That may be. I don't know. I am just saying that the defense is arguing otherwise. Especially if the Natalie Wisco mentioned in that article is the gray haired sort of fifty-ish woman who sits off to the side with the defense team. Not for me to settle. Just saying it is part of the motion.
Why the long deliberations My guess is that there are a few woke women on the jury who wanted to convict all along for woke reasons The time is being using to get an unanimous vote
Yeh, I don't have any problem with that. Defense has said though that if they had seen that video they "may" have handled the case differently, and the jury has confirmed- by requesting to see it again- that they have it under the microscope. And defense argues- which goes to your points- that they were presented with the video- even if it had come in proper form- after trial and during closing arguments. Defense obviously is bloviating as required by their role but the judge chimes in and says if such and such did happen and the jury wants to see that video then that could be a problem- then they did want to see it. There will be no dismissal on minor flaps as you said. I was just saying that there is more going on there than just the file formatting glitch if the state is responding to the motion. Which they are. As I said, the judge is hoping for an acquittal and not have to deal with it. He could but he doesn't have to yet.
You gotta love the work that is put into keeping the jury free and untainted from any outside influences, then they allow the crowd to chant outside the courthouse 24/7, and go home at night where they can watch MSNBC to find out what the correct answer is. If they were sequestered and had to spend the night down at the local No-Tell Motel with no TV that case would have been decided by now. Little joke there. Hopefully not true.
I am not sure if more is going on or usual going on but with a ginormous microscope.... trials now are watched live and talked about for hours eveyr night by the "Experts".... We thought OJ case was overdone but now that is just normal. Lawyers now have to prepare for the case AND for the camera and whatever soundbytes. Judges too I think. I think the judges are off the hook because they make a procedural decision and if losing side wants they can appeal the procedure for remand but trials are really hard versus civil since you cannot replicate the jury. A good sign that the jury asked to see the video is that they are going to take that into account and wanted a closer look. In other words defense might not have had the time they wanted with the video but videos are direct testimony and they speak for themselves. It is better the jury sees them in private without lawyers manipulating what they want them to see and let the jury just see it as it is. I think the fact that the jury wanted to see it makes it less troublesome for me the defense got it late because in the end you still make the same closing argument.
If there are multiple counts there might be detailed deliberations on how to decide. Juries dont just walk in and vote and then say ok we all say guilty? Cool let's go. Even if they all feel he is guilty, in general then it is... ok which count and why? Then differences can occur. You could have a member of the jury that thinks he is 100% guilty and should be punished fully. then someone says he is guilty of killing but there are some mitigating factors. then another says, he kileld them but 100% justified. Long deliberations hopefully mean the jury is taking its time to discuss all issues. I know we all hope things should be slam dunk guilty or acquitted but any case that is a slam dunk guilty verdict or acquittal has been pleaded out long before it got to a trial. I would rather they took their time than come back in 1 hour on a case with very difficult fact patterns and degrees of culpability. There is no doubt Rittenhouse killed those 2 people. Everything after that is up for legal interpretation.
Oh i don't know. You can make that argument and the prosecution will use those points. But the opposite argument has merit as well. ie. the fact that the jury wanted to see it is a bad sign because it means that they focused on a piece of evidence that is in dispute. Even if I agreed with you the judge said if they wanted to see that very same video it would be a problem. And as far as videos being direct testimony and speaking for themselves, if anythng this trial has been about competing views and assertions of how to interpret what is actually being seen in videos right before their eyes. And again, you can say that they got it late because in the end they are still making the same closing arguments but defense has already argued that if they had seen it earlier they might have handled that piece differently. Probably that is just obligatory huffing and puffing but they had an obligatuon to provide it in a timely manner when requested. Defense argues their timely request was denied, you say well they didn't need it anyway because it would not change their argument, so on and so forth. It is not for the prosecution to decide when the defense needs it. Anyway. There are lots of issues on the table regarding the motion/s for dismissal. None of them are going to lead to a dismissal before jury verdict or maybe ever. If he is convicted of one of the lesser charges, quite possible. The judge will give him eight year, and then the will appeal all the issues raised for dismissal will become part of the appeal and ultimately they will arrive a plea deal where he gets four years, time served blah, blah. So the issues being raised are not show stoppers but they may have their value too at some point.
A lot of moving parts in this case. There is not a judge or lawyers in that court that have been involved in a case this complex - and one of them- the judge- said that directly.
If anyone sees any videos of Joy Reid howling like a husky do not deny us that entertainment content. Ahhhrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! All kidding aside though, those people are dangerous. They are looking to out jurors right before riots could/could not happen. Very, very dangerous stuff. Judge bans MSNBC from Rittenhouse trial https://thehill.com/homenews/media/582182-judge-bans-msnbc-from-rittenhouse-trial