Rittenhouse Defense Releases New Video That Clearly Proves Self Defense

[DoggyDaddy]

If "my own" witness changes their story from what they previously told me or testified to, absolutely. This is all done out in the open on the witness stand. It's not "witness tampering".

As for "my own" witness, many times a witness claims to see something or know something. If I want to get the information they have, I call them. They are technically "my witness", but that doesn't mean I have any special control over them.

If someone has already testified to a certain "fact", then recants that "fact", does that not make the previous testimony perjury? Otherwise, why bother to take an oath to tell the truth before testifying if you can change your story willy-nilly? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer (obviously), but common sense would tell me that it does.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

"On the night of January 12th, I saw John Doe shoot Jane Doe in the head."

Then... "On advice of my attorney, I would like to change my testimony. I saw nothing."

Legal or no?

 

[NewPerson556]

If someone has already testified to a certain "fact", then recants that "fact", does that not make the previous testimony perjury? Otherwise, why bother to take an oath to tell the truth before testifying if you can change your story willy-nilly? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer (obviously), but common sense would tell me that it does.

this actually happened today with one of witnesses where the prosecutor was questioning the witness about statements given to the FBI. he asked him numerous times if statements he gave to the police and FBI at the time were true and he said yes repeatedly. the prosecutor then went on to show where he made contradictory statements. can't remember exactly how it went would have to see the video again, but my point is the defense countered by simply asking the witness if he had a chance to review the statements he gave to police and FBI for correctness before they left. to which he said no, and thereby implying then the reports of his statements couldve been wrong or misinterpreted.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

this actually happened today with one of witnesses where the prosecutor was questioning the witness about statements given to the FBI. he asked him numerous times if statements he gave to the police and FBI at the time were true and he said yes repeatedly. the prosecutor then went on to show where he made contradictory statements. can't remember exactly how it went would have to see the video again, but my point is the defense countered by simply asking the witness if he had a chance to review the statements he gave to police and FBI for correctness before they left. to which he said no, and thereby implying then the reports of his statements couldve been wrong or misinterpreted.

I can see how statements given outside of the courtroom (not under oath) might change, but once it's entered into court records as sworn testimony, then changing it should result in perjury charges IMO.

 

[Jaybird1980]

"On the night of January 12th, I saw John Doe shoot Jane Doe in the head."

Then... "On advice of my attorney, I would like to change my testimony. I saw nothing."

Legal or no?

It would at least damage the person's credibility, maybe that was the goal.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It would at least damage the person's credibility, maybe that was the goal.

It should get their testimony thrown out and stricken from the record, and them charged with perjury. And if their attorney was complicit, then he should face charges as well.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I should've been an attorney with the goal to be elected as judge to stop this ****.

 

[NewPerson556]

I can see how statements given outside of the courtroom (not under oath) might change, but once it's entered into court records as sworn testimony, then changing it should result in perjury charges IMO.

depends on how it was recorded.

Attorney: Did you write the report on the statements given from the witness?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes I did.
Attorney: How long after the statements were given did you write your report?
Officer (or FBI agent): 2 days
Attorney: Did you take other statements from witnesses regarding the incident during that time?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes
Attorney: How many witnesses did you interview?
Officer (or FBI agent): 50
Attorney: 50! Wow! That's a lot! Did you write reports on statements from all those witness?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes
Attorney: Again wow! At what point in writing all these reports would you say you wrote the report for this particular witness's statements?
Officer (or FBI agent): Probably about 3/4 of the way through.
Attorney: So after interviewing all those witnesses and writing all those reports you must've been tired. Were you tired?
Officer (or FBI agent): Well, yes, but that's part of the job.
Attorney: Hmmm, so 2 days after you took the witness's statement and after writing approximately 40 other reports, is it possible you mightve missed something or wrote something down incorrectly?
Officer (or FBI agent): I suppose its possible.

Not that an officer or FBI agent would actually admit that, but you get my point.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

depends on how it was recorded.

Attorney: Did you write the report on the statements given from the witness?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes I did.
Attorney: How long after the statements were given did you write your report?
Officer (or FBI agent): 2 days
Attorney: Did you take other statements from witnesses regarding the incident during that time?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes
Attorney: How many witnesses did you interview?
Officer (or FBI agent): 50
Attorney: 50! Wow! That's a lot! Did you write reports on statements from all those witness?
Officer (or FBI agent): Yes
Attorney: Again wow! At what point in writing all these reports would you say you wrote the report for this particular witness's statements?
Officer (or FBI agent): Probably about 3/4 of the way through.
Attorney: So after interviewing all those witnesses and writing all those reports you must've been tired. Were you tired?
Officer (or FBI agent): Well, yes, but that's part of the job.
Attorney: Hmmm, so 2 days after you took the witness's statement and after writing approximately 40 other reports, is it possible you mightve missed something or wrote something down incorrectly?
Officer (or FBI agent): I suppose its possible.

Not that an officer would actually admit that, but you get my point.

That's why I differentiated between statements of the witness given to authorities prior to going to court from sworn statements given by the witness under oath in court. Seems to me, once it's made under oath, on the record, in court, then changing it would constitute perjury.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

IANAL, but wouldn't trying to get a witness to change their testimony (making their previous testimony perjury, or their "changed" version perjury?) be considered witness tampering? If not, it should be.

Witness tampering requires force or a threat of force, not just badgering. "Show up to court and I'll kill your dog" is witness tampering. "Tell them I was at your house or I'll break your knees" is witness tampering. "Your memory is as lousy as your fashion choices" is just being an ass and "are you SURE you remember it that way?" is just being a lawyer.

