loader image

Hello my friends and welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney. Today we’re talking about Kyle Rittenhouse. It is verdict watch day two. If you miss a lot of the activity today, you probably were thinking that the case is mostly done. It’s mostly over the cases now in the hands of the jurors and they’re going to be deliberating. And so what possible interesting things and events could happen in court today during the deliberation phase? Well, a lot, actually, we had a motion to dismiss with prejudice that we’re going to review that was submitted over the weekend. That is now publicly available. We’re going to take a look at that. We’ve also got a motion to dismiss without prejudice, which is a little bit different. We’ll break that down. That was submitted orally today in court.

This afternoon after Corey cheer, FEC was unhappy with some of the things that came out in court today. And we spent a lot of time talking about the distinction between certain videos and how they were disclosed, and that being a major catastrophic problem, because we’re talking about videos that had lower resolution that were subpar pieces of evidence that the defense was given, that they couldn’t cross examine. They couldn’t prepare, they couldn’t show their expert witness. And so there are a whole bundle of problems that we’ll unpack with that issue alone. But we also have another issue about how the jury views, the videos that are okay, the videos that actually come into evidence. Oh, we got a lot of important things to discuss about the jurors, actually watching the videos, because if you’re, well, we’ll get into that. So we’ve got a lot to get into.

We’re going to break it up into three segments, talking about what happened this morning. Then we’re going to talk about a prosecutor, James Krauss, who was really just talking, trying to talk himself out of a major bun, a bungle that happened with the disclosure of this video evidence. Some might even say deception, not just a innocent mistake, and we’ll break that down. And then we’re going to talk about the various motions to dismiss with prejudice and without prejudice. And so we’ve got a lot to get into if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, where we have a live chat taking place right now, shout outs to speech unleashed. We’ve got B spec news. Now Wyoming is back. We’ve got George Klaus is here and I wanted to give a quick shout out to George clouds.

George Klaus is a mastercraftsman look at this thing. He sent over this gavel and I want to, you know, we’ll probably going to be detailing this puppy. I’ve already got some names that have been suggested. I think three girls called it the prosecution tenderizer. And so look at this thing. Let’s see if we can get this to focus in here on this craftsmanship. Come on, camera folk. There you go. Come on, do it. There it is. Look at this baby. Ooh. That’s from George Klaus in the house. Ooh. And this puppy, you know, not to diverge too much on this, but this is just, it’s beautiful. I absolutely love it. And it’s got some heft to it. Can you hear that? Can you feel this puppy? So shout out to George clouds for that. Thank you, George. Amazing gift. I’m going to keep it right here and it is, uh, I think it’s going to suit the show.

So thank you very much. All right. And so, uh, there, that’s, what’s happening over at locals watchingthewatchers.locals.com. If you want to participate in the show, we’ve got a form that you can use. It looks just like this. Ask a question and we’ll do our very best to get to them on a little bit of a time limit today. So if I don’t get to any of the, all of the questions, we’ll make sure that we revisit those back on watchingthewatchers.locals.com tomorrow morning, just like we did this morning with yesterday show. So come check that out. And if you’re looking for clips, different individual segments of the show that are a little bit more, uh, easy to share with friends or family, we have a clips channel over here, Robert Mueller, Esq clips. We really appreciate a share of the show. Uh, you know, YouTube sort of keeps the finger on us.

We’re sort of in this little bit of a silo forcefield bubble. I can see it in the metrics. So a share is always very much appreciated. All right? And so Kyle Rittenhouse day, two of the verdict watch keeping our eye on the jury. We’re going to go through, we have a lot of clips today. Normally when the case goes over to the jurors for their deliberation, it’s kind of in their hands every now and then you get a question. Question comes out, uh, juror number one wants to know about this specific piece of evidence. Is it true that so-and-so and you come out, oh, what do you say? A defense? What do you say, Mr. Prosecutor? And you agree? No, it’s, uh, that’s the legal answer to that is no. So you write no on the form, send it back into the jury room and that’s it.

That’s like the most exciting thing of the day, not in this trial, because we have a lot to, to break down because a lot of these issues weren’t resolved earlier in the case. And so we’re going to start off with judge Schroeder saying, uh, good morning, uh, today we’re going to start looking at videos because the jurors want to see the videos. And so I guess, what are we going to do? We’re just going to put them on the screen and just leave it at that. Is it that simple in a criminal case where somebody has a potentially a life sentence floating over their heads, you as a defense attorney, do you just say, yeah, you want me to put whatever you want. Here’s a laptop here’s access to, do you need the remote? Let me show you how to use the remote. This thing is so confusing and you just have to show them, you know how to do no, you go, you want to make sure that you are narrowly crafting the juror’s experience in watching whatever evidence or, or touching or assembling whatever evidence that they are meant to touch.

It’s the same concept that you had with OJ and the glove. It’s like why you got to gave him that, that critical piece of evidence there. And he kind of, you know, was able to do what he wanted with it. And so the jurors are seeing that. And so you want to craft any experience that anybody is having in the courtroom. That’s why you don’t ask questions that you don’t know the answers to Thomas binger, but here now the judge is just going to say, okay, we’ve got a lot of video to get into. Is it going to be that simple, Mr. Prosecutor, how do you intend for the jurors to watch this? Here’s judge Schrader today. Okay. Let’s play this. There it is.

All right. We’re in the

Appearances there as before, uh, the jury is upstairs and has sent us an inquiry question. Number three, do we, do we view videos in private or in courtroom? So my nightmare has come. And then do you need to know exact exhibit number of video or photos? So that’s the easy part. Um, any suggestions?

Well, your honor, we can show them the videos here in the courtroom. We’ve created a sleek, discussed this issue, and I understand the court’s, um, personal feelings about it. But I do believe the law is clear that we have to show it to them in a corporate. I don’t believe that we can give them a laptop and let them do it in private. Um, so we have our laptop ready to go it into the system. So if they give us any numbers that they want to see, we should be able to pull them up for them.

Okay. So what binger was saying there, a judge comes out, we’re going to play some videos today. Uh, how are we going to do this? Mr. Binger says, judge, you look, I, uh, I know that the courtroom here is kind of used to just putting it on a laptop and letting them go take a look at it. We think that’s a radius. We’ve taken a look at the law. The law says they have to come back into the courtroom. And, uh, and what we’re going to do is we’re going to cue all these videos up for you that you can trust our, you know, our exhibits and they’re just perfectly ready to go. And if the jury needs to see exhibits seven, 13, and 45, while we have them all numbered, we’ll just play seven, 13 and 45, super simple. And the reason why the prosecution wants sort of this to happen in my humble opinion is because they have that big, big, fat TV screen out there where they can just sort of throw the images up there, right on the big screen.

And it’s going to turn out later that apparently the defense brought that in so that the Dr. John Black would be the person who could actually put his images up on the screen and then show the jurors. So now that, that video now that that screen is sort of there. The defense brought it in, uh, according to Ms. Wisco, the prosecution wants to use that. They want to say, look, we’re gonna blow this puppy up as big as we can. We possibly can because from their perspective and their minds, the video evidence is all useful to them. It’s all going to help their case. They want the jurors to look at this 45 different ways from Sunday. That’s why they’ve got 20 something different exhibits. It may be more than that. I lost count. I stopped counting. It doesn’t matter once you’re over 20, it doesn’t matter anymore.

All showing the same thing in various different angles and member binger. I played that at two speed with all these different exhibits that all got submitted, they want the jurors to watch the shooting over and over and over and over again. They want that imagery ingrained into their minds because that’s going to lead them to want to punish somebody who’s available for them. Kyle Rittenhouse, right there. So, you know, it’s sort of rubbing their noses in a very bad situation and making them relive it all day long. And so if they can put that up on a big screen and the jurors can have their faces mashed in it, right in this horrific tragedy, which it was a tragedy, you know, it was a horrible thing that happened. We have dead people. We have a young man whose life is going to be ruined. And so is ruined, right?

It’s already ruined regardless of what happens here. And it could be a lot worse if this thing goes one particular way, but now we have all of this, all of these arguments that are being brought into, into this trial, and it’s all hinging on this video evidence. And so without any further digression, I can just spiral off on every one of these segments. We have so much to get to today. So the defense apparently brought this in prosecution, wants you to rub their noses in it, show it all day long. And, uh, the defense obviously doesn’t want that to happen. So we have the defense now wants all of this to be viewed on a little tiny laptop, if they could just text it to every juror’s phone and just say, you can watch it on that little three inch screen. That’s all you need there because on a three inch screen, you go you’re right.

I can’t see anything. That sounds, it looks pretty much like reasonable doubt to me, but if you blow it up on 50 inches, now, every juror is looking at the individual pixels on there and saying, oh yeah, I guess, um, I guess I see motion there. Maybe that is a gun, I guess, I guess maybe we’ll convict him. So they’re having this battle. Now the prosecution wants to throw it on the big screen, you know, 4k ultra HD that we’re going to see. And then Mark Richards comes out and says, judge, I got problems with both.

I agree with the first part of that, I don’t know what exhibits did your was wished to see. Um, we, the defense has a real problem with them seeing the drone footage and what has come out. We have a motion pending before the court for Ms. Trial based upon disclosure of evidence. And if they want to see that that’s just tainting this jury more. And I asked the court to consider the drone footage was turned over by an anonymous person who we supposedly now know who it is. Mr. Beeman, on the first Friday of the jury, we were provided a copy of that from Mr. Kraus. That was neither in the length or definition clarity that the state had. We did not get the full download that they received until Saturday of Sunday of last weekend, after all the evidence was closed. And that’s a real problem not to mention that since doing our research, the specific amped owner’s manual says that when using AI to enhance photographs or videos, it is for investigative purposes only it is not forensically to be used in a court of law and should be labeled as such.

Okay. So he, he sort of jumps over the first issue that we’re talking about. He says, uh, we’re talking about playing the videos and how the mechanism in the courtroom is going to work on laptops on the big screen monitor. Uh, can the jurors just watch it one time? Can the jurors watch it 50 times? Do they have free access to this or to somebody just go and play it one time and you get to see it, all of these things matter. And so we spend a big portion of the morning fighting about it. And Mark Richards kind of jumps over that a little bit says, well, you know, yes, we’re going to, we’re going to get to that, but we have a lot of other problems with videos in general. First of all, it’s showed up last minute and we’ve taken a look at the owner’s manual.

The owner’s manual itself says that when you’re using algorithms like AI to enhance it, it jeopardizes it’s forensic reliability. It’s altering the underlying file, which is supposed to be a representation of reality. So if it’s adjusting that, then it’s adjusting the perception of reality. And so you can’t base a crime off that, something that is an assumption that has been modified further down the line. So then we get the judge now, uh, who, who kind of is meandering this morning. And he, he, he talked a lot today. And so these two issues come up first thing in the morning, and then he sort of, uh, takes a detour. He sort of goes off, off on a tangent and starts talking about some of the media and some of the shameful irresponsible statements that have been made throughout the course of this trial, which I obviously agree with, uh, everywhere you look in the media, a lot of people until very recently have been characterizing this thing as a racist white supremacist militia organized some sort of a, a lunacy, uh, argument. I have no idea where it came from because it was not connected to reality other than it was intended to just further a political ideology. And in order to do that, you don’t need to base that on reality at all. We see that happen all the time clearly. So now the judge is going to come out and take a little bit of a detour and slam the media. Here is judge Schrader. Today

We have trial. If the result of the trial should be open to public scrutiny and people should have confidence in the outcome of the trial. I think we can all agree on that. Um, and it’s just a shame that irresponsible statements are being made. Um,

Okay. Irresponsible statements are being made. It’s a shame that those statements are coming out and he is specifically, he sort of references. He actually ripped on the media for quite some time today. And he came back and said, oh, by the way, all the attorneys are in here. They’re all amazing people. They’re all doing a great job. And so I don’t appreciate, and if any of the, uh, negative stories or the impugning of their characters is essentially what he said, so we’ll skip over that. But he did say that. And he was really, I think, more referencing the story about, uh, the, the thing that happened yesterday about having Kyle Rittenhouse reach into the jury panel tumbler and pull out the numbers, sort of selecting his own fate, you know, choose the form of your enemy, sort of one of things from the movies. And that was kind of a weird thing.

And we even talked about that yesterday and I was speculating on the show. There’s probably a reason for that. And I told you the story yesterday about the friend of mine, who was, who is a current lawyer who when the judge actually picked, picked the jurors randomly, or the court, I forget how the story, how it went, but they actually looked at the numbers. My attorney friend walked up to the judge and said, I want to see all of the other numbers, because I don’t believe that you picked out that alternate because she thought that that alternate was going to be good for her case. And so you don’t hear about this much, it’s sort of one of those things that you, you know, if you’re going to be questioning the court’s credibility or questioning their character, their integrity, man, that is a very serious card to play.

You do not just sort of throw that around haphazardly. If you’re going to say, judge, I think you’re being dishonest about the jurors you picked. Whoo. Like you better. You know? And so this, this, uh, woman was telling me this story and my jaw dropped. I’m like, goodness, talk about some honies. I mean, that’s a, that’s a, that’s a, it’s a big move there, you know? And so it, it can happen. But this judge is sort of telling us that same narrative. This judge is saying that there’s a reason I do it this way. And he tells us why that is. And it’s very much something similar that happened in his courtroom. And he’s just trying to protect himself against something that involves some very bad optics from happening. Here’s what he said,

Talking about it. And I guess I’m going to talk about that to the, um, business about people not being identified as victims. How would you like to be put on trial for a crime? And the judge introduced the case to the jury. I introducing you as the defendant and the person who was accusing you as the victim, and then throughout the trial, have all the references to, um, two of the, um, complaining witness as being the victim. Is it so difficult to just use the term complaining witnesses instead of prejudging what the jury has here to determine as to whether there’s a victim and, and, uh, whether there was a crime committed. So I don’t know what the, well, I’ll leave that comment at that. And then finally, I am now reading about how bizarre and unusual it was to have the defendant pick the, um, numbers out of the tumbler yesterday.

Here’s the story. And I would admit that I don’t know that there’s a large number of cards to do that. Maybe not any, I do it because of an incident that I had in a case I tried in Racine, oh, I’m going to say I, I estimated 20 years ago, it could have been less than that. It could have been more, but, um, it was, it was a big case. I think it was a murder case, but I’m not sure. Um, and there were, there was a black defendant and there were, uh, 13 jurors. One of it was black. And when the, um, clerk, the clerk, the government official drew the name out of the tumbler, it was a black VBA. The only plan. Oh, no, there was nothing wrong with it. It was all okay. But what did they talk about optics nowadays? Is that the word for things that was a bad optic? I thought, I think people feel better when they have control. So ever since that case I have, uh, which was well ever since that case, I, um, I’ve had an almost universal policy of having the defendant do the pinks, whether it had nothing to do with anything.

All right. So that is, uh, yeah. That’s, that’s the reason why the judge does it. So he picks out a, uh, he has a prior trial, very serious case, 13 jurors, African-American defendants. It’s a full panel of non-African Americans, except one person pulls the name out of the hat. The juror who’s got to get booted it’s the black guy is what he says, so you’re going, oh, dang it. All right. So we’re gonna, uh, we’re going to change all the rules here. So that never happens to me again. The judge did that. That’s why Kyle Rittenhouse got to pick his own jurors. And so a very interesting story. Now we have another clip here. Let’s see what this one is from. Judge Schrader. Okay. So the audio is out now. Here’s Corey.

Um, the Supreme court said, um, this is what it says at paragraph 31.

Okay. So let me bring this out real quickly. So, uh, what, what they pick up on, so you heard the audio, uh, that sort of the stream was a little bit rough today. We had some, some really bad, uh, it was very granular. It was, the audio was in and outs and the audio would come on late. And so what we sort of pick this up, Cory cheer, FEC is now talking about the rules surrounding how the videos were played in front of the jurors. Again, do you want to allow the jurors to see this 35 times gunshot gunshot gunshot gunshot gunshot? You might, you might watch it and say self-defense self-defense self-defense, but even those people who were sympathetic to it, right? You, you, you might start, you know, kind of building in some doubt there, you might sort of start telling yourself a different story.

