maximum sentence for the charge is 60 years. Additional five years would be added for the weapons modifier.

Prosecutors requested that jurors be allowed to examine lesser Grosskreutz charges: second degree attempted intentional homicide; first-degree reckless and third-degree reckless endsangerment. While defense lawyers didn’t object to the first count, they opposed adding reckless endangerment. Schroeder said that although he didn’t rule, he felt inclined to support the prosecution.

A second-degree attempt at intentional homicide can result in a sentence of up to 30 years.


Rittenhouse was armoured with an AR style semi-automatic gun. Rittenhouse was just 17 when the shootings took place. Wisconsin law forbids minors to possess firearms, except when hunting. Schroeder did not make it clear Friday as to what he intended to inform jurors regarding this charge.

It is a misdemeanor and can result in up to nine months imprisonment.

Judge Bruce Schroeder overturned count 6 of Rittenhouse’s rap sheets Monday morning. 


Rittenhouse, who was accused of being on the streets following an 8 p.m. city curfew, was sentenced to a small offense with a maximum $200 fine. The defense claimed that the prosecution didn’t provide enough evidence to support the charge, and Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed it during week two of the trial.

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. 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. 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 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.”