 

[Leadeye]

"On the night of January 12th, I saw John Doe shoot Jane Doe in the head."

Then... "On advice of my attorney, I would like to change my testimony. I saw nothing."

Legal or no?

Ask Alec Baldwin.

 

[dudley0]

Witness tampering requires force or a threat of force, not just badgering. "Show up to court and I'll kill your dog" is witness tampering. "Tell them I was at your house or I'll break your knees" is witness tampering. "Your memory is as lousy as your fashion choices" is just being an ass and "are you SURE you remember it that way?" is just being a lawyer.

I'll be a witness if you swap my dog for the spouse's cats... I won't even complain about tampering, unless they don't follow thru.

 

[actaeon277]

Alec Baldwin killed more people than all that happened at the "Insurrection".

 

[BigRed3588]

I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me Rittenhouse is facing two primary hurdles: the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and the charge for reckless homicide. While an individual unlawfully possessing a firearm can claim self defense, they are required to prove they exhausted all means of retreat. From what I’ve read, I’m not certain the defense has proven he did that; hence their repeated attempts to have the unlawful possession charge dismissed.

The second issue will likely come down to the jury’s interpretation of “reckless.” Legally, it is defined as consciously disregarding substantial and unjustified risk. The fact that he made a conscious decision to go to another state, unlawfully acquire a firearm, and insert himself into the situation could be construed as reckless in some peoples minds.

Either way, I think it will probably end in a hung jury. I have a hard time seeing 12 jurors coming to a consensus given the facts of the case.

 

[Amishman44]

The second issue will likely come down to the jury’s interpretation of “reckless.” Legally, it is defined as consciously disregarding substantial and unjustified risk. The fact that he made a conscious decision to go to another state, unlawfully acquire a firearm, and insert himself into the situation could be construed as reckless in some peoples minds.

I've pondered that term 'reckless' aspect of the accusation / charges...and it's important to keep in mind that Rittenhouse never fired his weapon except in self-defense and always at those who were in the act of attacking or assaulting him and, in the case of Gaige Grosskreutz who was in the act of actively trying to shoot Kyle in the head when Kyle shot him in the right bicep.
My interpretation of 'reckless' would be if someone was shooting indiscriminately into a crowd or driving a motor vehicle down a public sidewalk...or something along those lines.
The term 'reckless, IMO, is being used as a 'smear' campaign against Mr. Rittenhouse so as to try to frame an 'other-than-reality' mindset (viewpoint) with the jurors!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me Rittenhouse is facing two primary hurdles: the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and the charge for reckless homicide. While an individual unlawfully possessing a firearm can claim self defense, they are required to prove they exhausted all means of retreat. From what I’ve read, I’m not certain the defense has proven he did that; hence their repeated attempts to have the unlawful possession charge dismissed.

The second issue will likely come down to the jury’s interpretation of “reckless.” Legally, it is defined as consciously disregarding substantial and unjustified risk. The fact that he made a conscious decision to go to another state, unlawfully acquire a firearm, and insert himself into the situation could be construed as reckless in some peoples minds.

Either way, I think it will probably end in a hung jury. I have a hard time seeing 12 jurors coming to a consensus given the facts of the case.

Reckless homicide in WI also requires an "utter disregard for human life", provocation is a mitigating factor, and is based on what the individual knew. Generally speaking, simply being in a risky situation isn't "reckless" and the decision to do so isn't a factor. Being an armed guard transporting large amounts of money to and from a bank in a bad area of town increases your risk but isn't "reckless", etc. The "reckless" is going to be confined to the act that caused death, aka firing the gun. WI is unusual in that reckless homicide does not need the death to be unintentional.

"Utter disregard" has a specific meaning as well, laid out in a prior appeal in which the victim was killed via 'shaken baby syndrome': https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...7&q=229+Wis.+2d+67&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50&as_vis=1

As far as duty to retreat, WI is a castle doctrine state but I do not see any version of 'stand your ground' in their relevant codes absent the 'occupied dwelling, business, automobile" caveat of castle doctrine.

"
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.

Given that this happened on the street, I don't see how the illegal possession affects the duty to retreat. It's certainly possible I've missed something in WI law, though.

 

[KG1]

One thing of note is that Rittenhouse was attempting to extricate himself from the hostile area by running away before anyone was shot after which the hostile mob led by a highly agitated unstable Rosenbaum (the first one shot) who was just released from a mental health facility gave chase and caught up with him.

He then attempted to run out of the area down the street toward where the cops were staged after Rosenbaum was shot in self defense to get away from the hostile mob that gave chase and he once again defended himself when he fell to the ground and they caught up with him and started attacking him. The only ones that were shot were directly attacking him.

This is clearly IMO an act of self defense all the way.

 

[dudley0]

As far as duty to retreat, WI is a castle doctrine state but I do not see any version of 'stand your ground' in their relevant codes absent the 'occupied dwelling, business, automobile" caveat of castle doctrine.

Would he not have already attempted the duty to retreat before the first shot was fired? He was hauling ass and then got caught up in the cars where he could no longer retreat. Same for when he was running down the street. Unless the prosecution tries to say he tripped and fell on purpose.

I admit to knowing very little about how pressing the duty to retreat is.

 

[MCgrease08]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would he not have already attempted the duty to retreat before the first shot was fired? He was hauling ass and then got caught up in the cars where he could no longer retreat. Same for when he was running down the street. Unless the prosecution tries to say he tripped and fell on purpose.

I admit to knowing very little about how pressing the duty to retreat is.

I believe so. Duty to retreat only applies when you can do so safely. I was just pointing out that the dangerous possession charge does not seem to change any duty to retreat in this instance, they are completely separate issues.