KYLE RITTENHOUSE CASE - BEHIND THE SCENES
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 май 2022
- Neil Rockind dives into one of the most prolific cases in recent history with Mark Richards, Rittenhouse's attorney.
*****************************************************************************
Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer, appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discuss popular trials and cases and current events with other tops lawyers around the country. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.
The contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We use portions of trial clips from RUclips and other sites including clips and photographs of Kyle Rittenhouse and the Trial. It is in the public domain and is newsworthy. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material.
All other rights are reserved.
#kylerittenhouse #rittenhouse #acquittal #crossexamination #lawyer #rightwingvsleftwing #politics
He should never of been charged,it was political
Yes, and the media was shameful. They had uninformed guests on saying things like "took his gun across state lines" and didn't correct them. The reporting was so bad that many people thought he randomly shot black protesters. No wonder so many thought he was guilty.
Huh?
As the trial went on it became clear that Binger wanted a mistrial. If he could get a mistrial without prejudice he could try and exhaust Rittenhouse’s financial ability to defend himself, if it was a mistrial with prejudice he could save face and blame the judge by claiming bias. The last thing he wanted was for the trial to actually go to the jurors.
I figured Binger was trying to provoke the Judge in order to make the trial look unfair. He knew he wasn't going to win, but wanted to save his own reputation. If that was his goal, it even worked a bit. Many liberals today believe Rittenhouse only got off because the Judge had his back somehow.
I think you're right on.
Yeah because Jury’s are dumb and he knew that most people wouldn’t see the obvious fact that Rittenhouse went with the intention to shoot
I’ll readily admit, as a card carrying liberal, I was convinced Rittenhouse was a member of some vigilante militia who went to that community simply to taunt/one up the BLM movement.
Then I watched the trial. Within half-way of the trial I had completely changed my mind, and realized this was indeed a situation when a young man was sincerely trying to assist his own community, was attacked, and protected himself.
Justice is a beautiful thing.
I love posts like this, it restores my hope for humanity. Do you remember what, specifically, changed your mind? Like was it any particular testimony or video or anything?
Stop watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, any MSM. It’s all BS.
The media/social media is a powerful thing. Glad you watched the trial!
What planet do you live on?
What trial did you watch?
Since when is purchasing a gun illegally considered a sincere attempt to assist the community?
That is the very definition of vigilante violence.
@@diegoflynn6215 What gun are you talking about?
The gun Rittenhouse had was 100% legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of and to open carry. Here is a link describing why. ruclips.net/video/adFTYHHrTIQ/видео.html
Unless you are talking about Grosskreutz who was shot in the bicep. He was carrying illegally and lied to the police in his statement about losing his gun (a glock pistol), when he had it the whole time and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head.
Or was it the gun that Ziminski pointed at Kyle when he went to put out the car fire? A gun he reported missing the very next day.
I wish I could’ve wiped the smirk off the cops face when he refused to say that RosenPhile was stalking Kyle…Kenosha PD should be ashamed of themselves.
Which witness was that?
Binger needs to be disbarred
WHO'S GETTING INTERVIEWED HERE? LET RICHARDS TALK.
Exacttly. It's tough for an online lawyer not to interupt and talk about himself.
It was frustrating. Several times during the interview Mr. Richards is talking about something interesting, and he just interrupts him, and doesn't even bring back the topic to let him finish.
Unsure if this is covered or not…the most disgusting part of this case was the way the Khindri brothers (car lot owners who asked Rittenhouse’s group to keep an eye on their property) later distanced themselves and then lied on the stand. Said differently, they asked a group to help them, when the group did and public perception changed, they threw the people who helped them under the bus. That is incredibly disgusting and for the life of me cannot fathom why Rittenhouse does not sue the brothers for taking the stand and lying while he stood trial.
Agree!
I watched the entire case from beginning to end, and this was one of the most sad moments of the trial. Sahil shouldn't have just been sued by Kyle, but be in prison right now for perjury. I counted the amount of lies, and it was well over 20. However, I think it was less about public perception, and more about the insurance issue. They had insurance on the property on the vehicles, but not for damage sustained by riots. Additionally, that was the location of Jacob Rosenbaum's death. So they were happy to have protection on the lot up until the point that someone was killed on their property by Kyle, making them potentially liable.
