Post ADZnxpYVTZKQTnTdDs by JJ@social.quodverum.com
 (DIR) More posts by JJ@social.quodverum.com
 (DIR) Post #ADZjJ1EsjUCN1ea7eq by darulharb@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T00:22:38Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @willchamberlain: "Just heard on Fox News that the Rittenhouse defense lawyers ran two mock trials - one with Kyle testifying, one where he didn’t - and found that Kyle was much more positively viewed when he testified""#WI #Kenosha #Rittenhouse #trial https://nitter.autarkic.org/willchamberlain/status/1461840607261958150(H/T @shipwreckedcrew RT )
       
 (DIR) Post #ADZnxpYVTZKQTnTdDs by JJ@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T01:14:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @darulharb The Defense atty Mark Richards told EVERYONE that at his presser
       
 (DIR) Post #ADZoEy4T4JuroSb9U0 by wziminer@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T01:17:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @darulharb If you look at the Rekeita panel stream, Richards said exactly that. They decided to have him testify after exactly that. Richards said that after the mock trials, they knew they had no choice. (Paraphrase) "No Wisconsin  jury will acquit a defendant who does not testify."
       
 (DIR) Post #ADa0xFM1N2RFbhglcG by darulharb@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T03:40:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @JJ @TearGasBreakfast >"Asking for a mistrial without prejudice when their written motion was with prejudice"It was two separate motions, but the later one was kind of unnecessary, because I understand that the judge could decide on whether to grant mistrial with or without prejudice on the original motion.I don't fault them for trying to get the mistrial without prejudice while the judge hadn't ruled on the first motion.  It was a "see, we're being eminently reasonable?" tactic.
       
 (DIR) Post #ADa1U8MYNxP1TocU1w by darulharb@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T03:46:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @JJ @TearGasBreakfast The real surprise to me was when the prosecutors didn't take them up on it. (I guess they really didn't want to have to admit how badly they'd done.)
       
 (DIR) Post #ADaaLGvKozltAK5sTA by JJ@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T10:16:54Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @darulharb @TearGasBreakfast One issue binger brought up in his written response was the requirement for a mistrial had to show intent to get another trial (or another kick at the cat) - had they accepted the without prejudice offer may have proved that intent.Lawyers are slimy
       
 (DIR) Post #ADagXRA5BNo67MAyDw by darulharb@social.quodverum.com
       2021-11-20T11:26:20Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @JJ @TearGasBreakfast Oh, interesting.  I hadn't seen that the prosecution had filed a response to the motion.