Experts say jurors ‘buy’ self-defense case
The jurors cleared Kyle Rittenhouse of five charges against him – from attempted murder to reckless murder to reckless endangerment – that have yet to be spoken publicly.
When they do, they will likely be asked: Where did they find reasonable doubt?
But that’s the wrong question, civil rights attorney Jamie White told USA TODAY after Illinois teens were found not guilty Friday in a polarization case that continues to divide America along political and racial lines more than a year after he fatally shot three men, two men, during a night of protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
White, a Michigan-based criminal defense attorney who has represented dozens of sexual abuse victims in high-profile cases involving the Boy Scouts of America and Larry Nassar, who was disgraced for know: “They need not raise a reasonable doubt. Doctor for the US women’s gymnastics team. . “They never got there. All in all, was he (Rittenhouse) acting rationally at the time of the shooting? ”
Lara Yeretsian, a veteran crime defense attorney based in Los Angeles, argues that “reasonable suspicion is self-defence”.
“If you convince them of his ability to defend himself, if you make them believe that everything he did was to save his life and his life was at risk, that if he hadn’t shot those men. Yeretsian, who has worked on famous cases including defending Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson, said.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s response to the ruling:From ‘The justice system is broken’ to ‘The justice system has worked’
“From his testimony, jurors clearly found him trustworthy and that in itself was huge,” she added. “If you believe him when he says he’s defending himself, then you have to acquit him.”
Other legal experts were also not surprised by the ruling
“I think anyone looking at the evidence can see that the jury may have had a hard time reaching a unanimous decision that Kyle Rittenhouse is not defending himself,” said Julius Kim, defense attorney and former Wisconsin prosecutor, said. tell NPR.
“They’re not deciding here – who do they trust more. They’re deciding on a very specific legal question: Do they think prosecutors have proven it’s not a self-defence measure,” said Chief of the Division. ABC’s legal analyst, Dan Abrams. said on World News Tonight, he added that the videos of the shooting had a particular impact on the jury.
Legal experts told USA TODAY.
While White said he was “not impressed at all with the prosecutor,” although he also acknowledged that he did not have access to all the evidence, he agreed with Binger’s argument. before a jury that “when you talk about the right to self-defense, it has to be proportionate – and using a semi-automatic rifle at someone who is kicking you or hitting you with a skateboard is disproportionate.”
“If there’s anything that can turn the tide, I think it’s going to be the argument, that you can’t bring a gun into a fight,” White said. “But, in this case, the jury ruled that you can. ”
These are the victims of Kyle Rittenhouse’s shooting: Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum, Gaige Grosskreutz
Yeretsian told USA TODAY.
“Even the prosecution’s witnesses supported the defense’s argument – when a survivor testified that he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and that’s when Rittenhouse shot him, that was enough for the jury. group,” she said.
Putting Rittenhouse in position is “risky but the right step, especially in an experiment with an entire nation watching it,” Yeretsian said. Rittenhouse’s emotional testimony – he cried at one point – worked in his favor, she said.
“He’s got this baby face, he’s shed some tears, that might pull some heart strings – defense attorneys believe those things,” Yeretsian said. “But aside from the crying and emotional moments, he is quite calm and able to explain his side. He was seen as trustworthy. “
She added, “(The jury) bought the self-defeating argument, and that’s really the bottom line.”