@@stevecase6168 yes this was clearly the case. Over 100 cars totally destroyed and they say it was 400k of damages. Even without the 2.5mil from the interview it looks dodgy.
Agreed, and their perjurous testimony allowed Kyle's critics to keep saying 'no-one asked him to be there'. They also conveniently ignore the numerous other witnesses that testified they were in fact asked to be there.
The smoking gun on this is the photograph with the goofy brother smiling in front of their business with the group of young men and JoAnne.
One advice Neil. Please let your guest speak without interrupting them!!!!
Thank you for critique. I’ll make an effort to do better. If you’ve watched some of my latest interviews, I’m trying to interject less.
Great interview, however unfortunately there were some interesting points Richards was making when he was interrupted.
Absolutely. That interviewer interrupts too much.
Just when Mark would get into some juicy or interesting parts…………
Thx for the interview. ✌🏻
Wow! Thank you for this interview!
Great interview !
Interesting, this is the first official thing we’ve heard about what happened in that jury deliberation room. They were initially 9-3 in favor of acquittal of the Rosenbaum charge.
Yes. I think those three desperately wanted to find him guilty but in the end, they just couldn't. Unlike RUclips commentators, they couldn't just ignore the facts and convict him just because he had a gun.
@@presto709 well, in the above interview, Mark Richards said that he talked to 1 of the jurors who initially voted guilty on the Rosenbaum charge and after they argued for days, the 9 in favor of acquittal told the 3 to do a presentation on why they think guilty. That’s why they wanted to take home the instructions. The juror said when he went home and as he worked on his presentation, he realized it doesn’t work and changed his mind to not guilty, then presented that to the other 2 holdouts who agreed, not guilty. Then they were all unanimous.
And I agree with you, part of it was they realized this isn’t right.
@@HeyLady. Right. For me, the evidence all pointed to self-defense so that's why I think those who weren't sure must have had an agenda. But in the end, they followed the evidence so I have no criticism of them.
@@presto709 I agree, it does seem obvious, doesn’t it? The instructions may have been confusing but there may have been some fear of finding him not guilty, as well, so maybe they were looking for a reason to find him guilty, I see what you’re saying. We’ll never know!
@@HeyLady. I'd love to see them interviewed but this lawyer's comment is the closest we have so far.
Fantastic interview
You truly can't grasp how important this trial was until you hear what Mark Richards says at 1:18:34
I’m not there yet but 25:45 is pretty salient.
Okay Teejay. I *finally* got to that part and what Richards said is interesting and thought-provoking. I
I think that Richards might have been a little melodramatic, and here is my thinking as to why (again not dismissing what he said, just offering a differing opinion).
Kyle is not built for prison. This is something I’m sure we can all agree on. The DOC realizes this as well, and due to the prolific nature of his case, he would have been placed in Protective Custody (PC).
Understand, PC is often the same housing unit as Administrative Segration, aka “the hole”. So by Kyle being placed in to PC, he would additionally be in solitary confinement. Again due to Kyle’s profile, I’m sure his legal team would assist with him in not having to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement. So what to do?
Usually in the situations, they will move the inmate out of state to a prison that has other “high-profile/not a threat and not built for mainline” inmates such as Dodge Correctional where he can work his way to either a lower level mainline or be in a “special needs” wing.
But let’s say that they did just throw him in to general population in prison. I personally think Kyle would be well/protected. While I know nothing about Wisconsin prison policies, I imagine the majority of inmates are white. So who would be out to get him? Blacks? Maybe…but remember not if his victims were black. White liberals? There aren’t many of us in state prisons.
So I think Kyle would be kind of a celebrity with the same groups the Binger and his team tried to associate him with.
But again, I highly doubt he would be placed in to General Population anywhere anytime soon
So…not dismissing what Richards said. Kyle would have had an extremely rough time in prison. I just don’t think it’s that black and white.
@@YourFreeBeatsmany people thought he killed black people. He was portrayed as a white supremacist militia member lol. He would have 100% been at risk
Don't get brazen with me!
