I predict verdicts today or tomorrow, or a declaration from the jury that they are irrevocably deadlocked on one or more counts. The jury will want to be done with this case by the weekend, especially the weekend prior to Thanksgiving.
The jury is acting like a divided jury. When a jury is divided they ask for exhibits in order to have ammunition in their arguments discussions with other jurors Today we will likely see questions to the court about specific instructions, especially the self-defense instructions and the burden instruction. Jurors argue with each other by quibbling over instructions that none of them fully understand. The Judge will likely tell them the instructions say what they say, and he can give them no further interpretation. Such questions often are asked and “answered” shortly before verdicts are announced. Americans often have a bone deep belief in majority rule, and it is hard for a minority to hold out, contra Twelve Angry Men.
Outside of the jury, there were evidentiary arguments over the drone video and arguments on the defense’s motion for a mistrial. Full of Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. After looking stern at the State, and giving every indication of declaring a mistrial, the Judge allowed the jury, per their request, to look at the drone video and the other videos in evidence. As usual, the defense seemed to be sleepwalking through these arguments, while the prosecutors kept talking and ultimately got their way. I learned early in my legal career to keep talking until I prevail, or until a judge tells me to shut up. It is an effective technique and I am surprised that defense counsel are so bad at this simple stratagem in courtroom representation.
As for the Judge, he has a fair number of merits, but he is beginning to remind me of the Cowardly Lion in a judicial robe: all roar and no bite. He also engaged in unseemly whining about media coverage of the trial on the record. I have often heard judges on a notable trial decrying the media, but this is off the record with only counsel present. On the record, with non-lawyers in the courtroom, I have never seen the type of o-woe-is-me-the-media-coverage-is-bad that the Judge displayed yesterday. I had thought this old time Judge would be immune from media pressure. To my disappointment I was wrong.
Here is a recaps of yesterday:
Go here for a live feed for today with lots of attorney commentary. The jury should resume deliberations at 10:00 AM CT.
Update:
No questions from the jury today. With the consent of the Judge they ceased their deliberations early. The forewoman of the jury asked if she could bring a copy of the jury instructions home. The Judge consented to this. Breaking early is often a sign of a jury where tempers are on edge. The forewoman taking the jury instructions home might mean she wants to study them to fortify her arguments. Speculation has her as one of the holdouts against a not guilty verdict, but that is only speculation. Deadlock or verdicts, or both, loom tomorrow. I will be astonished if this goes through the weekend.
YOU GOTTA FUGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO RIOT!
The FBI has assigned its best men to investigate suburban moms that speak up at school board meetings.
Media and China Occupation Government Responses – Violence Is The Answer.
The judge strikes me as someone who expects lawyers to have enough respect for the law to back down when told they are acting completely against it. For example, I think he expected his dressing down of the prosecution for blatantly ignoring Kyle’s fifth amendment rights to keep them in line for the rest of the trial. Of course, such things do not work at all if the prosecution has no respect for the law and takes getting yelled at for violating it in a woke cause as a badge of honor.
By this point the judge should be aware that the only way that he can honor the law is to declare a mistrial with prejudice. But it’s also clear that he is worried about optics and thinks that preventing the jury from ruling will make it look like he is trying to rule by fiat. So instead the prosecution is allowed to ignore law and procedure for their benefit, making it more likely for the jury to come to a guilty verdict (though I suspect a hung jury is more likely.)
I have no idea what the judge will do if the jury returns a guilty verdict, especially if they do so after reviewing the video that he admitted was improper evidence.
Barnes had an appearance on Michael Malice’s show discussing the case.
https://youtu.be/xgNbG8VS58E
The Babylon Bee just listed the 8 critical mistakes the Rittenhouse prosecution has made. Good stuff.
I can’t see it being anything but a hung jury at this point.
Especially since a juror requested to take the jury instructions home and the judge agreed. Hard to see why that would have happened unless the juror is a hold out that is looking for some loophole to convince the others.