unique visitors counter Rittenhouse Jury Asks To See Video On Day 2 Of Deliberations As Judge Rips Media Coverage – Washington News

Rittenhouse Jury Asks To See Video On Day 2 Of Deliberations As Judge Rips Media Coverage

Sharing is caring!

The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case trashed the media for the ‘grossly irresponsible handling’ of the trial as the jury sought more clarification from the judge. There seems to be a disagreement among jurors because they asked the judge if the videos they wanted to see again could be viewed in private or in the public courtroom. This could easily end in a hung jury.

According to the Denver Post, “About two hours into deliberations on the second day, jurors asked to view video presented at the trial and the judge said he would determine the procedures to allow that.

“Prosecutor Thomas Binger said they should be able to view any video they wanted as many times as they wanted, while defense attorney Mark Richards said he would object to the jury viewing video taken by a drone that prosecutors said showed Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters before the shootings.”

Fox News reported, “On Wednesday, the jury’s third round of questions related to the drone footage and images shown at the trial. They asked: “Do we view videos in private or in the courtroom? Do you need to know exact exhibit number of photos?” Judge Bruce Schroeder told the jury they could view the images in the courtroom.”

One video is the basis for a motion for mistrial by the defense. The defense claims on November 5 the prosecution turned over a compressed version of a drone video of Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum. The defense claimed in the new filing that the prosecution had a clearer version of the video but they did not provide it to the defense until after both sides were finished presenting their cases. The video was key evidence in the trial.

The jury will be back at it this morning. The judge has been underwhelmed by the prosecutors verbally clashing with them on multiple occasions. He warned them about introducing other ‘enhanced’ images calling them a house of cards that could fall on appeal.

The motion for mistrial said: “As it relates to the compressed drone footage. The prosecution should be required to explain to the court why they did not copy the footage for the defendant with the same quality as their copy.

“The video footage has been at the center of this case. 

“The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.”

From The Daily Mail:

According to the motion, ‘On November 5, 2021, the fifth day of trial on this case, the prosecution turned over to the defense footage of a drone video which captured some of the incident from August 25, 2020.

‘The problem is the 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.’

The motion goes onto explain that the file size of the defense video is just 3.6MB while the prosecution’s is 11.2MB.

The motion states that this larger file was not provided to the defense ‘until after the trial concluded’

It reads, ‘During the jury instructions conference, the defense played their version of the video for the court to review.

The state indicated their version was much clearer and had their tech person come into court to have the court review their clearer video.

The video is the same, the resolution of that video, however, was not.’