Binger and Krauss are the worst.. they should be disbarred for their misconduct during the trial, before and after..
I wish I could shake both Mark and Corey's hands. I tip my hat to you both good sirs. You were exactly right to stay away from the politics. Kyle has been through a lot, and been given shady advice from many people.
I'm so glad Mark ended up leading the team. I honestly believe it's his humbleness and honesty and down to earth quality that allowed them to win. Apart from the strong evidence that is, but if it was only based on evidence, he never would have been indicted..
Thanks for a great interview..
💯💯💯
Superb interview
Can’t worry about what people think if you want to be a successful defense attorney! Really enjoyed watching Mr. Richards in that trial and tried to learn from him.
I loved that part (can’t remember what had happened) where Binger had once again been out of line and you just see Richard’s jumping up and waving his hands in the background.
I hate how people seem to think that defense attorneys are the scum of the earth when it is really most prosecutors that are the real scum
Richards was a terrific interview. He shared many insights about the case and what the trial was like. He is a warrior.
Believing that all prosecutors are scum is just as ignorant and sad as believing all defense attorneys are scum lol. Both are essential instruments in the adversarial legal system that we have
@@NeilRockind please try to let your guests speak more without so many interruptions. Same thing happened in the Carl Douglas interview. He would be about to drop some insanely interesting never-before-heard anecdotes and then you’d cut him off and the entire topic would change lol
It's both sides. Prosecutors and defense attorneys with all the evidence on their side will play it straight because they don't need to play dirty. When all the evidence is against them, they'll try any shady stuff they can. That said, prosecutors have a legal obligation to seek justice and not convictions, so the onus is on them to play it straight no matter what.
Binger and Kraus should be disbarred imo.
I agree with Richards it came off extremely evident that he could identify with the jurors (people from Kenosha) as well as being very passionate concerning his clients well-being.
BTW, completely agree with the “fairness” of answering questions directly to the jury. I’d see it occasionally during the years, however it’s become en vogue the past five years.
As someone who watched the live livestream of the events in Kenosha and watched every minute of the trial, probably more than once, this was a great interview. Mark, Cory, and Natalie are excellent examples of what the legal field should be. They had a case, that should have been unlosable, and had to fight everything they shouldn't have had to - like the media, the full weight of every level of government, public opinion, and frankly disgusting tactics by the prosecutor and they still won. They went into battle for what their client and nothing else. I think this was insightful and I am grateful for seeing it. Thank you.
...and an honest attorney
Bookmarks
Judge's Rulings, Ridiculous Prosecution requests, no law - 16:30
Bond Hearing Shenanigans - 18:45
Witness Cross, Richie Mc. Yellow Pants, Gaige - 37:00
Mistrial drone footage 52:25
Prosecutor mistrial attempts - Other Acts & Right to silence 54:00
Apple pinch-to-zoom 1:04:30
Last question about jury - 1:08:15
Jury deliberations - 1:09:48
The Judge seemed very consistent with trying to follow the law not politics.
HELL YEAH
Hell yeah
ALWAAAYS A PLEASURE TO WATCH YOUR PRODCAST
Both solid attorneys
Would have loved to hear about Gaige falling out of his chair during one of the zoom hearings. Poor Kyle had to hide below the table to hide his laughter!
I liked the way the case was handled. Some went nuts but l understood everything the defense did. A group of lawyers actually thought the defense was going to put the ar in Kyles hands. That really annoyed me. The way they carried on.
Wasnt a chair. It was a card board box. He just moved
YES!! 😂🤣😂🤣💯💯💯
Poor Kyle?
Kyle was 18 years old. What didn't he lie about?
He lied to buy the gun. He drove without a license. He lied about going to college in Arizona. He lied about being a medic.
The guy is a murderer.
He is not a hero.
He is evil.
He will kill aagain.
@@bestinshow0732 It was hilarious.
@@diegoflynn6215 He never brought the gun. He did take college courses online, but when he signed up, it checked the box where it asks if you want your info public, and said no. So when the University was asked, they knew him as a number and not a name. What is a medic? As the prosecution asked if he was an EMT. He did drive without a license in Wisconsin...but he had an Illinois permit. As in IL you need to have a permit for 9 months if you are under 18, before you can get a license. So maybe work on getting your facts straight.... Maybe stop believing what the media says...