You might have those other jurors in the courtroom who are going to be trying to convince you to come to their side. They’re going to play it over and over and over again. And the different jurors are going to say, no, no, no, play that back. Play that one more time. See it’s right there. See it’s right there. Oh, there it is. No play this other one, watch this. And all the jurors are going to try to problem solve and to try to bring people to their way of thinking. And so if you allow them to just play the video 35 times and put it on, you know, a number of different screens and give them total free range, then they’re going to have the ability to watch it 35 times and communicate 35 times that you should come to their way of thinking and convict this man.

And so the defense is saying, we don’t want to allow that to happen. They saw it. They got enough that they needed to see. They don’t need to see my client shooting and killing somebody multiple times because that’s a bad thing. Even if it is justified by self-defense, I don’t mean it’s bad, you know, necessarily morally speaking. If your self-defense like, you shouldn’t feel bad about protecting yourself from somebody who is assailing you, that’s not the point here, but it’s just a bad thing that happens in life. We have, we have a person who did something bad. He’s now dead. He got a whole wake of tragedy out as a result of this incident. And so even if you’re a juror who is on the on team, Kyle Rittenhouse watching a death, watching a human being, uh, two, two and a half of them in this case die repeatedly. It’s just not a good thing to leave jurors with. And so here’s Corey, [inaudible] saying, judge, I looked this up, we’ve got some case law here that says that maybe we should go with my line of thinking and not give the jurors total free range to do whatever they want. Here, here he is

The recording and open court. During jury deliberations, the circuit court can guarantee the jury does not play the recording multiple times and may instruct the jury as necessary to minimize the risk of overemphasis. So that’s how I take that. Um, so it’s clearly an open court. I think we all agree on that. At least under Anderson, it can be played once, not rewind and started and stopped. That’s how I read Anderson

State goes over to the state. So he’s saying very narrow, right? Very limited play at one time, start and stop. That’s it, that’s it make your mind up. That’s all you need. And so he goes over to the state and now we’re going to hear from Mr. Kraus, who responds and he wants total free range. He wants the jurors to be able to do whatever. They’ll put it on iPad, zoom in be like inspector, uh, uh, Sherlock Holmes. Here’s what he says.

Anderson makes some interesting findings in looking at Franklin and talks about how the risk of break a breakage or accidental eraser of the tape, uh, which obviously is not an issue here. Uh, what we have here are digital copies of everything. There’s no risk of erasing or breaking. Uh, they can be duplicated, uh, as much as we would like now. I do agree that that is what Anderson says, but I think is important to note that what Anderson says is about a statement. Even you have a statement, not actual evidence. And your honor, I had a case state of Wisconsin versus Antwan Flint, uh, in which you, because it was actually a video of the incident itself, not of a statement. Uh, so Franklin is about a defendant’s statement. Anderson’s about the statement of a child here. We’re talking not about statements, but a video video of the actual incident. And

Okay. So two distinctions there that Krauss making that, our legal distinctions, he just heard Corey, [inaudible] talk about this case Anderson. It sounds like it’s a pretty solid case for the defense says that the, you know, very binding precedent, judge, judge, uh, they say specifically, you have to do it this exact way. It’s right on point. So what Krauss has to do as a lawyer is distinguish that case from this case. And he does that. He says, well, look, judge. I mean, look, you know, back in the Anderson case, when, when they were dealing with that, they were dealing with a physical cassette tape. And one of the reasons why they don’t want to play it over and over and over again is because it’s a physical disc. And so when you’re actually playing it, you’re actually degrading the evidence to some degree. And so he says, so, you know, in that case, the reason why we don’t allow them to play it over and over and over again is because it’s going to ruin the evidence. And he says, we can distinguish this case from that one. It’s all digital. We have multiple copies of it. There’s not going to be any degradation. So Anderson shouldn’t apply. I’m distinguishing it. Then he also talks about what was the other point? He made something about, I forget what it was. I think it was a good point. Let’s play that one more time.

So they go over to the state and he’s talking about

It makes some interesting findings in looking at Franklin and talks about how the risk of break a breakage or accidental eraser of the tape obviously is not an issue here. Uh, well we have, here are digital copies of everything. There’s no risk of erasing or breaking. Uh, they can be duplicated, uh, as much as we would like now I do agree that that is what Anderson says, but I think is important to note that what Anderson says is about a statement.

The other point, I forgot to write it down, apologies for that. So he’s also distinguishing between statements and evidence. And so he’s going to make out this, this breakdown, he’s going to tell us that in Anderson, there was an actual statement. It was somebody saying something. So it’s like, uh, I saw Rob hit her. So if you have, if you have somebody saying, I saw Rob hit her and you play that 35 times, it’s like, wow, that’s, that’s somebody making an opinion. They’re giving a verbal statement. This is different. This is evidence. This isn’t a statement. This is people running around a parking lot. And so he’s trying to distinguish the two. He’s saying, this is not a statement. This is just observational evidence. And so he’s trying to distinguish Anderson on both of those bases.

So

The judge comes back out, we have judge Schrader, and he’s going to say, you know, this is a little bit interesting because your office historically has approached these issues, uh, a little bit differently. Your office previously has actually wanted us to be a little bit more strict with what the jury can do with this evidence. You’re kind of asking us to break your own tradition, aren’t you

So outrageous. Um, but you know, I have to be aware, uh, you want me to kind of just let them have what they, I gather what you say, although actually most of the time your office has come in here and told me no, judge don’t don’t risk our case. So don’t send this. What do you want me to do? What do you want me to do? Tell me,

Judge. I do not believe Anderson applies directly. I, I believe that because it is of the, the, all these requests are of the incident themselves or incidents themselves that I believe the jury should be able to watch them. As they see fit, watch them, uh, pausing them, rewatching them, watching them in any way they see fit in any configuration. They see fit. I believe that the Franklin and Anderson cases, I understand how someone’s statement a videotaped statement could be overemphasized. I do not see how videotapes of an incident could be overemphasized or looked at too much. And really that’s what this whole trial has been there. While there has been lots of testimony, almost everything testified to is on video. So to me, I believe it is clear that given that as a view tape of the incident, they should be able to view it as they see fit now Anderson.

Okay. So again, we spent a lot of time on this this morning. I think it is important. The judge actually agrees with the prosecutor by enlarge here and says, I kind of agree with you. I think it’s insulting to the jurors to not allow them to have full access to the evidence. And, um, is asking them saying, it sounds like you’re asking this court to abandon your own precedent though. You, uh, you have done something differently as we heard in this prior clip and historically the courts have done something differently than what you’re recommending. Mr. Prosecutor. You’re saying that you want free range, free access to the evidence, but historically speaking from your office and from the courts in general, we have not done that. So you’re asking us to abandon that precedent. Aren’t you,

You’re suggesting an abandonment of the insulting precedent, uh, of the last hundreds of years that the jury might overemphasize some aspect of the exhibit. He says that should be played only once if it’s played at all. And, um, you say play it as much as you want. Which my I, my, my intellect tells me is the best way, because as I talked about those are NIAF case, uh, that’s how it got solved. And, um, it seems to me, this is a pursuit of truth and the, you should take the course that you think will lead you there. And if the jury thinks they want to look at it 80 times, and they want to talk about it and criticize each other for their, for their respective views of it, I think they should be allowed to do so without interference on our part.

All right. And now he says, that’s his position, the next sentence from Amazon? Well, that’s not really how the law works. And so we’ll get to it later on in the day, but the judge ultimately sort of reaches a compromise about what’s going to happen with this evidence. And so we’ll hear from him about that long story short is essentially gonna allow, uh, you know, various laptops to be, I think, sent upstairs and then there’ll be able to, uh, uh, use them at their leisure. But don’t quote me on that. We’re gonna, we have the actual clip from the judge, uh, here in a minute, but we are kind of going through this narrative. And as I’ve mentioned, this judge is very organic. The judge will just sort of know, take things as they come into his mind. He goes, oh yeah. Uh, about that other issue.

So in this segment, we’re talking about the judge now asking Kraus about the motion to dismiss with prejudice that was filed by Kyle Rittenhouse. His defense team were already talking about all day in this case, a lot about videos and about whether certain videos should be played on a big screen or on a laptop and all these other things. But we haven’t really gotten to the major issue of the day, which is what about those videos that were disclosed late and disclosed improperly that were disclosed at much lower resolutions than anything that would be usable by the defense until the close of evidence when the defense has now notified of this sounds like that might be a big, a pretty big problem. And the defense called this out via written motion, which we’re going to take a look at here in this segment. But as we were going through court today, the judge just kind of got a little ping in his brain and says, oh yeah, by the way, what do you have to say about that, Mr. Uh, government prosecutor, James Kraus?

What about, I know I now have had the chance during the break to read the defendant’s motion for dismissal. Yes. Uh, and there are allegations made there about the material that was provided to them. Yes. Uh, certainly if I follow through on what you wanted, uh, I think I learned the other day because I was queasy very queasy about the, this particular exhibit of the, from the drone. Um, and we exchanged a lot of emails over the weekend about it. Uh, and I think I warned you the other day that you’re putting a awful lot of emphasis on this. And if it turns out that it’s not technologically sound, this is a referred to it is the situation is the house of cards. This is just more weight, uh, that

More weight on the house of cards. And I sort of was warning you about this. It sounds like you are putting a lot of evidence, a lot of weight on this evidence, this drone footage. And we had a lot of battle about getting this in. Remember the judge even got up off the bench and went down there and looked at the big screen. He’s like, oh, I don’t know about any of this. We had, uh, multiple different individuals who are, you know, kind of expert on this issue. Dr. Black came in and talked a little bit about some video editing stuff. We also heard from, uh, Mr. Armstrong, I think detective Armstrong or, uh, somebody from the police department who was also does some of this backend processing work. And we’re trying to figure out, uh, the reliability of this video evidence and of this footage.

I mean, it’s, uh, it’s the crux of the case. It’s the prosecution alleging that Kyle Rittenhouse pointed a gun at somebody, which of course would be pro vocation provoking somebody else. And if you are the provocate tour, then you no longer get to claim self-defense. And so that entire bubble pops there by making Kyle Rittenhouse subject to criminal liability for every charge. So it is the first domino in a very long sequence of dominoes. And it’s a pretty important one. And so when we’re talking about that issue, the judge is now saying, listen, you know, uh, you put a lot in on this. We had multiple people talk about it. I even had to get up off the bench and go walk over there. Okay. Don’t like to do that, but I did it for you there, buddy. And I expect the evidence to be good and reliable, and that we don’t have any disclosure problems with the defense.

We’ve already heard from this judge that he wants us to be considered to be credible and reliable. And he wants the people in the media and the rest of society to consider it to be a well done trial. And if the prosecution is failing to disclose key evidence to the defense that undermines its legitimacy. So the judge talks about this earlier in the morning, the defense had submitted the motion and he hadn’t had time to read it yet, but he just did. Let’s take a look at it ourselves. We can see we have a, this was filed on November 15th. Let’s swap that over to the pen here. Take a quick look at this one. Motion for mistrial, with prejudice. And this is state of Wisconsin versus Kyle Rittenhouse has comes now. Kyle Rittenhouse appearing by Corey GRPC and Mark Richards moves this court for an order granting a mistrial with prejudice wide on August 18 state filed a second other acts motion seeking to admit video evidence about Kyle sitting in a vehicle.

The other acts motion was alongside with additional other acts motions also fired by filed by the state that was taken under advisement. State did not file a motion for reconsideration of any of their motions on November 8th. Then Kyle chose to exercise his right to testify. Prior to that testimony, the court conducted a colloquy with Mr. Rittenhouse regarding his rights further, the court inquired about other possible areas of inquiry, including Wisconsin statutes, state indicated they believe the door left the open on the door, open on some of those things. And that was when a binger was talking about Kyle and about an interview that, uh, about a prior video that he did that CVS video. That’s what they’re talking about here in paragraph one August 18th. Remember that the Kenosha incident was August 25th. So this is the CVS video he’s sitting in there having a conversation about what he would like to do to those looters running out of CVS.

So we already had a conversation about that. The prosecution thought that the court left the door open to that a little bit. They tried to talk about it, get it in front of the jury. Thomas binger, I’m sorry. Uh, uh, Mark Richards objected, threw his hat through the roof. And the judge scolded binger about that badly and says you are walking a fine line on that. We covered a lot of that here on this channel. So the court then after thinking about it said that there was nothing the court heard in the case that would change the mind on any of the rulings. The court then stated quote, unless there was something else on that the state did not indicate that they had anything else to say about that ruling. So this would have been, uh, back on that date. Now on cross examination, the state asked the defendant since August 25th.

This is the first time you told this story. The court sustained the defense objection shortly thereafter. The prosecution stated to the defendant that SA that he sat through the trial, had an opportunity to watch the videos played in court, had the opportunity to listen and to testimony of 30 witnesses. Now you’re telling the side of the story, remember that from Thomas binger, Thomas binger came out and said, you’ve sat here and heard all this. Now you get to change. Your story is what he was implying. The question required the court to excuse the jury, to remind the state that he is a constitutional right to post silence arrest. Okay, by saying this, oh, now you’re telling your side of the story. Oh, now you’re going to speak just after you’ve heard all these other 30 people out there testified. Now you’re conveniently going to change your story and come in here and lie through your teeth to these jurors.

Aren’t you? Objection, judge. What did you just say? Thomas biggie binger get out of here, sent the jury out of there and scolded him rightfully so. The court indicated that the prosecution was either over the line or right up on the line and the court didn’t want any other problems. Then after being warned about post arrest silence, the state violated the court’s order regarding the admission of other acts evidence by asking the defendant you have previously indicated you wish you had your AR 15 to protect someone’s property. Objection. You can’t say that because we already talked about that. That was prior, prior exclusion via the motion eliminate, or at least the judge was talking about it’s excluded, but I might allow it in you. Don’t just get to walk in. You have to ask for permission, you have to knock on the door and say, judge, we haven’t solved this issue.

What do you think? Can I now talk about it being heard and do that? He just tried to come on in uninvited. Typical, the defendant moved for a mistrial with prejudice. The court indicated that it would take the motion under advisement after lengthy comment prosecutor stated, I thought my good faith belief, you left the door open a little bit. Now we had something new and I was going to probate court respondent. I don’t believe you. On November 5th, the fifth day of trial in this case, prosecution turned over to the defense footage of a drone, which was captured from the incident on August 25th. The problem is prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video. What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state file size of the defense video, 3.6 megabytes or as Ms.

Wisco referred to it, Miller bytes, but it’s a megabyte. And the states is 11.2 megabytes further the dimensions of our video or our four 80 by two 12. The states is 1920 by 8 44. And I actually have, we’re going to get to this later on in the show, but we actually have a side-by-side comparison of those two resolutions. And obviously 1920 by 8 44 is way bigger than four 80 by two 12. If you know anything about those resolutions, the video, which was in the state’s possession was not provided to the defense until after the trial concluded. During the jury instructions conference, the defense played their version of the video for the court to review the state indicated that their version was much clearer. Oh, isn’t that convenient. And they had their tech person come into court to review their clearer video. The video is the same.

The resolution of that video, however, was not state did not provide their quality video to the defense until Saturday, November 13th only did so by after request by attorney Wisco two days before the closing arguments and after the evidence had been closed, the clear video that we were fighting about all last week, the clarity, the granularity, the interpolation, the pixels, the pixels, they had a clear version the whole time. They didn’t give it to the defense. That critical key piece of evidence that was dropped off by the magical evidence fairies was clear. Then the defense even knew about 13 says ordinarily, where mistrial is granted on the motion of the defendant is presumed that the defendant has made the election to abandon the valuable right of being tried before a single tribunal. However, a different rule applies when the mistrial is induced by prosecutorial overreaching. What he’s saying here is that ordinarily the defense is recognizing that if they grant a mistrial in this puppy, we might have to do this whole thing again.

