As the twelve-member Kenosha jury deliberates on Kyle Rittenhouse’s fate, violent altercations broke out in Kenosha. Two men were detained.
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.
They exchanged barbs until the protest sign was thrown at Cahill.
The sign was seized by him and other anti-Rittenhouse demonstrators, and he then punched another reporter in the jaw while being pulled off 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.
He could be heard calling his mother from the back seat as the car drove away.
Justin Blake (uncle of Jacob Blake) marches along with his supporters following Wednesday’s second day of juror deliberations at the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
After the completion of day two of jury deliberations for the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Jacob Blake Family supporters observed a moment’s silence on Wednesday night
Community organizer speaks with Jacob Blake supporters, who came together to share a meal after day two of jury deliberations in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial.
The sign, which demanded Rittenhouse be tried and convicted was held by a man aged 20 wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey. Later, the man got in a fight with Rittenhouse supporters. He was later arrested for battery and disorderly conduct.
On Wednesday, Kyle Rittenhouse protestors fought with one another on the steps at the courthouse.
On Wednesday, a BLM supporter was seen fighting with Emily Cahill, a pro-Rittenhouse demonstrator.
Following the incident, Kenosha police took the picture of the Bart Simpson-wearing man being taken into custody.
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 was taken into custody for resisting arrest and battery.
This 34-year-old was charged with disorderly conduct.
Cahill said that she was hurt enough to have to leave.
“I’m going try and come back tomorrow.
As dark fell, violence broke out. This happened after a quiet day when supporters on both sides shared pizza and waited to hear the verdict.
However, inside court was full of drama Wednesday as Rittenhouse’s defense team requested a mistrial on Wednesday based upon the drone footage, which they called a “linchpin” in the state’s case against Rittenhouse.
Corey Chirafisi (defense attorney) addressed the court. He stated: “We are talking about a potentially life sentence here, and it must be addressed.”
Chirafisi made his request for a mistrial without prejudice this time acknowledging that the state could – and will – retry the case.
The jury will now review controversial footage and the best views from all shootings.
Justin Blake (center), the nephew of Jacob, was shot and killed by police in August 2020. This sparked the Kenosha Riots. He is shown leading protests outside the courthouse on Wednesday night.
A 20-year-old male with a Bart Simpson backpack was seen at the Kenosha Courthouse on Wednesday
A 20-year-old is seen grasping at the sign of a pro-Rittenhouse demonstrator
On the steps of the courthouse, he engaged in a struggle with a man sporting a backpack black.
Emily Cahill is a Rittenhouse Supporter. She tries to hold onto her sign while the 20-year old man tries to take it away from her.
Cahill is still trying to sign the agreement, so the young man keeps tussling.
The 20-year old was seen being arrested by police with his Bart Simpson backpack. He was charged with battery and disorderly conduct.
Kenosha officers form a barricade while the 20 year-old is being handcuffed
Picture of a man being pulled to the ground in the chaos
Kenosha police wrestle another person to the ground
Outside the courthouse, a Kenosha officer attempts to calm an upset woman
Second person seen being taken into custody by police
Chirafisi addressed the main point of today’s proceeding, even prior to their request to watch the footage again. She said they needed to deal with it and would have tried the case different if they had the evidence.
Chirafisi stated that there was no way to hide the fact defense failed to have the finest quality version of one the most crucial videos presented to the jury. However, the state did.
We would have approached this case differently [had we had it].’
He said, “We did not have the evidence the state needed until the case was closed. The parties were resting, and now we are going to close the case.”
“We have spoken to Mr Rittenhouse. I will be asking for a mistrial. Based upon the fact that if we are really trying to reach the core of this, I have watched the video. I can tell what my thoughts are, but we cannot put them to the jury.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense requested a second mistrial on Wednesday.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial jury asked whether they must go back to the courtroom or if they could do it privately. Judge Bruce Schroeder claimed Wednesday that he has not had the chance to review the motion to dismiss filed yesterday by defense.
Assisting the state in its defense, Assistant District Attorney James Kraus stated that they had placed too much focus on technical issues.
However, he acknowledged that the video sent to him was not compressed.
After a short break, it became apparent that the state knew that the video file had become compressed. Detective Martin Howard then emailed the email to Kraus. Kraus forwarded the information to Natalie Wisco as a defense attorney.
Chirafisi stated, “If you are a prosecutor your job is fairness, being a truth seeker.
It’s clear that what has happened is unfair.