Kyle and his Lawyers👏👏👏👏👏👏👍🏿💎!
Binger gave THE dumbest argument with respect to the pinch and zoom. He said "Wal all do it every day:. Yeah, to zoom in on a puppy or a birthday cake, sure. But not to present evidence in a murder trial.
It's odd that the jury was divided on the Rosenbaum shooting. That seems like the most obvious case of self-defense. Huber and Groskruetz were obvious too but I could see people getting hung up on the idea that they thought they were doing the right thing so viewing them as victims.
It was the least obvious because the camera footage of the other 2 was absolutely conclusive. If it wasn't for that BS drone stuff and the hocus pocus photo, the Rosenbaum shooting would have been a non-brainer, but the prosecution really muddied the water with it.
@@johnbull1568
I think the fact that you clearly see on video Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse there is no way to deny self-defense.
Even IF as some suggest, Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum, the moment Rittenhouse retreated and was chased he could not be called the aggressor.
@@presto709 It was still far less conclusive than the video evidence re the other shootings, which was filmed really close up. We obviously both agree Kyle was 100% not guilty, but I just think the Rosenbaum shooting was far less clear-cut than the others in the juries eyes, especially with the BS photo introduced late in the trial.
@@johnbull1568 I’m not so sure about that. I think the juror Richards talked to went in prejudiced. I think he even lied to get on the jury.
Thank you for the interview, but it would be better if you didn't interrupt your guest so much.
You saved Kyle's life mate.....❤
The conduct of the prosecution in this case was really inappropriate : lying, tempering with evidence, influencing witnesses testimonies, infringement on the defendent's right to silence, ignoring previous ruling, pointing a gun at the jury. Most of it coming from Binger, it was a real shit show.
I saw it the same way! Binger and lunchbox should have been disbarred! They did everything they could to put Kyle in prison for life!
In regards to the drone footage. If memory serves me. Bigboy had an apple iphone and he used air drop to send the file. Airdrop compresses stuff. The meta data should reveal all that. The lesson here is that lawyers should have a hacker on their staff who can catch this stuff for them.
They didn't have time to game it all out because the evidence was introduced so late in the trial. In hindsight, it was easy to prove that the drone footage showed that Kyle was already being chased when the photo was taken, because he'd already dropped the fire extinguisher in the photo. The drone footage showed that he only dropped the fire extinguisher *after* Rosenbaum ambushed him.
That woman for the defense was fantastic
He kind of had 2 explanations that he blended together. Piece of shit.
The prosecutor got caught red handed. He had handbrake and another video editing software right on his computer in court.
Also it all came out because the prosecutor said "this isn't the good video" "where's the good video?" How would he know there was a bad video at that point when the "mistake" wasn't even known yet?
They got caught red handed and exclaimed their own guilt on the record. Lucky for them this is America where even criminal public officials are completely above the law.
It also came out they knew the name of one of the anonymous people in the videos and just never bothered telling the defense or the court.
People laugh at them like they're stupid but they know better than anyone what kind of crap they can get away with.
@@edwardscott3262
So true 🧐 the troubling thing is Binger and Lunchbox didn’t even get a spanking, they should have been disbarred!
57:40 Plea agreement out of the question.
Mr. Rockind When an attorney wins a case this large, are there expectations when a client goes to hire said attorney?
Not unless they're an ass...
Winning a high profile case doesn't earn them a special pass of any kind..
They're still just a lawyer, a human in a suit. They're not special because they exist, so like I said, unless they're an ass, they won't want special treatment just for doing their job well..
That's what I think anyway.. ✌😁
@@markgado8782 You have the same name as that famous detective from the Bronx. He wrote several books.
@@exoticprairie yep. I'm a real Australian though.. 😁😘✌
Can't recall anyone noticing before. The character is pretty obscure.. cheers
@@exoticprairie hang on, fictional or real? I've never heard of a real namesake before.. 🤔
@@markgado8782 Well I may have a few kangaroos lose in the paddock but I do alright. Lol
It's sad, it shouldn't be a shock that it's such a victory, he won fairly and to honestly, that's called being truthful.