And they don’t want to do that. They want one trial, cause it’s a, it’s a tremendous burden to go through a trial. It’s really exhausting and emotionally just decimating for everybody involved, maybe except you know the judge, but it’s a lot. So a defendant rightfully saying right in the middle of trial, we’re going to have to go do this all again is a big deal. So that’s why he’s asking for, with prejudice so that it doesn’t have to come back the distinction between a dismissal, with prejudice and without prejudice, if it’s without prejudice, the government can try him again. They can just, okay, well that’s fine dismiss it. We’ll just indict them again and bring a case all over again. But if it’s with prejudice, they got their crack at the, at the, at the apple, no more opportunities you’re done. And that is appropriate to dismiss it with prejudice.

If the prosecutors did something to contribute to the mistrial, the reason why this is so important is because you don’t want to give a prosecutor the opportunity when they are losing a case. When they’re sort of sitting there at the, at closing arguments and they’re going, man, this went really bad. I think we’re about to lose. You don’t want to give them the opportunity to go in and wreck the trial cause a mistrial so that they don’t get an acquittal. If there’s an acquittal, they’re done, they lose. If it’s a mistrial, they get another crack at bat. So if a prosecutor is going to use that tactic to deliberately ruin the trial, you can punish them by precluding them from bringing the case back at all. And that’s what they’re asking for here says that if, if the court were to do this, we got to prove a couple things. The following elements are required in order to bar retrial of a defendant. One, the prosecutor’s action must be intentional in the sense of a culpable state of mind in the nature and awareness of his activity, that it would be prejudicial to the defendant. I mean, commenting on prior issues that have been previously sort of precluded like the CVS video, kind of a boneheaded. I mean, it’s, it’s basic rudimentary law. They discuss this. The judge said it’s not openly admitted.

It it’s, it’s sort of an open-ended question. You don’t just Ram that through that’s lunacy. The other issue is about commenting on somebody’s right to remain silent, even during post arrest and both of those things for a very experienced prosecutor, somebody that even the judge has said, you’ve been in my courtroom for a lot, a lot, a long time here, buddy. Does that maybe feel like it might be a culpable sense? A state of mind, is this just such a dumb prosecutor? He just doesn’t know any better. Oh yeah. The fifth amendment, the right to remain silent. The right that, that is enshrined in our constitution. Forgot about that. Probably not. So many people are speculating that he is trying to cause a Ms trial because he doesn’t want to lose. And in this case, maybe it’s justified to dump the case and not allow them to try again.

And number two, the prosecutor’s action was designed to either create a change to convict that is to provoke a mistrial in order to get a, another quote, kick at the cat because the first trial is going so badly or to prejudice the defendant’s right to successfully complete the trial at the confrontation at the first trial here, they make the argument that the prosecutor’s conduct was clearly intentional. He asked about post-arrest silence. The objection was sustained. Then he did it again. Moments later, prior to that, he was talking about the other acts evidence like that CVS video, shortly thereafter, they violated the court ruling on that one as well. The behavior by the state, he says was intentional. He knew that it would be prejudicial to the defendant and he had previously attempted to get the evidence admitted as a bad act. Okay. So it wasn’t an accident.

He wanted to get this in previously, we argued about this six months ago during the pretrial proceedings, he knew what he was doing. He knew all about that evidence. He wanted it in badly. And because the, because the judge didn’t issue a hard, no, he took it as a yes. And try to get that in there. That sort of implies that he knew what he was doing. Didn’t he, it wasn’t like this was, was evidence that nobody had talked about that he just found and said, I’m going to try to talk about this. And they say, oh, whoa, whoa, where’s this coming from? It wasn’t like that at all. He knew. And he’s one of the most experienced prosecutors, I would guess in that entire office. So do you buy that? Oh, just an accident, just an innocent little Thomas being her accident, as it relates to the drone footage, the motion continues.

The prosecution should be required to explain to the court why they did not copy the footage for their defendant with the same quality as their copy of the video footage has been at the center of this case. The idea that the state would provide lesser quality and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case. And it is the very reason that they requested and were granted the provocation, the instruction by the court, the failure to provide the same quality footage in this particular case is intentional. And it clearly prejudices the defendant, right? Cause they switched the entire strategy. At the end provocation. They found this new footage that landed by the evidence fairies right on their lap. And they had a pretty clear footage in the footage. They were going to dumb it down and give it to the defense and then call it provocation because the rest of the evidence was pretty bad.

So they turned around and said, oh well, we’re just going to make up the idea that Kyle’s pointing a gun that’s provocation that pops the self-defense balloon. There we go. We got them. Sounds like they might have a pretty strong motive now to continue down this line, the record under paragraph 17, this record, he says has bad faith on the part of the prosecutor. We know that because he intended to inform the court of his good faith basis for asking questions regarding the inadmissible evidence and was told, I don’t believe you by the judge himself. It is not a good faith basis for seeking admission of previously excluded evidence than it is bad. Faith. The court had made the statement that it does not believe the prosecutor’s statement. It is reasonable to conclude the court believes bad faith was involved. So those judges words are very important because those are now evidence on the record that the court thinks that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith.

Cory cheer feces takes that, throws it right into his motion and says, huh? Even the court says that the prosecutor has a culpable mind-state mindset. Doesn’t he paragraph 19 says further. The outcome of this case is in no way, a foregone conclusion for the state. Unlike the facts of another case, this is different testimony in this case had not gone very well for the prosecution in this case differently. From a prior case, gross Kreutz acknowledged that he was worried for the defendant’s safety when jump kicked, man hit him. When Huber was attacking him, gross crude stated that any anytime head trauma was involved, it was concerned. He assisted the defendant’s self-defense claim for kick for jump kick, man. And for Anthony Huber gross crew, it’s also testified that defendant did not fire at him until he advanced on the defendant with his gun, pointing at the defendant, thereby providing a reasonable basis for self-defense testimony by the medical examiner was also a problem for the state.

Kelly testified that Sue was on Rosenbaum’s hand state, repeatedly violated instructions from the court, acted in bad faith and provided technological evidence, which was different from theirs. Therefore, the defendant respectfully requests, the court find quote prosecutorial overreaching existed. That overreaching was intentional and in bad faith and thereby grant defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice signed off on here by Mark Richards and Corey cheer Uffizi, both from their respective law offices out of Kenosha, Wisconsin. So solid motion. I think that there’s a good basis for that. I think that regardless of the, the, the founding the foundation for this motion, the judge is not going to grant it. Now, the judge did, we’re going to get there in a minute. The judge did say that he was going to be demanding further inquiry on this issue. And so we’re not, we’re not quite there yet. I think that before we can jump to a concluding statement or, or position on what might happen with this, we’ve got to make sure that we get through the rest of what happened today in court.

And so now that we have this motion under our belts, now that we know what court your fiancee is alleging that they were engaged in prosecutorial overreaching in almost a deliberate attempt to cause a mistrial. They submit the motion. Judge says, oh, Mr. Krauss, by the way, did you see that emotion? Because it’s kind of saying a lot of bad things about you and your office. So would you like to respond to that? And here we have a full three minutes of Crouse. Now, look, I want to play the whole thing. I know we’re going to get a lot of Crouse here in this next segment, but, uh, I want you to pay attention to how he sort of meandering round through a bunch of different points on this thing. Uh, this is not a good look for the prosecutors in this case. And then he tries to sort of finish it off with a joke like, oh, I’m just a big dummy. If I knew anything about, uh, compressing videos, if I knew anything about this technology stuff, oh, I wouldn’t even be a prosecutor because prosecutors are just a bunch of dummies. What do we know about technology, which is, uh, a major cop out this, this is a distant, it’s not, it’s not appropriate at all. I mean, if you screwed up, you know, own it, but he’s not doing that here. Full excuse Bonanza of Crouse. Here’s what that sounded like

We are. Now, if I, if, if I can respond at least to that portion of the motion to dismiss it’s it’s, it’s factually inaccurate. So I, let me go back to the first Friday of trial. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Lukowski was testifying in the middle of his testimony. I got a notification that there was someone at our office who was refusing to give his name with a drone video. This drone video was shown on news a couple days after the incident. It apparently was on the internet briefly and then taken down, uh, the defendant’s first attorney, Mr. Pierce appeared on the Tucker Carlson show and discuss the video and seemingly brought the video. The we’ve been told since then by the person who, the footage that they’ve sold the video to Fox news. Now we have had this, we’ve had a poor quality of this video the entire time. It’s actually in exhibit 41, which the defense submitted. Okay, he’s going to put upon that Friday, the individual who took the footage, who we were had been unable to find came, and airdropped the footage to detective Howard. They’re dropping is a way that it just goes from phone to phone and it doesn’t go through text messages or email. It has to be iPhone to iPhone.

So in the middle of Mr [inaudible] testimony, I asked Mr. Howard to go and our investigator to go speak with this individual, to see what he had. I suspected it was this video from the Tucker Carlson show. It was such of Howard got a airdropped copy. He brought it into court as soon as the next break happened, which I believe was just minutes after he arrived. I, as soon as the next break occurred, which I believe was just minutes after detective Howard arrived, I took all three defense attorneys in the back to discuss a couple of issues, which are not relevant. And I also indicated that we now had a much better quality drone video. Detective Howard asked them how they would like to receive it. Ms. Wisco asked that if he emailed to her. He emailed her the file now, somewhere along the lines, whether it was, uh, it, it, it appears the issue is I believe Ms. Wisco could not have an airdrop because she has an Android phone going from an iPhone to a Android. It appears somehow compress the file of

Their watch that at everybody.

I didn’t, we did not know that this would occur. If I, if I knew how to compress files and knew all this technology things I’d have a much better job.

Okay. So, uh, cross there just sorts, uh, starts off by telling us that he’s pretty, he’s pretty certain, you know, that there’s an airdrop that happened once again, the magic, uh, you know, evidenced fairies just showed up here. Uh, you’re in the middle of trial, we have a much higher quality drone footage. Here you go. So he’s able to get high quality from his airdrop, but then sends it over in an email. He knows how to do that. He knows how to get an airdrop they’re competent with that knows how to email a files competent with that knows the difference between, uh, iPhones and Androids and all these video files, uh, was competent enough to, you know, build a case where they were cross-examining video evidence, uh, expert witnesses from the defense was competent enough to review a number of different exhibits all over the place, all got submitted.

But when the judge asks him about discovery files, now discovery files in a criminal case, a dumb, dumb over here has no idea how it works. I don’t know how long he’s been a prosecutor for, but, uh, we do, we get video files all the time. There’s a process for it. We just get video files and on body camera footages, uh, dash cam footage, security footage, victim, uh, video recordings, you know, from, from incidents, we get all of it and prosecutors know how this stuff, he knows how this works. He knows that he’s not a big, dumb, dumb, and that if he knew this better, he’d have a better job.

We’re dealing with some pretty important issues here, there, James talking about Kyle Rittenhouse in a couple of decades in prison there, buddy, you might want to figure it out this compression stuff. Okay. So absolutely infuriating. And in addition to that, it sounds like he’s just a liar. So we can also take a look at this person named a vaccine, FVA X I N E over on Twitter. It says that he took this screenshot from PBS news hour. Prosecutors reveal, video editing software called handbrake while presenting faulty drone video footage to the court. And so when he, they were actually sharing their screen, presenting this evidence to the court, you can see handbrake is actually installed. Now I’ve actually used handbrake. I know that this is video editing software and you can see, it looks just like that. It says handbrake right there, uh, this PC right on the desktop.

And you’ve got a handbrake. There it is. And it is video editing software. Okay. It’s video conversion software. Uh, I used to, I used to try to use it when I was first doing YouTube videos. I was recording on your cell phone and your cell phone or a web cam is going to record in variable frame rate. And if you want to do editing, you got to convert it to constant frame rape frame rate. And, um, handbrake is a nice tool to use for that. You’ll also notice that there’s a different piece of software here called format factory. Oh, which is very neat. So you can actually format one video into another video handbrake. You’d also use, let’s say you have this really ultra high-def 4k video file, and you want to split it, you know, shrink that puppy down into a regular 10 80 P you don’t want a 50 gigabyte file.

You’d rather have a gigabyte. And so you want to shrink that puppy down. You’re going to lose resolution. You’re going to lose quality, but you’re going to have a more portable file. Something that’s a little bit more easier to use, and you can put a bunch of ’em on your iPad or whatever that’s maybe why you would use it. And so it’s actually on their computer. Okay? PBS news hour, you can see eight hours, 13 minutes, 17 seconds into this thing. They show their desktop computer handbrake is installed along with format factory. Here’s a closer up image of that. And so, uh, if they, if, uh, if dumb, dumb Krauss doesn’t know anything about video codecs or encoding, otherwise he could get a better job. Well, why do they have to video and the coding pieces of software on their computer right in the middle of a trial.

Isn’t that convenient? Very interesting. And so here is actually a screenshot from the Wikipedia website, and you can see that the icon kind of looks similar. Doesn’t it? We got the greens and we’ve got, we got sort of the green and the, and the, uh, the pineapple over here and the martini glass or whatever that is over here on the left handbrake it’s handbrake. They were encoding video software. Now don’t know who did it. Don’t know what happened there, but here is yet again, Kraus, just, just going off. Now, this guy, he was doing this tactic all day to day, and he’s done this a lot. Anytime he’s sort of in a bind, he just talks. He just goes off and I’m not kidding folks. He went off for like 15 minutes a the day. I, uh, I was almost getting irritated, listening to the guy cause he just kept going.

And it’s a lot of the same points over and over and over again. It’s all filler talk. A lot of the same stuff that Thomas binger was doing. Anytime they get into a binder, sort of backed into a corner, they just start talking at the judge. And this is, has been pretty effective for them because it’s sort of like a war of attrition. The judge just finally goes, all right, enough already. I’m tired of listening to you. We’re going to admit the photos. We’re going to admit the videos in. And he just, uh, just keeps going and going and going. And they just beat the judge down until he finally agrees. Here is more of that from court today.

So this file was given to us. We gave what we fully believed was the full file to Ms. Wisco. It was admitted to evidence. It was the, the office authenticity was stipulated to it came in without objection. We’ve heard many times this trial, how there is no objection blaming the

Defense. It was an

Exhibit for four days and played and, and shown to the jury and on the screen for four days. And then on Friday is when I think we all discovered that something had happened to Ms. Wisco, his file. She played it on the big screen. It clearly looked different than the copy we all had. Um, I believe we offered to airdrop it to the other attorneys and I think it was declined because they didn’t know how to use airdrop. And then we got her the full copy. We can not be held responsible for the software on Ms. Wisco, his phone. Um, it was, we, we didn’t compress anything. We didn’t change anything. That would have been something that happened in the transfer that we had no knowledge of. We have, we of course did not mean to give them a different copy. And until Friday when Ms. Wisco played it and it looked different than what we’ve been looking at, we had no idea it was any different. And then when requested, um, I gave her, so what I did is I truck an email from detective Howard. He emailed me the file. It was not compressed. I don’t know, cause it’s probably cause it’s apple to apple. Or I was told me

All the time emails don’t automatically give, get

The full. As far as we know, the only, the only copy of the video we were ever given the only copy that’s ever been had. And then I put it on a thumb drive to give the state crime lab. So I cannot explain why.

So I cannot explain we’re going to get to that in the next clip, but did you see what he was doing? So he’s trying to sort of say, look, once the evidence is in, it’s in, I don’t care about any of that. And he might have a point, some judges might say, yeah, look, I mean, look, if you wanted to object to this evidence coming in, you had the opportunities to do that. You didn’t do that. It was an exhibit for four days is what Krauss is saying. The authenticity was stipulated to, by the defense. The jury saw it. You’re out of luck, sorry, game over. It’s already in, it’s admitted. There are judges out there that would say, well, that’s a good point. You know, why didn’t you verify this? Or, or, or, or double check it. Now the problem here of course is the malfeasance that is being alleged by the government, that they actually had a better copy that they didn’t disclose in the first place.