It’s possible to sit down all day and claim it has been played. But, what if there is another? What is the point?
Judge Schroeder allowed the jury to see the footage, but stated to the prosecution that he had repeatedly warned the state about the day when they would have to reckon with these matters. I had my qualms.
“I warned you, and when you were pressing with it I allowed it in. It seems to me that we may as well go ahead with the plan. And if everything is correct and reliable, then we are all good.
It’s not going to look good if it doesn’t.
According to the defense, it found no evidence that the software used for enhancing the footage was legal or forensically trustworthy.
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.”
Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, is charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other counts
Rittenhouse’s lawyers brought their motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. They cited this as well as several other grounds. The defense filed a motion yesterday stating that “The problem is that the prosecution gave to defense a compressed video”.
On Wednesday, the jury demanded three different videos. They all relate to Rittenhouse’s shot of Gaige Großkreutz.
Grosskreutz had his own stream that night, as well two additional videos of Grosskreutz that show him shooting.
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.
Kyle Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz on August 25, 2020. His right bicep was nearly completely blown out. Grosskreutz was the star witness for the state and took the stand last Wednesday.
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 earlier confessed that he didn’t even have a chance read the motion for mistrial by the defense. The defense argued, in part, that the state did not provide drone footage of high resolution central to their case timely.
After completing his task, he returned to 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 claimed that he had already emailed the identical file, and that it could have been compressed either by his Android phone or by his defense email.
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.
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 high-definition video footage that 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 uncoordinated on Wednesday
ADA Kraus’s statement is false because of the file name [we received]She stated that it should be exactly the same as what was provided to the state crime laboratory.
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 said: “We will have to give testimony under oath.”
“This will require expert testimony of an attorney under oath to determine the facts.
I re-iterate it [earlier]Comment: Given the cloudy picture of the exhibit, this strategy or state is highly risky.
“I felt queasy from the start and now I feel even more anxious about it.”
Kraus suggested the downloading of the exhibits onto a thumbdrive and turning the courtroom into the jury room to allow jurors to watch the proceedings under supervision from court officers.
He stated that any recording devices or deliberations would need to be removed from the court and that they will be searched.
Rittenhouse killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36. 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.
James Armstrong, an expert photographer in Wisconsin State Crime Lab testified last week about drone video.
Mark Richards, defense attorney, stated Wednesday that he doesn’t know which exhibits jurors want to see.
“We are having a problem with the drone footage being seen by them.”
“We have a motion in progress based on disclosure. They can see it if they wish.
DailyMail.com revealed the fact that the state did not provide a complete-size file on the subject footage until Saturday, November 13, just two days prior to closing.
Richards’ objection caused the judge’s response to comment he claimed to have seen from media experts. He expressed surprise at not ruling on the defense motion for mistrial.
He replied, “I’ve not even had the chance to read your motion to dismiss.” “I just received it yesterday. I think I should have let the state reply before reading.”
He stated that any motions must be taken under advice unless they are crystal clear.
Judge Schroeder referred to the theme and said, “It is a shame that irresponsible remarks are being made.” It’s all I care about. [let’s talk about]The business of people being not identified as victims.
Judge Schroeder’s conclusion that Rittenhouse had not shot the men who were killed by Rittenhouse sparked great backlash.
DailyMail.com found that hate mail has increased by a lot.
He said, “How would you prefer to be tried for a crime?” On Wednesday the judge presented the case to jurors by placing you in the position of the defendant. The victim is the accused.
“Is it difficult to use the term “complaining witness”?
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
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 claimed that he invented the method when he was trying to solve a Racine murder case.
He said, “There was a black defendant as well as 13 jurors, one of which was black.”
The clerk pulled the name out 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.
The judge then defended all five of the attorneys in this matter as being’very competent and reputable’. He did not give details but said that it was’shameful the things that have been done to these individuals’.
He called some of the coverage ‘grossly reckless’ and stated that he was going to think about the trial’s live television again.
“When I look at what is being done, it’s frightening. It’s frightening. This is the right word.
The judge turned his attention back to the question of the jurors and ruled in accordance with attorneys that the jury should be allowed to return to court to view 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 disagreed, stating that while watching the same thing ‘three to four’ times is fine but not that you should be watching too often. However, it could result in an over-emphasis on one particular piece of evidence.
On Wednesday afternoon the judge granted the jury permission to view it. However, he will decide how often they can watch it again once the defense has researched legal precedents.