54:45
Please tell me something has happened to Binger over his behavior during this trial. His behavior was WRONG on so many levels, and he knew it. Everyone watching knew it.
He is looking for a new job apparently and lost his run for DA by a big Margin.
@guyfanno1 Good riddance! He deserves so much worse than just having to look for a new job. He's the kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name. The entire country could see what an awful attorney he is. (failed high-profile prosecution, lack of ethics, smugly lecturing the judge, no problem violating fundamental constitutional rights) This case torpedoed his career because NO ONE was happy with him. One side is upset that he lost the case, and the other side is upset about how he acted and tried to violate basic rights. (The other side SHOULD be upset about that too, but they wanted the kid convicted by any means necessary, so they'll overlook a little prosecutorial misconduct. Can you imagine the reaction if Kyle Rittenhouse and/or Nathan DeBruin were black and Binger treated them with such hostility and contempt?)
@@SaguaroBlossom He still attained 36k of 90k votes, which is disturbing.
This interviewer is excruciating to listen to. Constantly interrupting and changing to different points and topics and doesn’t know the names of the people in the case he’s talking about.
There is some positives to social media, thank God those brain dead idiots were videoing and live streaming this stuff. Who knows what kind of verdict Kyle would have gotten without it.
Goodness gracious! If you’re going to show video at least have it queued up to exactly where you want to play, or write down the timestamp ahead of time! The clips you showed him were mainly uninteresting or irrelevant, what a wasted opportunity!
Hands down the trial of the year for me. Even better than Johnny Depp and The turd trial. I was praying Kyle was acquitted. Thankfully the jury felt the same way. I kind of felt like if the jury had come back with any other verdict the judge would nullify it. But that is a bit of a toss up. He seemed to be a bit more on the right but he was hard to read in a few parts of the trial.
neil nice bl**job. this "brilliant" lawyer asked for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice.
Do you think he doesn't know the difference between "with prejudice" and without?
From what I read the mistrial request would only come into play if Rittenhouse was found guilty. At that time the judge would have to consider it and it would be a high bar to prove the video issue affected the jury's decision.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if you are.. My impression is that it is tougher to get a mistrial with prejudice than without.
He may have calculated that if the jury came back with a guilty verdict on some of the charges the mistrial without prejudice was his best shot at a do-over.
Keep in mind that he also submitted three requests for a mistrial with prejudice on other issues.
@@presto709 Exactly. For the almost all white jury acquittal on all charges could have come about in an hour of deliberation. When it took 4 days, the defense shysters panicked.
The murderous bastard hasn't changed and WILL murder again. hope he gets what is coming to him then.
What piece of evidence makes you say Rittenhouse was a "Murderous Bastard"?
What do you make of the fact that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him and then began chasing him and reaching for his gun?
@ S K I'm not sure you understood my reply because you answered "Exactly" when I actually argued against your point.
The reason he sought a mistrial without prejudice on that one issue is that it has a lower bar than a mistrial with prejudice.
@@presto709 I was watching the trial. the body language of the defense team and the murderous little snot was pathetic when the jury asked for the FBI video that showed the gun=pointing by the murderer. 4 days of deliberation had gone by and the defense thought they were done for - thats why they asked for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice. the KKK codger of a judge gave the murderer a double dip - he took the mistrial request under advisement - he would have declared mistrial in case there was a conviction.
the snot-bastard WILL murder again - hopefully thy'll get him then.
Just can't believe the verdict !
I assume you didn't watch any of the trial.
@@dougcorcoran5455 I'm sorry but he put himself into the situation. Any person with common sense wouldn't go to the area with what the protest was about knowing a confrontation was likely .
@@georgecampbell9186 How likely is it someone attacks someone with a rifle? I would say it is extremely unlikely. Rosenbaum and company were criminals with mental problems and if they weren't looking to make problems no one would have been hurt. Rosenbaum should have stayed in the psychiatric hospital where he belonged.
@@georgecampbell9186 so u didn't watch any of it....
@@georgecampbell9186
The fact that you're referring to that particular gathering as a protest says it all.