And that sort of implies some mal-intent. So it’s not just, you know, a regular oversight with evidence. If it was just a regular oversight, if this just was a thing that wasn’t even a big deal, they might just say, well, it looks, you know, we can let it in. Sorry, you shouldn’t shouldn’t have objected. But here, what they’re saying is, you know, it’s a, it’s a, it’s a last minute disclosure. It is being admitted at two entirely different resolutions. And they only found this out at the last minute after the close of evidence. So, you know, that’s a whole different sort of ballgame as we can see, James Crouse of course is just backpedaling. Uh, you know, and in emails, if you, if you transfer files, there can be problems with that. Except I got an email from detective Howard and when I got it, it didn’t, uh, compress the file at all, but that’s probably because it was, uh, an apple email to an apple email, but I’m just a big dummy, I don’t know anything about this. That’s why I’m a dumb prosecutor, probably getting paid, you know, six figures. That’s all I that’s all I know. So, um, he blames the defense. It’s your fault. Can’t be responsible for anything that happens on your computer here is more Kraus.

So this file was given to us. We gave what we fully believed was the full file to Ms. Wisco. It was admitted to evidence. It was the, the office authenticity was stipulated to it came in without objection. You’ve heard many times this trial, how there is no objection, it wasn’t exhibit for four days and played and, and shown to the jury and on the screen for four days. And then on Friday is when I think we all discovered that something had happened to Ms. Wisco, his file. She played on the big screen. It clearly looked different than the copy we all had. Um, I believe we offered to airdrop it to the other attorneys and I think it was declined because they didn’t know how to use airdrop. And then we got her the full copy. We can not be held responsible for the software on Ms.

Wisco, his phone. Um, it was, we, we didn’t compress anything. We didn’t change anything that would have been something that happened in the transfer that we had no knowledge of. We have, we of course did not mean to give them a different copy. And until Friday when Ms. Wisco played it and it looked different than what we’ve been looking at, we had no idea it was any different. And then when requested, um, I gave her, so what I did is I took an email from detective Howard. He emailed me the file. It was not compressed. I don’t know, cause probably because it’s apple to apple or I was using Gmail at the time. It was the full, as far as we know, the only, the only copy of the video we were ever given the only copy that’s ever been had. And then I put it on a thumb drive to give the state crime lab. So I cannot explain why.

All right. So I think I played that clips twice. I apologize. So here is, here is a hidden.

So to somehow now accuse us of compressing a file and somehow being able to do this technical wizardry to somehow

Technical wizardry, basic

Sabotage, the defense is preposterous. The defense saw this video and thought highly enough of it. Did they went and bought a large television that is now being used in court because they wanted to show it. And now all of a sudden to come back and say, well, we had a bad copy. They could have checked. They could have asked for a thumb-drive. They could have asked for whatever, as far as we knew until we had this hearing on Friday, everyone had the exact same copy and that Ms. Wescos, uh, phone compressed it is, is not our problem. It’s not a problem. We’re not responsible

For that. We’re not responsible for it. So he just keeps going, man. And that was, uh, you know, I double played a clip in there, apologies on that one. But he, he went, he just kept going all afternoon. I think I was going to put another one of his segments in there and I just copied it. But, uh, he keeps going. He’s now being accused of not being a technical wizard. You know, it’s, again, it’s basic disclosure that exists in a criminal case, pretty important stuff. Uh, we have all sorts of procedures that courts are, I’ll make you log in, verify you downloaded it. It’s receded the discovery, all that stuff. And so, uh, not his problem though, you know, kind of up to them, pretty important evidence, but we can’t be held responsible for any of that. And the defense bought a TV anyways and, they shouldn’t use their TV.

If they’re going to be in there, if they’re going to haul this TV in the courtroom, well, we better use it. So judge, uh, consider that as well. Those are expensive. So, all right, so we get that from the judge and from Mr. Kraus. Now I want to show you the actual compare and contrast. So this person here, somebody named a Appalachian four doors, more whores commando, actual fixer, over on Twitter, first place. I saw this. I’m not sure if he created it or not, but it’s the first place that I did see it. And oh, you can see here on top, we’ve got two videos that we’re going to watch side by side. And, uh, we we’ve got the video provided to the defense. So this is four 80 by 2 12, 3 0.6 megabytes. And it’s a three by three zoom and take a look at just this photo. Okay. This has done with no algorithms, according to this image, no algorithms. And you can see, uh, basically nothing in there, right? 3.6 mega bytes. So this was handed over to the defense, uh, on the bottom. Now we have the prosecution’s copy, three zoom, and I want to take a quick look at something on, uh, the slides before we play that. But you can see obviously just, you know, right there, uh, entirely different. Both of those images are really not even close. So hang on one second while we’re taking a look at that.

Yeah. So I’m going to just make a quick adjustment on my slides. Okay. So I think we can play this. So, so I just want to make a quick adjustment just to make sure that we’re not going to get in trouble with YouTube on any of this stuff, because I forgot to do that earlier. Yeah. And so we can get a quick snapshot on this. Okay. So let’s play this so you can see just a quick, a quick snippet of how this looks now there’s no audio, but you can see some of the movement let’s play that one more time. I wanted to cut it off before the shooting actually takes place. But you can see that there’s sort of a figure here that looks like Rittenhouse. This looks like Rittenhouse. Let’s play that one more time.

Yeah. So that’s written house down here. That’s Rosenbalm right here. And again, you can sort of see that blurred out and blurt out there. So absolute total differences, no logarithms, no logarithms on here. Totally different. Right? Not even, not even close 1920 by 8 44, 11 0.2 megabytes versus four 80 by 2, 12, 3 0.6 megabytes. And so obviously that’s a problem for the defense. If you’re getting bad evidence that you can’t review, you can’t properly prepare a defense because you don’t know what the government has. You don’t know how to rebut it. It’s pretty, pretty important. It’s why we look at everything. Now, here is miss Wisco, who is with the defense explaining her version of this. She’s talking about the email that she got was actually only for Mila bytes megabytes. Here’s what she said today.

Um, on November 5th, 2021, um, I received at 10:33 AM an email from detective Martin Howard with one video file attached. It was a four Miller byte video that was titled, I am G underscore 0 1 5, 9 dot M O V. I have never looked at that video on my cell phone. As soon as I received that video via email, I downloaded it to this laptop, which is the evidentiary laptop we’ve been using through the duration of this trial. This is a Lenovo and, um, Lenovo, I relabeled it after it had been brought into evidence by the state as exhibit 73, because it was exhibit 73 for ease for bringing it up, showing it to the jury. After we found out in Friday that there was this discrepancy after the video is being shown. And for the record, we did not buy that TV because of this drone video. We actually brought it in for, um, John Black’s slowed down testimony.

That was the reason we brought this TV in. However, um, when we were in court, I played the exhibit 73 on my computer because the state’s computer wasn’t here, ADA Krauss was the one who brought up the fact this isn’t the good quality video we didn’t realize until playing them side by side mine. And then the states that there was any difference in quality. That was Friday after Friday happened. I emailed both binger and per ADA Kraus. And I asked for an exact forensic copy of what they had given to the state crime lab. ADA Kraus responded back to me, forwarded me the email he’s talking about to detective Howard. And that also contained one file Lambdas IMG underscore 0 1 5 nine.mov. That was a four a byte megabyte file. Simultaneously 88 binger had been in contact with me, told me I could come pick up the file from a flash drive. I drove here. I had him take me inside. And I confirmed that this file that he said was directly provided to the state crime lab was an 11 Mila byte file. Megabyte file. Not four. So the information contained in the flash drive has, was over double the size almost three times the size as to what was emailed to me.

Oh, interesting. So we’ve got a lot of emails going back and forth. Sounds like even the very email from detective Howard that went over to Ms. Wisco was also for Miller bites. So we’ve got a serious shortage of Miller bites on the hard drives over there. And so, you know, something’s missing folks and they’re having this conversation back and forth about who did what, and when now James Crouse, the prosecutor, he is certainly talking a lot. And you remember when you were a young man or woman that when you got in trouble with your parents, you oftentimes try to spin a wild yarn to get on out of that one. And I think we can see more of that happening. Now, another picture here of something that we talked about previously, but, uh, claims here that I saw this on Twitter claim, Rittenhouse prosecutor, ADA, James Krauss has no idea how his team sent the defense lower quality video evidence, reality, Crouse house, video editing, and compression software called handbrake and format factory right here on his evidentiary laptop.

So it’s sort of, it’s like Atkins razor, right? The simplest explanation is probably the right one. Very weird. How will all this stuff happened that detective Howard sends a compressed file. Uh, we have now Crouse sends a compressed file. We have compression software on the computer, but for some reason the full file goes somewhere else shows up a little bit later. Very interesting, very interesting. One of the key prosecutors who of course is in charge of the case might have, have a say in where some of the evidence goes has more to say about this. He is going to give us a little bit of an explanation for how this might’ve happened and pay very close attention to Mr. Thomas binger over here, start shaking his head. Don’t don’t bring me into this here, James,

Because the file that went to the state crime lab, I was told to read you the state crime lab. I was already home on Saturday. I did not have access to anything, but my computer, I had detective Howard email it to me and I put it on a thumb drive at home and I took it to the crime lab. The, I don’t know if Mr. Binger somehow retitled it, but the image I gave the crime lab is on my phone as the title that she indicated that was the one that went to the crime lab. And I will testify that the officer of the court, I take offense that what I am saying is untrue. Clearly,

We’re going to, obviously we’re going to have to take this testimony under oath, and we’re going to have to get somebody to explain all this who has some competence, which, um,

All right, let’s watch that one more time. Watch binger space

To the say crime lab. I was told to reach the state crime lab. I was already home on Saturday. I did not have access to anything, but my computer, I had detective Howard email it to me, watch banger, and I put it on a thumb drive at home and I took it to the crime lab. What

About bigger?

The, I don’t know if Mr. Bigger somehow retitled it, but the image I gave the title I did. It is all in my phone. Yeah.

Hell no. I didn’t know nobody. I didn’t relabel anything there, James. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Uh, certainly wasn’t me though. And so we go back over to Ms. Wisco and she says, uh, judge, look also, it wasn’t an email problem. Okay. He didn’t accidentally hit the wrong button on his iPhone. When he was sending this across his Gmail account, the titles changed. It was, uh, it was a different file. They didn’t disclose to us the file that, that they wanted to use. Here’s what she said.

And the report from the state crime lab to indicate the originating file that they received was the one with the expanded title that we did not receive until Saturday. If it had been the same file as ADA Krauss says, it is why wasn’t that labeled on their receipt as being IMG 0 5 9 1 5 9. Some if that does not add up, Why did you put in his report a different title?

I’m looking at the email. It is image 0 1 5, nine.mov. When it’s downloaded to a computer, perhaps it has a different title on my phone and I’ll wait to meal. That is the image I’m watching the video right now. This is the precise one that was given to the state crime lab. I had no other access at this point. Now the first time this was ever put in any kind of hard drive is when I did it Saturday at my home. And, um, I’ll do a little experiment here. I’ll no th see what my computer and see if the title changes, but no,

No, he’s not going to download the file on his computer and see if it magically changes in the middle of an open court session. Does he think that everybody in this courtroom is a bunch of dummies? I mean, good Lord. Has he saved a video file before? It just magically changes into, um, uh, November one dash 16 dash 2021. Uh, prosecutors manipulated compressed evidence sent to Mark Richards so we can label it appropriately. Um, illegally compressed, hidden evidence file renamed before emailing to Mark Richards is how he’s labeling all of his documents in his file now, apparently. And, uh, we have Ms. Wisco who noticed it, the, the, the expanded titles, uh, changed a little bit. So that is what happened with Kraus explaining all of that away. And then the judge is ultimately saying, look, we’re not gonna be able to resolve this right now. We’re going to need expert testimony. And we’re going to get down to the facts to the bottom of this. Here’s what happened,

You know, why we can’t resolve this now, because this is going to require expert testimony from, uh, from, uh, people. And we’re going to have to take testimony, testimony under oath as what the facts are. And, um, so that, that I reiterate my comment, which started this discussion, which was that given the, the, uh, cloudy picture about, um, this particular exhibit. Yeah, this is your, this is a high risk strategy for the state. I was queasy about this from the beginning, and I’m only wesier about it now. Um,

[inaudible]

Lot of thinking about this. All right. So we got a lot of that from the judge today. And, uh, th the trial continues. We’re still talking about this issue. Mark Richards now comes back out and he’s explaining some of the problems with the first video. As I mentioned, the law and crime stream today, actually most of the streams were pretty bad this afternoon, that, that I was watching. And so here is, uh, before we move on here as Mark Richards explaining really what the crux of the problem is with that video. Here’s what he said.

Pierce was my client’s attorney is Mr. Cross said, Tucker Carlson purchased that video. That video is very different from the video that was delivered here in quality color. There, we stipulated to the video based upon what they gave us. We didn’t see it as anything different. We were,

I want to stop you now because why do you say that? The one that Mr. Carlson bought Tucker Carlson bought is different from black and white. Ah, that was okay. Go ahead.

We stipulated to that video. When we looked at our copy, cause it didn’t add anything except color. We didn’t have the quality and that’s where this whole problem starts. And we didn’t, weren’t aware of the quality until after the evidence had closed on Friday when we were here and it was plugged in as miss Wisco was saying, that’s when we found out there was a problem, what had been given to us versus what they have, that’s when the whole problem comes up. So that says to that video.

Yeah. So maybe they’re looking at it, you know, they’re there, all this evidence is, is going to go in front of the jurors, but the defense team is looking at it. And they’re saying, we’re looking at the same evidence they disclose to us. You can’t see anything in here. It looks like a big blob of white and black pixels. So there’s nothing in here. So yeah. Do whatever you want, submit whatever you want to the jurors. Meanwhile, the prosecution has like ultra high grainy photos that their fake algorithm, logarithm or whatever they say is now, uh, showing whatever the state purports it to show. They found that one freeze frame with their manipulated, you know, evidence, according to the defense, this is their argument that is now going to be available to the jurors judge. And they’re going to see something that we didn’t prepare a defense for.

If we had known that this showed something differently, we would have, we would have reframed our entire argument. Maybe we wouldn’t have had Kyle Rittenhouse testify because we wouldn’t have thought that provocation was a legitimate strategy. Now we see different footage. We see what they’re talking about. Maybe we would change our whole strategy, but we didn’t know because they didn’t disclose it properly, not timely. And they did. So after the close of evidence, and that is inappropriate in a criminal case, which is why that stuff should not be shown. That should be the sanction for this late disclosure. And for this incomplete disclosure disclosing a video file that is subpar resolution that doesn’t show the full story. The penalty for that oversight is dismissal. But in my opinion, it should be something like that, right? A sanction so hard that you got to throw the case out. Now the judge is highly unlikely to do that, uh, because we’re so far along in this thing, and we’re going to hear from Mr. Kraus, who is now going to try to sort of make a deal. It’s going to try to negotiate. Well, look, if we can compromise on this, maybe we can sort it out. Here’s what he said.

And I’ll just say it. Cause it’s, um, FBI, Ariel with all POI marked that when we’re going over this list, it’s come to my attention. I played that for the jury. It never got marked or moved in, even though it’s been played. So watch big kidding me. I am not kidding you. That’s what I think would be the proper way to do it.

Yeah. If, uh, if the defense agrees that all the drover does go back, we will agree that

Can I run a compromise? This isn’t let’s make a deal here.

Well, they did not mark the evidence. They did not move

It

When it was played to the jury.

Yes. And not marked or moved.

I thought it was part of the hard drive, but because everything was going in

And I thought we gave them a full copy of the video.

Oh,

Well, I’m going to reopen the evidence and admit what they saw. Give it the next sequential number. Um, well, how can I help you?

Okay. So you can see what’s happening here. So Mark Richards comes back out, says during our evidence, during our production, we actually showed the jury some evidence, but we didn’t formally, you know, move it in as an exhibit. So we showed it to them. We didn’t say, you know, lay the foundation or everything. They probably did lay the foundation before they showed the jury, whatever he’s talking about. But then he failed to formally move it into evidence as an exhibit so that the jury can actually go and take a look at it and, and make it a part of all of these other videos that we’re talking about saying we just forgot to do that. Uh, the jurors saw it all. Sorry, judge, what should we do about this? And the judge says, well, can we open up evidence again and just kind of throw it back in there and Mark Richards, this is his style.

