by hashedram
This is not even about politics.
This shmuck..
- Tried to argue that Rittenhouse should be guilty because he did not talk to the police after arrest and waited for his lawyer, which meant he felt he did something wrong. This is basic 5th amendment law. THIS is specifically why the judge absolutely ripped the prosecutor a new one on live TV. High school students who attended a preparatory law class would know this. Its that basic. Everyone has a right to remain silent on arrest, you DO NOT bring that up in court.
- There was a photograph of Rittenhouse in a bar with some alleged proud boys, taken a MONTH AFTER the shooting. The prosecutor tried to use it as evidence of bad intent, which the judge rightly deemed was completely irrelevant to the case and threw it out. You can’t use guilt by association in a real world court. You have to actually show intent relevant to the case. The prosecutor knew well that the evidence was inadmissible, and without the judge’s permission, BROUGHT IT UP AGAIN. Without the judge’s permission. That’s not just disingenuous, that’s flat out unprofessional behavior as a lawyer.
- Literally stated his Call of Duty statistics, to try to demonstrate murderous intent despite fully knowing that such things are irrelevant in courts. You cannot bring these things up randomly, you need an actual expert to set the relevancy first.
I mean, it doesn’t even matter what you think of Rittenhouse at this point, the prosecution’s case has just been full of unadulterated horse manure from day 1. This case should not be anywhere near a courtroom, but more importantly, this lawyer should absolutely not be allowed to practice law. How can anyone with a lick of sense side with this lawyer and be deluded to the point of thinking the judge who’s calling him out is biased?
Views: