• Is there any recourse fir abusive conduct by a judge presiding over a c

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 21 06:20:03 2022
    Judge Schroeder in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was extremely rude and abusive to the prosecutor ("don't get BRAZEN with me", "I don't believe you",overruling an objection when the defense said Binger lied etc.).

    The way he was directing the course of the trial to produce an acquittal was JARRING.

    Particulary the way he gave the defense a double-dip. After 4 days of jury deliberation, the defense panicked and asked for a mistrial without prejudice (they had a pending request for a mistrial with prejudice).

    He took that under advisement and did nothing. the jury came back with an acquittal and those requests became moot - but he backstopped the defense in case there was a conviction.

    The case was a colossal miscarriage of justice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to S K on Fri Jan 21 12:01:11 2022
    On 1/21/2022 6:20 AM, S K wrote:
    Judge Schroeder in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was extremely rude and abusive to the prosecutor ("don't get BRAZEN with me", "I don't believe you",overruling an objection when the defense said Binger lied etc.).

    The way he was directing the course of the trial to produce an acquittal was JARRING.

    Particulary the way he gave the defense a double-dip. After 4 days of jury deliberation, the defense panicked and asked for a mistrial without prejudice (they had a pending request for a mistrial with prejudice).

    He took that under advisement and did nothing. the jury came back with an acquittal and those requests became moot - but he backstopped the defense in case there was a conviction.

    The case was a colossal miscarriage of justice.

    If there was any abusive conduct, it was by the prosecution, which told
    the jury that Kyle had exercised his 5th Amendment right not to answer
    police questions. The US Supreme Court has long held that this is not
    allowed. If anything, Judge Schroeder was lenient with the prosecutor:
    Judge Schroeder could have fined him for Contempt of Court and granted
    the defense motion for an immediate dismissal with prejudice.

    There also was no miscarriage of justice. S K might want to look up the
    rules on self-defense.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
    "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears
    necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of
    unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1] In cases involving
    non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe
    that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful
    physical harm.[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a
    self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their
    use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's
    infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] Most states no longer
    require a person to retreat before using deadly force"

    Anthony Huber hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard. That is potentially deadly force, and Rittenhouse was legally entitled to defend himself. Similarly with Joseph Rosenbaum, who tried to take
    Rittenhouse's rifle away. Again, that's a threat of deadly force: he
    would have left Rittenhouse with no way of defending himself, and
    Rosenbaum would then have the use of Rittenhouse's rifle.

    Was Rittenhouse in a volatile situation by his own choice? Yes. Did he
    have appropriate training for handling the situation? No. Was he acting
    alone without coordinating with local authorities? Yes. Was he an idiot
    for placing himself in a dangerous situation like that without training?
    Yes. Was he a minor in possession of a firearm? Yes.

    But none of these takes away his right of self-defense under US law.

    (And it turns out the law about "minor in possession" was ambiguous
    about whether it was illegal for Rittenhouse to carry the rifle. When
    there is an ambiguity in the law, it is always interpreted in the manner
    most favorable to the defendant. So Judge Schroeder was also correct in dismissing that charge.)




    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 21 11:55:26 2022
    "S K" wrote in message news:90e09bb6-933e-446f-ae93-ed45ea0e4e70n@googlegroups.com...

    Judge Schroeder in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was extremely rude and abusive >to the prosecutor ("don't get BRAZEN with me", "I don't believe >you",overruling an objection when the defense said Binger lied etc.).

    The way he was directing the course of the trial to produce an acquittal
    was JARRING.

    Particulary the way he gave the defense a double-dip. After 4 days of jury >deliberation, the defense panicked and asked for a mistrial without
    prejudice (they had a pending request for a mistrial with prejudice).

    He took that under advisement and did nothing. the jury came back with an >acquittal and those requests became moot - but he backstopped the defense
    in case there was a conviction.

    The case was a colossal miscarriage of justice.

    I suppose the judge could be sanctioned for inappropriate behavior or even removed from the bench at some point, but the not guilty verdict will still stand. You can be as outraged as you want at the verdict, just as many
    people were after OJ was exonerated, but once the defendant has been found
    not guilty, that's not going to change.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From S K@21:1/5 to Barry Gold on Fri Jan 21 16:24:07 2022
    On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 3:01:14 PM UTC-5, Barry Gold wrote:
    On 1/21/2022 6:20 AM, S K wrote:
    Judge Schroeder in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was extremely rude and abusive to the prosecutor ("don't get BRAZEN with me", "I don't believe you",overruling an objection when the defense said Binger lied etc.).

    The way he was directing the course of the trial to produce an acquittal was JARRING.

    Particulary the way he gave the defense a double-dip. After 4 days of jury deliberation, the defense panicked and asked for a mistrial without prejudice (they had a pending request for a mistrial with prejudice).

    He took that under advisement and did nothing. the jury came back with an acquittal and those requests became moot - but he backstopped the defense in case there was a conviction.

    The case was a colossal miscarriage of justice.
    If there was any abusive conduct, it was by the prosecution, which told
    the jury that Kyle had exercised his 5th Amendment right not to answer
    police questions. The US Supreme Court has long held that this is not allowed. If anything, Judge Schroeder was lenient with the prosecutor:
    Judge Schroeder could have fined him for Contempt of Court and granted
    the defense motion for an immediate dismissal with prejudice.

    There also was no miscarriage of justice. S K might want to look up the
    rules on self-defense.

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
    "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears
    necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of
    unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1] In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe
    that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful
    physical harm.[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a
    self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their
    use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] Most states no longer
    require a person to retreat before using deadly force"

    Anthony Huber hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard. That is potentially deadly force, and Rittenhouse was legally entitled to defend himself. Similarly with Joseph Rosenbaum, who tried to take
    Rittenhouse's rifle away. Again, that's a threat of deadly force: he
    would have left Rittenhouse with no way of defending himself, and
    Rosenbaum would then have the use of Rittenhouse's rifle.

    Was Rittenhouse in a volatile situation by his own choice? Yes. Did he
    have appropriate training for handling the situation? No. Was he acting
    alone without coordinating with local authorities? Yes. Was he an idiot
    for placing himself in a dangerous situation like that without training?
    Yes. Was he a minor in possession of a firearm? Yes.

    But none of these takes away his right of self-defense under US law.

    (And it turns out the law about "minor in possession" was ambiguous
    about whether it was illegal for Rittenhouse to carry the rifle. When
    there is an ambiguity in the law, it is always interpreted in the manner
    most favorable to the defendant. So Judge Schroeder was also correct in dismissing that charge.)




    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    The judge kept the cvs video out on invalid grounds.

    Here is a kid who says he wants to fire on people he regards as shoplifters, and couple of weeks later he shows up armed at a place where lots of property damage is going on.

    He didn't kill as long as he was under the tutelege of Ryan Balch a seasoned army veteran.

    As soon as he was separated fron Balch - he pointed his gun at the Ziminskis an act that provoked borderline insane Rosenbaum.

    He shot him twice to incapcitate him and followed him with his gun as he fell down to put the fatal bullet into him.

    the first two bullets might be considered self-defense - but the last two were murder.

    for him to careen around with his gun after killing someone is outrageous.

    ANYBODY there could and should have taken him out then and there (BInger has said he wouldn't have prosecuted if that had happened).

    The murderous kid got lucky and will certainly murder again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)