He’s like, well, I think that’s what we should do. You know, it’s kind of a, sort of a looser with the rules says, judge, you know, I think that this is going to be most equitable. We’ve already played it for them already. They’ve already seen it. And so the fact that it’s not an evidence, it’s just a technicality. So yes, judge, I think you should just open it up, let them see it. They’ve already seen it. Then we go over to Crouse. Now he’s being Mr. Stingy prosecutor in this mode. Now he wants a lot of leeway and understanding when his side makes a mistake. But here he’s saying, well, judge, you know, they didn’t move it into evidence. They didn’t move it in as an exhibit. They didn’t publish it. Therefore it should be precluded under the rules. And a lot of judges out there would say, you’re right.

You didn’t follow the rules. You’re you’re, you’re done. But this is a different courtroom. So Mark Richards is playing by different standards and the judge agrees with him. He’s an equitable judge. So he’s going to say, I’m not going to let the jurors not see an exhibit that they already saw in the middle of a trial. So it’s coming in. But then Krauss says, uh, in response to Richard saying, well, we thought it was part of this, this other package of the hard drive. That’s why we didn’t formally move it in as an, as an exhibit, we already thought it was just going to be sort of, uh, carried in, grandfathered in and Krauss says, oh, well, if you had a misunderstanding about your exhibits, I had a misunderstanding about the video file that we disclosed to you that contained the drone footage. So I guess one thing is sort of like the other.

If we’re going to let your exhibit come in, well, then I should get a credit for, uh, failing to disclose important criminal evidence. In a case you screwed up. I screwed up. Therefore we’re both even can we just call it that judge? Or in other words put another way. He also wants a negotiation about what evidence should be admitted and how it should be reviewed. So if we’re gonna allow that exhibit to come in from the defense that they forgot to get admitted, then we’re also going to agree. We’ll allow that to happen as long as you allow our drone video in, right? So it’s sort of, you know, give and take. They’re trying to negotiate a deal. Judge is not going to have that. Of course. So then we finally get to the solution. The judge ultimately says that the jury can do whatever they want with the videos. They can put it on a laptop, they can play it at however many times they want, and we have this clip at one and a half speed just to speed things up here. It is.

I said, well, let’s just get a computer that has nothing else on it. Or that is everybody feels it’s sufficiently sanitary. Uh, and let’s put these exhibits on a flash drive or download them out of the computer or whatever, and then send it back upstairs, let them do it just like they would, if they were paid for exhibits and they can play it and discuss it as much as they want. Now I’m talking right now only about question number four, because there’s other issues with respect to question number five. And unfortunately they’re not here yet because they haven’t requested it. But, um, this would be a departure from, uh, the Anderson case, for sure. Not that would not be incompatible with what I did in the flip case. Uh, plaintiff who’s okay with that based on what you said. So we’re not leaving anything on five. You’re not getting anything on five then that’s okay for, for,

Okay. Okay. So they agreed to that for question four, number five is going to be the drone footage. And so we’re going to get a lot more about that. Now we’re also going to hear about a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, which means that the government could refile the case at a later date. But before we do judge Schrader, just pauses for a quick moment, says, Hey Kyle, you doing okay over there? I know this is kind of a mess. You all right?

Okay. So we’re all on board with that. Mr. Is, you know, what’s happening here? Yes, sir. Any question about it at all? The problem with this? Okay.

Kyle sitting there just in good spirits, just letting his attorneys do the thing. So a nice of the judge to check in with him and see how he’s doing. And so in our final segment, then we’ve got Corey cheer, FEC. This kind of caught a lot of people by surprise. We already talked about the motion to dismiss with prejudice that was filed over the weekend. We saw what the basis of that motion was the long and short of it, that the government, in this case, both prosecutors disclosed evidence to the defense. That was not the original evidence. It was actually significantly reduced in terms of its resolution. And you couldn’t see what you could see on the government’s evidence. And so now we already had some arguments, some oral arguments about the motion to dismiss with prejudice, which would mean that the government can not bring the charges back against Kyle Rittenhouse in this renewed motion. Cory, cheer feces saying, judge, listen. Now I want a motion to dismiss. Even without prejudice. I want you to just throw this case out here is his argument today in court

During the break. And did the reality of it is one of the main portions of the video. The thing that you watched, however many times you watched it on a, on a video that we, we had the video, not the clarity and not the quality. I think that’s been conceded that we didn’t, we would, we were talking about, we would have done this case in a little bit different manner. If that was the situation where we didn’t have specific, I don’t want to say we didn’t have the, because I don’t think that’s a fair way to say it, but we didn’t have the quality of evidence that the state had until the case had been closed.

Okay. So been rested

And we were going to open our closings on Monday, we’ve talked to Mr. Rittenhouse and I’m, I’m going to be asking the court for a mistrial based upon the fact that if we’re really trying to get to the heart of it and we’ve watched the video, I can tell you what we think, but it doesn’t matter what we think because we don’t get to present that to the jury anymore. And I think if we’re going to try to do this in a way that is free from anybody hiding anything, anybody not having the same evidence as everybody else has, uh, where it is clearly a level fair playing field. We have to ask for this. Um, and I’m asking for it. We understand that it’s going to be without prejudice. We understand that the state can redo this case. If the court grants it, we understand they will do it again. But then I think we will all have the same information, the same quality of videos. And I think that is required in a case like this, where he’s looking at a life sentence potentially without parole, if he’s convicted, um, and to not get that until the evidence has already been closed. Yeah. That doesn’t strike me as fair.

Yeah. Because it’s not. Yeah. Because if, if you want to prepare a thorough defense, you have to know what the evidence is against you. It’s not fair if they can spring this up at the last minute and it can change the entire strategy of their case as it kind of did. I mean, they kind of came out with this provocation theory at the last minute as Mark Richards had talked about now, you know, not to toot my own horn here, but beep beep I was talking about that a long time ago saying that Rittenhouse the, the, the best theory to pop the self defense bubble was provocation. And you know, so it’s sort of should have been something that was highly foreseeable, but it’s still not their fault. That at the last minute in the middle of a trial magical video, evidence pops up and then it is still something that is inappropriately disclosed because it’s not the same video file.

It’s lunacy. I think that Corey [inaudible] absolutely has a strong basis for this motion. I don’t think the judge is going to grant it because we’re too far along in this thing and he’s going to want to give it over to the jurors. When I heard this was happening, I also got a little bit nervous thinking that Corey chiro FEC and the defense may think that their case is actually weaker than, than they had hoped, which is why the jury is taking so long, which is why they’re asking all these questions and reviewing all these videos while they want to see everything. Because they’re thinking about it actually going back or know they want to have a much more serious conversation. And so now Corey cheer, FEC comes out and says, listen, I was really hoping to have a motion to dismiss with prejudice. So this thing would not come back.

I submitted that over the weekend, but now that we’re getting all these questions coming out from the jurors, now I’m a little bit concerned about this thing. So I’ll tell you what, judge will even take a motion to dismiss without prejudice. We know we’re going to have to do it all again, but we’re willing to do it because the alternative, if the jurors come back and have a conviction on any of the remaining counts, that is not good. So maybe this is sort of a last minute audible because they may be wanting a do over again now because the jury is taking so long, they’ve come to the conclusion that look, we’ll take it. We’ll take a dismissal here. Maybe next time we don’t have Kyle testify or, or they, they approach the strategy differently. Now that they’ve got this new evidence and it’s justified. So the judge now carries on and the judge is talking about sort of bifurcating this issue out, talking about the drone video itself, being precluded, but the rest of the case can move forward, which is not really what Corey [inaudible] was asking. Corey, wasn’t asking for, uh, you know, just precluding the drone footage. He’s saying, I want this whole case dumped, but the judge is sort of going to get some clarity in a conversation with Kraus here in this clip.

So for those reasons I’m making that request,

All right, I’m not going to infect yet because the jury is requested to see number five. And I I’ll, if, if it’ll still have to be addressed because the jury saw it here in the courtroom, but

I’m sorry, judge. But if I understand tourney trustees requests, this is emotion regardless of what the jury is requesting. I think we’re making that request because it’s been shown it’s been pointed out. And in fact, we, we didn’t have access and I’m I’m at this point, I don’t think me pointing fingers and doing that is going to be the end all be all. I think what it is, is I can tell you, and I think the state can tell you, we got a compressed version, which was not of the quality that they had. We learned that Friday after the evidence had been closed. We learned that when we tried to play the video for your honor, and the state asked that there AB person be brought over to play their video, which was a higher quality. If this is a disorderly conduct or something, I get talking about a potential life sentence here. So I’m making that request.

Okay. So again, they’re talking about a complete dismissal. The judge was sort of trying to separate this out a little bit, say, well, we’re just gonna we’ll deal with this issue. When the jury comes back and talks about video number five, this drone video issue. And Corey’s saying, nah, I mean, we it’s, it’s kind of done. We want a motion on this right now. And the judge says, well, I’m not even going to ask for the state for response yet because it’s not right. We haven’t heard from the jurors yet. Cheer FEC says we don’t need to hear from the jurors. I want it to Smith’s now. And the judge says, we’re going to go ahead and wait.

Uh, and again, I’m going to say that it has to be addressed if there is a, if there’s a guilty verdict on any degree, uh, that counts, I believe in perhaps on the others too. I don’t know. It all depend on a number of factors. Then the motion will have to be addressed, but it doesn’t seem to have that urgency right now until the jury. If, and when the jury asked for number five, um, if that doesn’t change the fact that they’re, they’re making the motion or that it could affect the, uh, the case as a whole, but I’m not going to invite your response. So until I know whether the jury wants number know number facts, does that make sense?

No, not, not really. And all of the attorneys, nobody responded after that. They’re all like, not really doesn’t make that much sense. We would like an answer on it, you know, because it might be moot if you grant the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Well, the jury can stop deliberating because the case has been dismissed. You don’t have to wait for them to ask for a certain piece of evidence before you determine whether or not the prosecution here was unethical and disingenuous. It’s irrelevant. The jury, his opinion on any of that is not pertinent to the decision before the courts about whether they intentionally try to throw the trial so that they could get another crack at the case. So we have another Meyer. Uh, now once again, Krauss is just popping off at the mouth. He does a lot of that all day today, just talking, talking, talking here he is

Phone or my laptop or the defense’s phone or laptop is of no matter what matter is the, is the exhibit. And that exhibit was played. It was not objected to the authenticity was stipulated to, and the defense I understand they didn’t realize until Friday watch this exhibit. They watched it on a television, set a few feet from them. They watched it. They could have watched it on the monitors here.

Yeah. So it’s their

Fault. That is what matters. That is what the jury sees. That is what they have seen.

Okay. So he’s blaming them. It’s their fault that he, you know, maybe illegally disclose or, or, you know, unethically disclosed is a better term, incomplete evidence. And then tried to pass that off. Now, here he is saying, look, the defense already incorporated it into their exhibit. And they tried to find it themselves. And also it was a technological glitch, which is what really, this was, oh, I mean, it’s not a glitch because if there are technological glitches with our evidence, while that means that our evidence is any good and that might cause some reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. So cross says, it’s a technical glitch. It’s not a glitch. What I meant is it worked exactly the way that we wanted it to just in a way that we did not expect, listen to this guy here he is

Defense exhibit 41 has this video in it. So to pretend that some other surprised, or they didn’t know about this video, they’ve tried to find it just as we did. We found it. And there was a technological glitch or not a glitch, but I guess a whoops, it worked in a way that is designed that we were not aware of and

Yeah. Designed in a way that we’re not aware of and the audio cuts out. So that now, now it just, uh, uh, finished the clip. So it’s definitely not a glitch. It’s just, uh, it was working exactly the way we, that it’s supposed to. We just didn’t know it did that thing that it does that it does. So, uh, so here’s Corey cheer, FEC. Now we’re wrapping up, uh, closer to the end of the day to day. Cory cheer, feces talking about a judge. Listen, I can’t object to something. If I don’t know what it is, I can’t build a defense if I don’t see it. It’s like, if you got charged with a DUI DUI and they said, um, well, we tested your blood and we know what’s in it. And, uh, we, it, what’s in, it is what we say, what’s in it.

And we say, well, we’d like to retest that. We’d like to, you know, analyze it ourselves, take a second. Look at that. And they say, well, no, you can’t, you can’t see that. It’d be very difficult to build a defense around that. Or if they said you can only see a reduced portion, a tiny little sample, something that you can’t really test something that is a representation of the blood results, but not actually the blood results, you’d say, well, I don’t believe what you say is in there. Why would I trust you about your claims about what the results are? I’d like to do my own review of that. And so you can’t build a defense if you can’t see the evidence here is Corey making that point today.

I mean, how would we object to something we didn’t know existed until it was over? I didn’t find it,

But anyway,

Is it’s possible for us to do that. And if you’re, I’ve been a pro everybody in this room, that’s a lawyer and a prosecutor, your job is fairness and being a true seeker. It’s not the beatable, but it’s not fair. What happened? We can sit here all day and say, it’s been played. We didn’t know

How is that reasonable? Well, I persistently warn the state that there’s a day of reckoning with respect to these things. I mean, my feeling is I had my qualms and I decided, well, I’ll let the jury here. And I, um, I, uh, I think I made the comparison the other day of the breathalyzer, where the officer doesn’t have to be familiar with how the operation of the breathalyzer does the analysis. But, um, but that’s a device that has been sanctioned by the courts. And I just don’t think we’re at that point with this. And particularly if they’ve got evidence, I didn’t see that in your motion about the manual. If I’ve got the video, I don’t know. Maybe I forewarn you, I, for one, you, you know, you press for this and that’s fine. I’ve let it down. And I, my view on it now is we’re where we are, where we might as well follow through with it. And, uh, if they, if they’ve got everything correct, and it’s reliable, then they won’t have a problem. If it isn’t, it’s going to be ugly. All right.

Okay. If they don’t, then it’s going to be ugly. So, um, it sounds like the judge is just going to move forward with it. If they do ask for it, the judge is going to take the motion to dismiss under advisement, I guess, until it becomes relevant until he wants to address it. But here is Corey now objecting to the videos being played over and over again, even though the judge ultimately admits it, not

To hear you out,

That’s the, I mean, I’m relying on the Supreme court of this state’s case. I understand that you’re separating them and I, I’m not here to, we object to it being played at over and over. What I’ve learned from your case is with the videotape or the cassette tape and Anderson, both of those cases talk about not there being an overemphasis on specific parts of evidence,

Overemphasize a video of something. Unless I suppose if it’s not an accurate video, I suppose then you Glenn, but then you’re overemphasizing when you’ll see it the first time.

Okay. So the judge is ultimately going to allow this stuff. And here is that segment.

I, I, I’m not going to say there are cases where, but for me to say, well, there’s a video that is purportedly an accurate depiction of what happened, and you can only look at it so many times, uh, I’m not going to do that. So, uh, uh, they know the risk and they’ve assumed it. And, um, so they can watch it. They’ll do it as they see fit. So

I heard something really in the videos. Um, we do not object.

