Marking the end of one of the most absurd trials ever witnessed by American masses, a jury announced Friday that Kyle Rittenhouse, killer of 2 American protesters, was acquitted of murder and several other charges.
Despite the 17 year-old white supremacist crossing state lines while possessing an illegal firearm, which equivocates to two separate felonious charges, his continual flagging of unarmed protestors with his AR-15 long rifle which is considered intimidation another felonious charge, breaking statewide mandated curfews, and his subsequent murder of a pair of citizens that would lead one to assume that 2 counts of murder would be an additional 2 felonious charges.
Much of the nation’s attention is directed at Judge Bruce Schroeder who oversaw the trial. Many observers believed fixed the trial in Rittenhouse’s favor.
No transcript as been released from the Kenosha district court, but from a raw count Schroeder interrupted the prosecution during its cross-examination of Rittenhouse some 36 times. Schroeder also barred pertinent evidence from the trial, such as a video of Rittenhouse saying he wished he could “shoot protesters” just days before his attack. Additionally, a viral video of Rittenhouse assaulting a fellow female student at his high school just weeks prior to his killing spree was also barred from trial.
Schroeder stated that neither of the videos was relevant to the case despite the evidence demonstrating clear intent on Rittenhouse’s behalf.
Additionally, Schroeder refused to admit any of the evidence concerning several of Rittenhouse’s threats to unarmed civilians in the moments leading up to the attack. Schroeder is on record stating that there is a “Difference between making threats without a gun, and making threats with a gun in your hand.” Which would lead us to believe that all standards of intent was thrown out before the trial even began, and would also lead one to assume that the lead magistrate in this case (Schroeder) would invalidated the burden of the prosecution proving intent.
What makes this so egregious is that Schroeder made sure to allow the defense to slander one of the victims in the case, Joe Rosenbaum. The defense made their entire case on the fact that Rosenbaum had a previous criminal record, thus his shooting was justified in some way, shape or form. But when the prosecution attempted to corner Rittenhouse on the stand using the same paradigm of previous actions proving current intent, Schroeder outright screamed at Thomas Binger.
Schroeder claimed that Binger was getting “brazen” with him.
Rittenhouse admitted during cross-examination that he brought the gun for protection and aimed it at several unarmed people because he was concerned for property in the area that wasn’t even his, meaning that he openly admitted to malicious intent on the stand.
Judge Schroeder quickly leapt in to tell the prosecution to “hurry up” in it cross-examination since he appeared to realize that Rittenhouse was incriminating himself on the stand.
Footage from a local police drone showed Rittenhouse running down unarmed civilians, but defense attorney Mark Richards requested that the jury not be privy to the full video, but instead a segment, despite the discovery process validating the full 2 minute tape.
Schroeder went along with Richards despite state regulations. Section 804.01 of Wisconsin criminal procedures states that “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case” and the prosecution argued that entirety of the footage of Rittenhouse attacking civilians is indeed relevant to his self defense claim.
Rittenhouse’s defense attorney, Mark Richards also attempted to direct Rittenhouse during several instance of cross-examination, a direct violation Wisconsin state law.
During cross-examination of Rittenhouse, Binger asked Rittenhouse why he aimed his long rifle at Gaige Grosskreutz despite Grosskreutz having his hands in the air. Rittenhouse responded that he knew Grosskreutz had a gun. When Binger followed up and asked why he shot if the gun wasn’t pointed at him or drawn, Rittenhouse claimed that he believed that it was “just the way the video looked.”
Finally something that’s never been seen before in Wisconsin litigation, Judge Bruce Schroeder allowed Rittenhouse to select his own jurors. Eighteen prospective jurors sat through two weeks of testimony and arguments before Rittenhouse was told to pick six numbers out of a lottery basket.
Now, outraged citizens want to take legal action against Schroeder for what many call a clear example of judicial bias.
According to the Legislative Reference Bureau, Wisconsin judges may be removed in one of four ways: By the Wisconsin Supreme Court, by recall, by legislative impeachment and by address which is another type of impeachment.
According to RCW section 2.48.220 Grounds of disbarment or suspension include
“Willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him or her to do or forbear an act connected with, or in the course of, his or her profession, which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.”
It also considers
“Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact made in his or her application for admission or in support thereof” to be grounds for suspension.
In terms of legislative address, the state would need to proceed with a trial in the Senate (as with the impeachment process), but it requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers to remove the official.
Additionally, federal complaints can be filed against Schroeder, meaning that if enough are filed in succession or if sufficient evidence is found to prove Schroeder’s judicial bias or misconduct, he may stand to be disbarred and possibly jailed.
As for Rittenhouse, we can expect to see a series of civil suits aimed at him for a litany of endangerment and wrongful death, to which the burden of proof is substantially different than in criminal court.
Rittenhouse’s problems have just begun.
–Barrington Williams, Marcus Davis, B1Daily
B1Daily 