Okay. So just not sent

With them 1 55. Well,

All right. So they cut that out. You can see the stream started to get pretty bad, but it sounds like the judge, right? Th this is the judge. This is his preference is to allow the jurors to just see everything, to sort of pull out the videos, open up the toys, look around that and experiment, explore everything. And so he’s going to allow those videos to go in and the jurors can do with them what they will, he’s open to allowing that to happen. So then the jurors come back out. We were all just waiting for a verdict today. Didn’t get it. So the judge calls them back out, relieves him for the day. They’re gonna be back tomorrow at 9:00 AM. Here is the sendoff

And a request number five. And what’s going to happen is by wait. We’re not there yet

Queued up. So we’re not there yet. So they actually submitted another request for item number five, which is the drone footage that we’re talking about. So now that has come up and here is what the judge is talking about,

Press the right button. Then you can, you, uh, the material as much as you like. Uh, and you can closing closer to the screen if you want. Um, it’ll be your call. Uh, you can discuss it, uh, and you’ll have complete freedom of, uh, privacy because we’re all going to be out of here. And we’ve already done a check to make sure there aren’t any kind of devices that would pick anything up. Um, and, um, then when you’re done, there’ll be a bailiff, uh, outside the store and just knock and, um, advise the bailiffs that you’re done. And then it’s been returned to the jury room. Any questions? That’s the one that’s going to be that one. Okay. Any questions at the court TV? Uh, yes, they are. I permitted them to stay in here while I did this, uh, explanation to you, and then they were going to leave and they’re going to leave. There’ll be nobody in here, but you have 12 jurors. Okay. No sitting in my chair. What’s that good question. All right. All right. We’ll see you whenever you’re

Okay. So the judge says, uh, you know, just knock on the door, the bailiff will come get in here, go up to the big screen, smashed your nose up into the camera, whatever you want to do, take a look at what you want to look at, let us know when you’re done. And he jokes. He says that, but don’t sit in my chair. And the lady, one of the jurors says, yeah, but how would you know? And he says, oh, you clever dog. You. And so, uh, you know, a little bit of a levity in the courtroom today. Now we have the final clip of the day. This is the judge saying we’re done. We’re coming back tomorrow. What time do you want to be here? Hopefully you’re going to make a decision, get your decision pillows out and sleep on those tonight. Here’s the judge.

Uh, we’re going to break for the day and, uh, I’ll let you decide again, how many want to stick with the nine o’clock. Okay. I won’t even ask for any alternative. Um, you didn’t raise your hand and you’re on a lock, um, eight o’clock and you’re welcome to come here if I need a few minutes. Um, all right. We’re going to break for the night and please don’t talk about the case. Read, watch, and us know any kind of the trial, no talking with other jurors, no talking with members of your household or anybody else. And, um, don’t read, watch or listen to any kind of the trial. Any questions see you tomorrow. Have a great day.

All right. So that’s it for the day, day, two of the Rittenhouse trial, at least the verdict watch we’re past the main trial day, two of waiting for the jury to deliberate and give us an answer as to the outcome of the trial. And so we’re going to take a look at some questions over from our friends at watchingthewatchers.locals.com, which is our home base. And we’re also going to take a look at some of those super chats that came in from our friends on YouTube. So we’ve got a ton of questions as always, if we don’t get to all of them tonight, we’re going to be on local’s tomorrow morning, and we’re going to finish things up. So let’s start off here with C rose says, Rob. Oh, that was from yesterday. That was from sea rose from yesterday. We’ve got English. Dave says, can you tell us the difference between not guilty and acquittal also, what’s the difference between a hung jury and a compromised verdict?

Are there any other outcomes to this case other than the ones I’ve mentioned and guilty? So really guilty, not guilty and acquittals are basically the same thing, right? There are two things. The client is not, the individual is not criminally liable, so he’s not criminally convicted. So he’s found innocent. He’s acquitted, also not guilty. Same thing difference between a hung jury and a compromised verdict. So I’ve not heard compromised verdict used commonly, but hung jury is the idea that they can’t come to an agreement. And so there’s a mistrial and a, another outcome would be that the court dismisses the case, right? The court just grants a motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning that the government can’t refile the case, a motion to dismiss without prejudice, meaning that the government can bring the case back. You could have, uh, I think the judge talked about a directed verdict or a judgment, not withstanding the verdict.

So if something happened and the judge, you know, th th th the jury came back and did something ridiculous, the judge could theoretically take the case away and issue a judgment, not withstanding the verdict, uh, or directed verdict, something along those lines, but very low probabilities on any of those other outcomes. It’s very likely to be, uh, guilty or not guilty or a split. It could be guilty on some, not guilty on the others. We have another one coming in from John [inaudible] says so disappointed in the jury. They’re tainted. They have to be because it’s taken a long time. English. Dave says, did you see the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings video that Joe sent to Acadia today are played? Some of it on his stream, looked a little more detailed and well put together than a lot of what we’ve seen in the trial. If you don’t have it, maybe we’ll take a look at it tomorrow.

I have not seen it. I had a full day of a lot of law firm duties today. So I didn’t spend, I wasn’t able to hop on the trial, the stream over there, but they crossed a hundred thousand people on ricotta stream. So hopefully if you’re watching the trial anywhere, that’s where you should be watching it, forget all the other streams. That’s the place to be just cost says happy Wednesday. Is there a chance of charging these protestors that can be heard by the jurors with jury tampering? Or could this cause a mistrial by intimidation? So do you think that Thomas bingers prosecutor’s office, do you think that they’re going to charge any protestors in this case? Anybody who’s saying that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer, do you think that they’re going to get criminally charged by these two? I doubt it D Del SPE says if there is a mistrial without prejudice, where the prosecutor be able to call Kyle to the stand himself, or would he potentially be able to prevent being called by the prosecution?

Uh, that’s a great question. It’s a really good question. And I think the argument would be that he would, he would read my argument as a defense attorney would be that he would regain the right against self-incrimination and so that he could refuse to testify. So that binger wouldn’t be able to recall him, uh, if they so chose that way, because sort of the only, the only time that he breached that, that right against self incrimination, his right to silence his right to remain silent, the only time that he breached that was in the middle of a jury trial. And so I would say that that privilege is sort of protected and bound by that safe space. And so that he could sort of reassert that later. It’d be different than like a media conversation where he’s out there sort of outside of the safety of the courts, talking openly about the case in that case.

I think that binger could, could, um, could bring those in peat, those issues back up if he were to testify again. But if, uh, so the answer I think is no, I don’t, I do not think that, that he could, he could demand that Kyle testified. I re-read your question. Feisty lady says since the written house judge made some very critical comments about the media. It’s obvious the judge is getting information about the, uh, that is broadcast via the internet. He’s probably going to hear about the identity of jump kick man, coming to light today as a Kenosha resident with an extensive criminal record, including some pending charges reports are off our JKM offered to testify in Kyle’s case, in exchange for immunity and a current DUI and domestic assault case. Yet the prosecution kept stating that they were never able to identify him. If some of the current or past cases were in Kenosha court system, could there be some sort of a conflict of the judge had heard or ruled in those cases where the judge might have to recuse himself?

Uh, I don’t know why the judge would have to recuse himself unless the judge had a conflict of interest with that. Uh, with that particular defendant, I can’t see why the judge would have to recuse himself. Uh, if the judge handled the case or something like that, then I don’t think that alone is enough to ask the judge to recuse. The judge would have to have a conflict. I think, outside of being a judge. So in, in, in this case, the bigger issue is if the government knew who this person was and they didn’t disclose that that is a key witness, it very well could be exculpatory information that the defense could use in their defense, but they got to know about the name. They got to know who that is. First. Good question, lady. And we talked about that. I saw the post-millennial actually posted that.

I posted that story today, but we’ll be, I’ll be curious to see if it’s, uh, actually verified. We’ve got miles away, says if feel that it’s frightening, that Kyle has a 50, 50 chance at best at being acquitted. If the prosecution’s case is based on an ideology where anything outside of the agenda of global control is inherently wrong, evil and corrupt, it’s pure projection. And that is the game plan, a 50 50. You’re saying, I hope it’s higher than that, but you know, it is taking a lot longer than I thought we’ve got. So Viking says to Kyle and justices detriment, isn’t this exhibition of the judge’s lack of compliance with tight compliance, with the specified rules of evidence, troubling, video evidence appropriateness for admission was disregarded as well as other issues of non-compliance justice for Kyle. Yeah. That’s why there’s, you know, look at the start of this case.

I was a little bit skeptical about the judges. Lucidness I’ve been talking about this throughout this entirety, this entire trial saying that he just plays kind of loose with the rules. And that’s what gets you into binds like this? You know, as a, as a, as a defense attorney, one of the things that we want to do is eliminate or minimize the volatility at a trial. We want to stop surprises from happening and, and limit those things that might take the trial off course like this. And because the judge has not allowed the sides to flush out the rules, we’re now dealing with it literally as the jury is deliberating, which is kind of insane, but it’s what we’re at. We’ve got LA medic says, why in good goodness is the Judi judge is the not making definitive rulings. He is queasy about video evidence.

Obviously having issues with the prosecution’s conduct in general is this usual conduct for the judge to not make rulings on these things as an observer. It is maddening. Not, not really. I mean, not in my experience. It’s not, uh, it’s not that common. I’ve been in front of judges that do that, do act like this, that do sort of run things by the seat of their pants, I think is how the phrase goes. But it is frustrating. And he, and it gives the prosecution a bunch of opportunities to continue to argue their position. And oftentimes the judge buys it. It’s just like attrition. Almost the Antica says, I looked up the handbrakes off where people were talking about a lunchbox, which is the name of that guy, apparently, which was trending on Twitter, using it before, giving it to the defense and downgrading with the quality of it.

I’m not so sure this is the case. It’s a transcoder may have downgrading functionality, but its main function is to alter a media file. Some videos are made you need, what’s called a Kodak. Kodak, Kodak transfer translates the video file for whatever software you’re viewing it with software like handbrake can take away that need. So the software could be used to just change the file format. It could, it could, yes. It could be used just to change the file format. I think even if that were the case, they should have communicated that to the defense said even the metadata, right? The video file, the video file size would be different because it’s a different format it’s encoded differently. So if they’re altering the original video in any way, shape or form, I’ve got a problem with that. Even if it is just changing it from an MP4 to an MTV or whatever they’re doing.

Brig says that the jury is wanting to look at videos is probably an effort by the jurors to convince the quote holdouts as much as all of us believe the prosecution’s case was really weak with all the publicity surrounding the case. Wouldn’t surprise me if the majority wanted to convict and the quote holdouts wanted to acquit. Yeah. I mean, it could be, you could have a couple of jurors who just want to get out there and sort of elbow a verdict out of everybody else. And that takes time to sway people to your side. Thunder seven says, can’t believe what’s happening, but have you seen any trials so bizarre like this, Rob, I know Kyle will be okay, whether it’s hung jury or not guilty, but to have to listen to Crouse and being her lie lie lie all day is too much. Can you please bang the gavel every time they open their lion lips? What a lovely gift. It is a lovely gift. Look at this thing. This is from George Klaus in the house. I really wish the camera would focus a little bit better because it’s, there it is. Look at that. You can see sort of the marbling, I think in the woods. It’s beautiful. And so what we’re looking for is a big, not guilty case closed. Get out of my courtroom. See what happens if I bang, bang the desk here, let’s pay, pay attention.

Ooh, you like that? You hear that. Ooh, got some bass in that. Hopefully that didn’t ruin the, uh, the earbuds for anybody listening out there. Awesome gift from George Klaus. We’ve got Ben Tomlinson says, do you think if there was an evidentiary hearing regarding the discovery than the drone video, would there be grounds of malicious prosecution? So, um, I’m not sure if it would be malicious prosecution, but I would, I would certainly say there were probably some disclosure violations, which are probably sanctionable if that happens under Wisconsin law, but you know, malicious prosecution is sort of a different category of prosecutorial misconduct. But I would say that this is a disclosure misconduct problem. Maybe, you know, if it, if it was intentionally not disclosed appropriately, yeah. You could call that malicious prosecution. I suppose we have another one from Kinkaid says, and then we’re going to jump over to YouTube, says king, Kate says evening, Robin all, how can the prosecution have so much evidence without bringing the sources?

It’s it’s in part because the defense stipulated to a lot of that, they just agree to let a lot of this in regarding the video evidence itself. How can the chain of custody and integrity be upheld when exact reasonings of the file are out of focus like degradation and manipulation again, because the defense stipulated, they agreed to a lot of this. Even the initial handling of the footage acquisition to the prosecution is at odds with the standards the is flat out lying. I do not believe for a second that they are inept D neither do I. Do you think that the parties involved including the judge are missing the forest for the trees? Additionally, this kind of conduct is not typical, correct. If the supposed good guys are this corrupt, how could the majority of society ever feel safe or confident in anything power brings to bear?

I would have argued that culpable for a mistrial due to the state’s conduct is simply the reasonable awareness of a potentially prejudice actions. After watching days of the trial, there was some concern for generational knowledge and lack thereof being corrosive to all we hold. Dear, I used the phrase forest for the trees before Nate did. I was typing away when I heard it LOL that’s from Kinkaid. It’s a good comment there. Kinkaid, look, I wish I could come on here and tell everybody that this is just a random thing that happens that prosecutors agencies are just full of amazing people who do nothing, but you know, honest, good in Integris work on a daily basis. And many of them do. I know many prosecutors and many of them are very good people. And we work out amazing deals with many of them, for our clients.

And we do good work working with good prosecutors, but there’s also a lot of garbage prosecutors out there. And a lot of prosecutor agencies that are structured in a way that incentivizes and rewards the type of behavior you’re seeing in this case. So if you think that Thomas binger and James Crouse are two odd balls, these two, just little, little random people that exist in the world of criminal justice agencies and that there’s not many more like them. You are mistaken. They are all over the place. I’ve met many of them, many of them even look like that.

They get rewarded for it. It’s ingrained into the system. It’s not about often times for these people doing justice or writing, you know, the wrongs it’s about getting convictions and moving up the totem pole in their massive prosecutorial agencies did to see you Kincade. All right, over on YouTube. Let’s see what we’ve got here. We’ve got rag Jr. Started us off today, says jump kick man was Aidid rumored asked for immunity with the prosecution. And they said, no, that could be a spicy, a revelation John Cena with no, with just the donation. Thanks, John. Michael Woodward says I’m extremely astonished at the MD five hash fingerprinting. Isn’t required for authenticity of digital files for evidence. Yeah. They’re just using Dropbox over there. So in, in some, you know, we practice in, in over a hundred courts in the state of Arizona every year. And we have a, we have different systems for different courts.

Some of them disclose stuff digitally and you have to log in and download things. And those records the other stuff, sometimes they’ll just mail you a packet. They can’t even prove that you got it. You know? So there there’s a lot of different ways that it’s done MD five hash fingerprinting. My friends, the courts are like 20 years behind everything. Okay. We still have courts in the state of Arizona that we have fax documents to fax. We don’t have a fax machine. We do it all virtually, but they have fax machines and your emotions are coming in their courts, MD five hashes. You kidding me? It’s a good idea, but not in the justice system. Camera-shy says, why couldn’t they show the judge both videos at the same time, you can clearly see the difference, not just in quality, but an aspect ratio. It’s a great idea.

Camera shy. And I think that they should probably do that tomorrow. So they could say, Hey judge, you know, uh, when we call them liars and dishonest, here’s what they tried to get under your nose. Take a look at it. We’ll put it on the big screen here. It’s a good idea. J rod says, I think they’re going to find him guilty for at least one charge, but my money is on a hung jury. What do you think? So I’m look, I’m still hopeful for not guilty is across the board. I think that is where we’re going to end up. I’m I’m pulling for that. Michael Smith says, I am amazed that this court is so stupid. A file has to be compressed and wouldn’t be a.mov file. It would be a.zip or a dot rawr from Michael Smith. So if he compressed it, I’m wondering though, if he sent it via email, like in a, like in a, in a, on an iPhone, which I don’t have because I’m an adult, but if I were were, and it says, would you like to compress this?

I think that’s still going to compress the mov file down from the original. And it doesn’t actually have to put it into an archive file, but who knows, who knows what Krause was saying? So your point is well taken. Davido is pure, says Maurice freelance jump, kick, man. Your thoughts, he’s got an extensive criminal record and Wisconsin apparently, apparently was given immunity by the prosecutors. So we’ve got some conflicting reports on that. So I’ll have to dive into that tomorrow Sampson with no question, but a nice donation. Thanks. Alison Mitchell Kirkwood says prosecution. Didn’t exactly tell the truth. G-mail won’t send a video and ask it to compress it for you, which has been my experience also. And don’t they have, I think a 15 megabit, uh, millibit millibits millibit limit. So you can send pretty big files through Gmail. If their videos might be higher than that.

Now I don’t remember. Jacob Rosenberg says, why didn’t they ask for a mistrial with prejudice? So they asked for a motion to dismiss with prejudice, uh, sort of based on a lot of the same justifications that would justify a mistrial. So they did that over the weekend. That motion is still pending this afternoon, though. They came out and did a motion for a mistrial without prejudice, which is sort of like one layer down. You know, it’s like, you want two scoops of ice cream, ideally, but you know, one is better than no ice cream. So that’s the difference between with prejudice and without prejudice now, honestly, without prejudice, I’m not sure if that is even delicious ice cream at all, but it’s a good question, Jacob. Uh, Jim Grimm says drone footage, high Def version, not the original, no drone films and H 2 6, 4 format or 80 by 12 H two six H 2 4 6.

Watermark is from handbrake 4k, drone, original edited to center. Kyle prosecutor explicitly lied. Defense must get an expert to testify. So that’s a great comment on there. Yeah. 1920 by eight 12, that doesn’t seem like a native format. Does it you’d expect a regular drone footage to be 1920 by 10 80, right? Just, just regular HD format. And so 1920 by 10 80. So that’s sort of, they’re narrowing it down. If it’s 1920 by eight 12, or it’s 4k drone edited down from 4k resolution down to 1920 by 12. So it’s a great comment by Jim. I’m sure that the internet is going hog wild on this right now. Hopefully blowing up their emails, telling them, you know how this all works. Hopefully they’re doing some deep digging into that because if they come back tomorrow and they show us a play-by-play of both videos, side-by-side like the same one I just played.

That’s going to ring the judges bell. He’s going to say, wait, what you gave him that all of this is being talked about in hypothetical’s and the judges not technological. So that’s why the prosecutors are able to just kind of run all over him, but that’s not going to last forever. Okay. That was built. We had that from bill cook. No, no. That was from Jim bill cook says, is there any truth that the prosecution knew jump kicked man’s identity and refuse to give him immunity for pending charges if true, would that end it? So if, if they knew his identity and they didn’t disclose that to the governor, to the defense, I think that is a catastrophic unethical Brady violation. It could be exculpatory. There’s a lot that could happen there. And that would be such an egregious violation that I have a hard time believing it, candidly.

But at the same time, this government, this prosecutor agency has been so reprehensible that maybe it’s not that surprising after all limp biscuit says this trial. Isn’t about self-defense. It’s about the right for people, the left being legally allowed to assault someone, not on their team. That’s a good comment. I think it’s going to have some of those, those consequences back over on locals. Let’s see what we’ve got. Google is loading. All right. We have a here now, former Leo says the defense needed a wordsmith on their team during the close Rosenbalm didn’t chase Rittenhouse Rosenbalm relentlessly pursued Rittenhouse who was unable to escape. Rosenbalm wouldn’t be deterred in his pursuit even when Rittenhouse stopped. So Rosenbalm could see that he was armed and again, turned and ran to escape from Rosenbalm. But his escape was blocked. At that point, he turned was caught by Rosenbalm Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the rifle was attempting to pull it free.

Rittenhouse was in fear for his life. If Rosenbalm was successful in taking his rifle, other options exhausted, he stopped shot ended it. I think that would have sounded better to the jury than chased. Yeah, I think you’re right about that. Former Leo. Yeah. Chased, you know, they could have Mark Richards is not the necessarily the sword Smith, the, the, the word, the verbal sward Smith that, uh, some other attorneys are, but, you know, he’s kind of a, kind of a, more of a, down to earth, simple talking. I’m just going to level with the jurors and that’s not a bad approach. Chop says, Rob it’s worth noting on our Qaeda stream. The lawyer’s notice when they had shot of Krause’s computer that he had handbrake on it. Handbrake is a tool used for encoding and converting video. So, so yes. So I’m sure they talked about it.

It’s sort of been bouncing around the internet all day today. Wild LA medic says free range, chicken, free rain horse, letting go. You are too funny. I don’t even know what I said there, but thank you. Thank you for that law. Medic three girls, he says so on her keto stream today. Good logic was asking a question about Kyle’s fifth amendment rights. I wanted to see your take on it. So the question is, if it’s a hung jury or mistrial, and the state gets to take the case again, will it be waived or will it be able to retain it regardless of him waiting to get into this trial? So, so I sort of answered that. I think de Del SBE brought that up. My argument would be that, that, that, again, it was only waived in the course of a trial. And so, because that trial didn’t go correctly, that he sort of gets a reset at that.

Okay, we start over again. We reset it back to the beginning. So his fifth amendment privilege, all of those rights start back at zero. It’s like the trial never happened because it was a mistrial. It was done incorrectly. And so it would be improper to prejudice the defendant as a result of that trial. You have to do it again from the very beginning. It’s not like we’re only going to do a part of the trial again on this little contingent, this little component of the case. So my answer, my argument would be absolutely invokes it again. Anything that happened in that trial is now off limits because it wasn’t mistrial. We have to do it again and it shouldn’t apply. It shouldn’t count against him in other words. So if he, if he chooses that he wants to not testify again or wants to testify again, then all of that has to, you know, he, he, he can, he can make that decision again without any consequences is what I’m saying.

D Del SPE says, doesn’t watching the evidence multiple times go directly against the idea that the jurors are supposed to rule as if they are in Kyle shoes. He didn’t get a slow motion video to make his decisions on multiple camera angles, multiple views, et cetera. That’s another great point. Yeah. Kyle couldn’t see any of that. Kyle had a split second. So, you know, a good argument might be that the, the jurors maybe should get to sort of put themselves in the, in, in similar shoes. Kincaid says it’s a trap. What a grand Ropeadope. The judge allows the flimsy evidence knowing it will make a mistrial. So it’s much easier to accept sort of laying a trap for them might be an interesting way to deal with that. Um, let’s see, what else, uh, that from judge Schrader, we’ve got three. He says a few questions.

If the defense appeals this case, well, this drone footage come back to bite everybody. Isn’t this a Brady violation also on the ant website, it says the footage should not be used for evidence purposes only be used for investigative purposes. Also, why would the defense ever change off the motion for dismissal with prejudice? It seems really odd for them to be fighting so much and then change it at the last second. It feels like they don’t really care if their motion to dismiss goes through. So the second point, first three girlies. I, uh, you know, it’s a good question. I think that maybe it’s an audible. Maybe they’re thinking this jury is taking a little bit too long to decide. And so they’re going to come down on their. It’s a negotiation judge. We want you to dismiss this with prejudice so that it can’t come back.

The judge obviously doesn’t want to do that. So they’re saying, look, judge, how about the next best thing for us? A dismissal without prejudice. If you’re inclined to do that, you should do it. Maybe because they’re nervous that they’re going to come back with convictions. If the defense appeals, this case will the D so that would be, if they were convicted, they would appeal. Could it bite everybody? Could it be a Brady vial? It could be a disclosure violation. Absolutely. Yeah. It could be a disclosure violation and it could absolutely come back to bite them in the butt. The judge is asking for testimony under oath. Now, if Kraus fibbed a little bit, it’s not going to look good for him. The Antica says, I just want to clarify handbrake. I use video editing software, myself, create little clips in memes and things over for us at watchingthewatchers.locals.com.

Sometimes in these programs, the resolution gets changed if I’m not paying attention and clicking away from things. So, uh, certainly accurate. Kenny says, this is insane. How does the public have any confidence in the legitimacy of the courts? Now? That’s a good question. Yeah, it’s a very good question. I asked myself that a lot, all the time. John Dolores says, if the jury is taking too long, oh, not not saying if he’s saying the jury is taking too long, I no longer think that they will look at him. It’s going to be a hung jury, or they’re going to find him guilty of one of the charges. They should not be reviewing the videos. It proves they’ve bought some of the prosecutor’s arguments. That’s a take. And there may be some truth to that. Unfortunately, David Orndorff says the defense needs to be more aggressive about Ms.

Trial. They cannot keep letting the state get away with this gross misconduct. Kyle’s life is at stake and it is sickening to see this defense flacid Lee quote, defending his right to a fair trial. As a law student, this trial is completely made up my mind on going into criminal defense. That’s from David Orndorff. Welcome aboard David. It’s a good righteous fight. My friend, I’ll tell you what, man, this stuff happens all the time. It gets your blood boiling. We’re all getting to see it on full display. Kyle Rittenhouse has a lot of eyeballs on this case, thankfully, but it happens all the time. Everyday in the courts, all the time. Bunch of prosecutors overstepping their lanes, bunch of defense attorneys, this whatever public contract I don’t care. You know, and it’s just going through the motions. You know, who gets hurt innocent people, people who maybe committed some sort of a crime, but are getting penalized, penalized overly harshly on the back of a bunch of politically minded, prosecutors, judges, police, officers, prosecutors, everybody out there who just looks at everybody who is a criminal as disposable trash.

It’s very sad. I hope you do join us on the, on the side, on the, on the, uh, the side of light and righteousness. Jeremy says, Rob, great show has always frequently learned something new from you every week. Can you elaborate on the evidence ferry? Is this similar to what culinary accounting is to accountants? As in the evidence ferry is to law. As in culinary, accounting is to cooking the books at the evidence ferry. If, if you’re a prosecutor and you say your, your, your prayers at night and you take teeth out from, uh, children, and you put them under your pillow, sometimes the magical evidence very will just show up and put a nice drone video under your pillow that you can use in your trial. The next day, it’s very convenient. And it’s only for the goodest of the good prosecutors. We’ve got three girls.

He says, sauerkrauts gives a lot of indigestion. He might, he might have some of that himself. We have speech says, so the prosecutor doesn’t know that moving video from an iPhone to an email, Android effects the quality, but we’re supposed to believe the prosecution. When they say pinch to zoom, doesn’t alter a picture. They are just liars. It’s plain and simple. Judge just needs to dismiss the case with prejudice. Then Kyle needs to get a good lawyer to Sue the state from malicious prosecution. I like your style, their speech aggressive. And I like it. And I think that you’re right. I think they are liars. They know what they’re doing. Pronoun and body positivity. Police are here. Brace yourselves, folks, folks chat, best behavior. We have the pronoun and body positivity police they’re here. Uh, if you are not using improv proper pronouns for vaguely gendered people, you are now, you now are referring to morbidly obese.

Mr. Crouse, as big dumdum bullets have been increased to 20 to 40 per incident. Did I call him a big dumb, dumb? That’s just, that’s just, that’s not a nice thing to say, Rob, but it is true. He is a dumb, dumb, and he’s also a little bit big. So, uh, I’ll, I’ll make note of that pronoun and body positivity. Police pull ups 40 forties, a lot. Twenties, you know, 20 is manageable, but 40 pull-ups per incident. That’s a lot. I was happy about the, uh, the 20, cause I’m probably doing those anyway, but forties that’s a lot of work. Leafy bug says, Hey, Rob, have a question about objections. In this case, seeing as how the judge has been pretty loose, as you would say about objections and how they’ve been made. If I were in the defensive shoes, I’d be tempted to make baseless objections in order to highlight the absurd things the prosecution said during close.

For example, when Krauss said, quote, sometimes you just have to take a beating, I’d say, objection. You’re saying my clients should have taken a beating. Obviously this is going to be overruled, but there were many crazy moments when it would have been nice to make sure the jury was able to properly on what was just said or had just happened. And I think the judge would have let it happen. What would most judges normally do? If lots of baseless objections are being made? Well, they would just scold the defense or, or the, the, the, the attorney who is making the baseless objections and just say, look enough of that. Okay. He’s allowed to make argument in closing arguments. If he wants to argue that Rosenbalm can beat your client bloody, he’s allowed to make that argument. And so they would just shut you up. And you, you, you ended up sort of doing more harm to yourself than good.

If you are being overly aggressive with that tactic, right? The jurors are going to look at you and say, will you shut up and let him finish his statement by stop interrupting him. You ever listened to a podcast where everybody’s interrupting and talking all over each other. It’s annoying. It’s his turn, let him finish. But you’re right. It’s also something where they have been very, very lax with their objections throughout the entirety of this trial. And they’re sort of getting bulldozed to some degree in terms of just the talking time. If you, if you just analyze that, you know, when we watch the presidential debates every year and they do a breakdown on whatever you watch the next day and they say, oh, Joe Biden, talk for nine minutes and 43 seconds. And Kamala Harris talk for seven minutes and 34 seconds. And that means that Joe Biden won the debate because he got more talking time.

And then you have Bernie Sanders over there with like three minutes and 15 seconds. And the internet is very upset about that because old Boise Sandoz is just out there, hung out to dry, very upset about it. So if you were to do that same analysis in this case, the prosecution is talking like 10 to one over the defense, and that’s just almost, you know, verbal throwing your weight around. And it’s all it’s, it’s, it’s elbowing your way into court. And it’s working. The judge is actually allowing stuff in, is allowing the video in is letting Kraus, just hem and haw about, I’m not a technical wizard. I don’t know any of this stuff works. And the judge goes okay, well, I guess you’re confused. I’m confused. You’re confused, Mr. Kraus, I guess it’s hard for me to be mad at you about that since I’m just as confused as you are, it’s working.

So we’ll see if the defense steps it up. Now that they’ve got some really good stuff to latch their teeth into three girlie says, isn’t it the prosecutor’s job to make sure the defense has the same info. Yes. So how is it not his fault? He says Wisco his fault. He blamed binger, detective Howard, the defense Ms. Wisco. And I love Ms. [inaudible] response, hot and spicy. It has so much sizzle on it. It made Krause’s butt hurt. That’s from three girlies. So look a lot of activity today from, uh, from court where it should’ve just been a day full of deliberation, but, uh, it was exciting. We have bill cook says, now we got that one. We have Jacob now says, uh, over on YouTube says I’m an apple engineer. What happened was when the video file was emailed, they selected the small instead of the original and the iPhone would have compressed the vid.

Yeah. So that, I mean, that could have been a possibility. Now think she also got it from detective Howard and from Kraus. And so even the video from Howard that she got, I think on November 15th was the date. She said, even that was compressed. So they all, they all made that same mistake. I doubt it. A C Z sees Arnett says that was too hard to read. Uh, can you pinch and zoom zoom in on that, on your iPhone? I would love to do that. CSR, Nick and there, that way you would have a very crystal clear absolutely perfect image. That’s not manipulated at all. Unfortunately, I can’t do that. Rag. Junior says if they send it through Gmail, it has a 25 megabits size millibit size limit. And the HD footage is 11 megabytes unless the prosecutor would have compressed the footage. So Gmail’s now 25 megs.

It’s good. It’s good. It’s pretty impressive. I remember when it used to be 10 and that was a good, I was a good limit. We have another one from rag. Junior says watching the prosecutors is like watching a trapped coyote, try to not its leg off to get free. It was a long day, man. It looked, I thought that that a full day of Thomas binger was a lot, but I’ll tell you this folks, a couple hours of Crouse is probably worse because we got that today. It was pretty bad, but we made it through. We got probably more of it coming tomorrow. So brace yourselves, Michael Woodward says M D five hashing would solve the file name discrepancy. If that would be included when all the evidence files are moved. So we have one court in Arizona that sort of does some hashing stuff with that, but uh, most other courts, you know, they’re, they’re still operating like in the 1990s.

Wolfgang Dayo says happy birthday to me, happy birthday to Wolfgang Dayo, happy birthday to Wolfgang. Happy birthday, brother. I hope you have a, having a great day. Thanks for always being here and hope you are another year. Wiser rag junior says this is more for the chat. There’s two ways to compress video, remove frames or lower video quality. Sometimes both example, download a video, re upload it multiple times and see the difference. Yeah. So I noticed that all the time, I’m constantly downloading the clips for the show and I get various resolutions and it, my, my screen sizes changing. So I’m pretty familiar with all these topics. Shawn Bachman, no question with a nice donation. Thank you very much, Sean. We’ve got Chris Wally says no digital evidence chain of custody rules in Wisconsin. So I’m sure that there are, I’m sure that the rules of criminal procedure and disclosure and all of those things have them.

What I think happened here in this case, Chris, because there were so many different video files and so many different components of evidence that we’re talking about, that they stipulated to a lot of this stuff. And so a lot of the same scrutiny that you might see in a regular case where you’re not stipulating to these things were stipulated to, they were agreed to. And so a lot of the due diligence just wasn’t wasn’t done at the outset, they weren’t, they weren’t overly concerned about these things and tell you, see a clear difference. And now that’s what we’re discussing, we’re talking or that’s exactly what we’re talking about. The chain of custody who got the video, who gave it to whom and who gave it to the defense. And what happened in that process, Brody Z says it’s absolutely sickening that these two DA’s offices are the best prosecutors they’ve lied.

They’ve cheated. They’ve manipulated. So-called justice. That’s absolutely true. Dave with donation. Thank you, Dave. We have another one from dapper. Dave says, oh, why would the defense asked for a mistrial without prejudice, instead of with prejudice they filed for, with prejudice in the writing and then ask verbally for without. So again, it’s a great question. And I think it’s because they’re, they’re lowering their ask. They want it gone probably because they’re seeing the jury really think about it. And that’s making them a little bit nervous. So rather than with prejudice, they’ll just modify their, ask a little bit, see if the judge will bump it out, uh, because they’d be happy with that. Alex six says a life sentence on the line and the court is a mess. This wouldn’t be so fast and loose. If the death penalty were on the line, this wouldn’t be any different.

Yeah, I’m not sure. Right. The judge is the judge. He might have, he might run a case. That’s a death penalty case just like that. A sea of love says, thank you. Mods just cost for welcoming this new person prayers for all us with clap, hands, love that. See you love. And yeah, man, shout out to all the mods over there. I’ve been seeing a lot of activity. We have VNT kisses now over there, Zulu, Zulu has I think a troll now we’ve got just costs. Who’s crushing it. We’ve got the auntie kiss. We have a geo Mancy games is now over there. I think we, who else do we? Yeah, I mean, Henry Dixon’s in the house wrenched up over there. We’re we’re trying, you know, we’re trying to, we’re trying to prove this place up a little bit. And fortunately we have some amazing people who are helping with us.

Uh, Daniel Henry says you need to be on ricotta stream more bruh. The casual homophobia and body shaming over there tends to rub me the wrong way. The presence of the most smoking male attorney in the virtual panel softens the blow that’s from Daniel Henry. Well, thank you Daniel for that. Uh, I, uh, first of all, that’s a very nice compliment. I appreciate that. Although there’s a lot of very fine looking individuals over there, very handsome and good-looking attorneys over there, uh, roaming up and filling out that panel. Now I would love to spend more time on them, but as I’ve mentioned before, a lot of my days are, are actually pretty full. I sort of will do law firm business in the morning and then I’ll switch over to show prep sort of in the afternoon. And so really I really, really don’t sink into show prep until about, about two, two in the afternoon.

And so by that time I have missed all of the news of the day. I haven’t watched any of the trial. And so for me to like hop on the stream at 2:00 PM, not having watched any of it is not good. I tried that once. It didn’t work out very well. So then about two o’clock, I sort of, uh, scrubbed through the trial, try to get a show prep by four. Obviously if law firms stuff takes up more of the day, then I have to push the show back like I did today. And so it, you know, I don’t want to go on the stream just to be on the stream. I don’t want to just be sitting there like, ah, got nothing useful to add to the conversation. And most of the time they’ve been watching the trial in real time, the whole time.

So I’m just not up to speed. And I don’t want to be on a stream where I can’t be useful or add to the conversation. And because I don’t typically start watching any of the news until I’m done with law firm duties. It’s not, it’s not, you know, it’s just not conducive to a good conversation, but I would love to, you know, I’d love to connect with them after and debrief all of this stuff. I just don’t have the time during the data to jump on there, which, which sucks because they have over a hundred thousand people watching it. I mean, they’re having a ton of fun. I’m like jealous. I’m like, ah, all day just talking trial and just sort of ripping on prosecutors all day, dunking on them in real time, tweeting all day. It sounds pretty great. I’m super jealous. All right, Seth K Kaiser says, is this grounds for prosecution being disbarred?

Look not on the face of it. Not right now. I don’t think so, but if they intentionally manipulated evidence and they intentionally failed to disclose it well, that’s that, that is grounds for disbarment. Cher says if a hung jury in a mistrial, can the case be retried? Yes, it can share. We have birdbath bash says, does the judge have the authority to meet with individual jury members to get a better idea as to what’s going on with the deliberations? I mean, look, you know, I don’t know the answer to that. The judge probably does. The judge can kind of do whatever they want to do. I mean, really, you know, and what are you going to say about it? You can argue with them, you can appeal it. The judge is unlikely to do that. I would say unless there is a specific reason to do that.

Like the judge is just not going to go and probe them all and say, what’s going on in here. But if there was a specific incident, like we saw this with the joke earlier, right? The joke happened and the judge called him in and said, look, you made a joke. Gotta let you go. So in a situation like that, it’s appropriate. But uh, otherwise, you know, the judge is not going to stick their nose in something to interfere with the deliberations. And you wouldn’t want them to either. Uh, Joshua Leonard says after gage got shot in the arm, was he yelling medic or prosthetic audio on my phone is not that good. Uh, so I think you’re joking about that. I was going to answer that seriously until I re-read it again. Cause it’s funny. It’s not funny. He got his arm shot off, but he shouldn’t have been attacking a, an innocent young man, I suppose.

But after he got shot in the arm was yelling medic or prosthetic probably medic, but that’s also hilarious. Uh, Y T watcher says commercial professional drones require flight logs. Metadata must be logged as far as I know. And so they may not have been, you know, compliant with those rules, but still captured footage anyway. And they’re going to allow that in Daniel, Henry says software engineer here, all video formats use lossy compression, zip RAR archive compression is different. Odds are the sending email app transcoded the video to a lower bit rate to ensure it wasn’t rejected for being big. So it’s sort of that file size limit. But he said he used Gmail, which has a 25 Meg limit according to another commenter tonight. And it was only 11 megabytes. So he didn’t need to do that, but I can understand your innocent mistake would be, uh, a nice way to look at it in a light, most favorable to the prosecutors.

We’ve got Mitchell Kirkwood says, Rob defense asked for a mistrial with prejudice. Now another Mistry without prejudice. Can’t the judge say, okay, that’s two. Now I’m just going to do it. The judge could. But, uh, it really unlikely that I think, you know, I really don’t think that he does. Okay. A couple more Wolfgang says perhaps the drone footage was done by the revolution. People it starts right before Kyle is ambushed and then forgotten very, very odd footage and happy birthday. Once again to Wolfgang, we’ve got Joe Calagano says, do you think the judge is hoping for the jury to acquit, but we’ll declare a mistrial with prejudice in the event of guilty verdicts. I kind of do. Actually we saw him say that in the clips on the show today, he said, well, if they come back guilty on anything, now maybe we’ll have to revisit that motion to dismiss.

So he’s sort of keeping his options open. I think that’s a good read on that. That was from Joe Calagano Wolfgang Dayo says handbrake crops, the video, as well as encodes it and converts it. Chris Cunningham says they need to bring up which version of the video did the blow up pick come from the prosecution and mitts. They don’t know how it got downsized. Yeah, there’s a lot to dive in on this thing. And I would guess that the defense team are going hog-wild right now dissecting a lot of this data. Tara Rainer says the defense wouldn’t have ever learned the difference. If the prosecutors didn’t have the tech difficulties on Friday to show the judge for provocation, another great point there, they kind of opened the door to this whole thing. And actually, if you listen to a Wisco, Wisco actually said specifically, that Krauss said, oh, you have the video that, uh, that is lower quality.

Or he actually brought it up. He flagged it for them. That’s from Tara Lama. Brad says adults use Android, which is why I have one right here. I mean, I’m an adult I have business to attend to. So I need to, I need the appropriate device. We have Jeff TT says that I know how much that, uh, just really just, I say that around the office too. And uh, most people want to murder me. So I’m sure that’s carrying over well in the chat we have Jeff TT says, do you believe that the da rushed into this case due to public pressure? First-time viewer. Thanks for teaching everyone. Well welcome, Jeff. I’m glad that you’re here. Hopefully you stick around and hit that subscribe button. We’d love to have you back says, do you believe the da rushed into this case? I don’t think so.

I mean, honestly I think that he probably wanted this case. It was a, you know, pivotal case. Everybody was paying attention to it and he wanted his glory days. Right. He wanted to have a big win and write a book about it and go on CNN one day. So he was very excited. Chris Cunningham says, do you think Mr. Black has already looked at the new [inaudible] and confirmed to the defense that he can prove differently? Probably. I’m sure he’s scrubbing through that right now. And I’m going to guess that we’re going to see a lot more fireworks about it tomorrow. Bill cook says, explain what you think of day of reckoning. And if the video evidence doesn’t check out, it’s going to get ugly realistically, what’s he implying? So who said that day of reckoning? It’s going to get ugly. I don’t know who said that, but it sounds like maybe somebody in another hopes that we have another round of protests, I guess.

Yeah. I don’t know. It sounds like a threat almost. Doesn’t it? Uh, Mitchell Kirkwood says BX bullet on Twitch wants you on her stream. Well, that sounds good. I like, I like collaborations. I don’t know who that is, but I will happily take a look at that. And of course, send me an email or send me a, uh, a typically an email’s best Robert at RR law, easy.com or a DM on Twitter is always good. And I’ll be able to check those out, but yeah, as soon as this is sort of coming to a close, uh, I think there’ll be a lot of opportunities for a lot of debriefs. And so I’d be, I’d be happy to talk to you. We have Terra Rainer says the protesters on Bullhorn should have been moved away from the courthouse steps, influencing their decision is their intent and they see a B hear them and they can hear them.

Okay. So they, so saying the jurors can hear them. Maybe that is a cause for a mistrial or for some sort of a decision about the jurors. Scott Glancy says, as someone who works in it email could compress the file. It will not however, change the name of the file. Another good point there from Scott. So yes, even if it was an accidental mistake, why, why the file name change? That’s curious maybe a little bit more there. The judge said that there will be a day of reckoning. Oh, that’s from a rust USA. Android dread Schroeder was the one that laid down the threat of a day of reckoning. If there’s an issue with the drone footage, I don’t know how I miss that. That’s from Daniel Henry, and that is from rust USA. Wild. Wow.

So I guess what does that mean? That means it’s sort of an implication that maybe there will be a dismissal with prejudice and maybe a referral for a bar complaint or something like that. A day of reckoning from a judge. I don’t know what that means. It means that you’re going to have a reckoning with being a lawyer still is how I would take that. Thanks for the clarification on that. Whew. Sampson says the metadata of the two files sent by the state prove that it is two different files. Yeah. And I think there’s that piece of software called, oh, what’s it called? Oh, media info that you can just install. I use that all the time. It gives you the details of the file. You can see bit rates and all sorts of interesting data about that. So that’s good to know. That’s from south San Daniel, Henry gave us the 4 1, 1 about the judge, uh, rust USA.

Android also said the judge said it, bird bath bash says, I don’t believe the judge will allow for a life sentence if he believes the jury on a seeing bunnies in the clouds blurry video. Yeah. I agree with that. Look, even if Kyle is convicted and the judge has to sentence him, I don’t think the judge is going to give him anywhere near the max. Uh, the judge said it, I play, I play that, but I play that. Gosh, maybe I did play it. Folks I’ve been watching so much, uh, so much Rittenhouse stuff that I can’t, uh, I can’t even keep track of it. So maybe I did play it. But those were all the great questions over from a YouTube, a lot of super chats tonight. Thank you for all of your support there. And w let’s take a couple more from locals and then we’ll wrap up.

We’re not going to get to all of them on local. So we’ll be back tomorrow morning to finish out with the Q and a, but uh, eat on test says, may it please the court from now on, can all attorneys agree that if they want to get a copy of the video, asks for it on a portable drive in uncompressed format, when you email or text or whatever, you’re going to get compression and text cannot send that much info. I will also accept FTP or Dropbox as those are links in uncompressed formats. We’ll see if anything changes about that. Leafy bug says, I like the way this judges court is full of artifacts collected over his 500 year reign on the bench. His cool rocking, thrown that 19th century bingo wheel thingy. I liked this judge he’s. So folksy reminds me of my favorite uncle.

He seems like a fun guy to have around the Thanksgiving dinner table. No doubt. De Del SPI says the fact that airdrop is being used concerns me. I’m sure there’s lineage traceability for the files. When it comes to airdrop, perhaps this is why the person who provided the file wanted to use it. I feel this shows a clear realization that DA’s office needs better digital evidence intake. I provide security camera footage for a shooting that happened near me. I had a two hour call with the detective because they wanted to know exact placement of cameras, models. They wanted proper raw footage, which I was able to provide them. It’s amazing how bad this DA’s office is and how the detectives are with all of this. Yeah, this is, this is the justice system de Del SPE it’s everybody just sort of duct taping around the margins.

It’s government work through and through prosecuting people and putting them in prison. This is the, this is the entire reason I started this show in this channel. This type of stuff happens all the time, and I’m just grateful that people are now seeing it on display a hundred thousand people on Nick’s stream. It’s nuts. It’s amazing. Speech says a good point was brought up by someone on the locals. Chat. Why in the hell is government using Gmail? They have a government website. Well, they might be using the Gmail backend the apps like, so we have an, our law ac.com email, but we use Gmail as the backend. So maybe it’s something like that. Uh, Jeremy says shouldn’t evidence follow a chain of custody, including file details. The fact that prosecution’s argument hinges on the blurry video claiming Kyle is pointing a weapon at someone. The prosecutor is arguing that the defense should have known what they could have, could not have possibly known.

The higher resolution video was accidentally played for the jury. There was clearly two different files. And so we’re going to stop right there. My friends that was the last one from Jerry and Mata, obviously two different files, obviously two different videos, two different stories about disclosure. And we’re going to get into all of that. And more tomorrow before we wrap up quick reminder that we’re going to get through the rest of these locals questions tomorrow morning, I expect that to be about 10 30 Arizona or about 1130 Arizona time. So one or two in the afternoon, depending on when I can wrap up some stuff in the morning. So we’ll get through the rest of those questions. It is super late. So I’ve got to wrap up and get onto the next stop of the night. But before we get out of here, I want to welcome a couple people who are joined up on our locals community, big shout outs to unsheathed welcome to Tucker grip.

We’ve got Tommy nukes who joined up. We’ve got Fantasma, Gloria, welcome black cat Meow. We’ve got Nick McLeod, Dr. Breton in the house T Blakemore. Welcome to you Patriot minute, Chris C 1 2 3, Dr. Sammy D’s in the house. Pub crawl. Julie fluffle woods. Oh eight karaoke princess. We’ve got not the great Cora Coco Overton transparency, missin Lin desert pirate. BJR 40 46 89. J bought 1970 nines in the house. We’ve got DC gen David Orndorff law school. I think drew Johanne. Nicety is here. Miles Braeden. We’ve got time. Lord Stu tester 22 T O Grall. We have Coronas, a deer. We have the next unicorn Jack solely age, the next unicorn official glitch dot bef custodies, P N E w. Robert Emery chip Von shoulder para LA crime junkie JECA future freedom. Now Briggs 57 gecko man PWS, MKZ, CPO forever, and de Del SPE all in the house.

And that is a lot of new people over at our community at watchingthewatchers.locals.com. I hope you consider joining us over there because we have an amazing community. We’re talking a lot of good stuff. We’re building a place where we can all congregate and share ideas and talk about the issues that matter in the world around us. I hope you join us over there watchingthewatchers.locals.com and my friends. That is it for me, for the date. We’re going to be back live tomorrow morning on locals exclusively. So join us there. Otherwise I’ll see you back here tomorrow. Not sure exactly what time again, because again, we’re sort of waiting to see what the written house court does might be. Our regular time might be a little bit later. We’ll see, but stick around, connect with us over on locals. My friends have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I’ll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye.

Loading...