Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Rittenhouse Trial Day 3: Koerri Elijah Washington, Detective Martin Howard, FBI Drone Footage

November 03, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Rittenhouse Trial Day 3: Koerri Elijah Washington, Detective Martin Howard, FBI Drone Footage
Show Notes Transcript

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial enters day 3 as the government continues with its case-in-chief. On today’s show, we recap the close of yesterday’s testimony which introduced us to Koerri Elijah Washington, who was livestreaming in August. Government Prosecutor Thomas Binger calls Detective Martin Howard as the next witness. Howard walked the jurors through several video exhibits today and we listen as defense attorney Mark Richards cross examines the detective about the FBI drone footage. And more!​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #KyleRittenhouse #Rittenhouse #FreeKyle

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert griller . I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. In this episode of watching the Watchers. It's Kyle Rittenhouse trial day three, we're going to be going through it pretty extensively. I know sometimes people get a little bit tired of the deep dives, but this is a very important trial. We've got two weeks of this. So a lot of the political stuff we're going to get back to, we could all use a break from it. Anyways, in the written house case, we're going to be hearing from one YouTube or somebody who did a lot of live streaming on the actual night, back in August, 2020 somebody by the name of Carrie Eliza, Elijah Washington. And he started to testify in day two of the trial, and then things read at a time. And so they carried it over into day three. And so we're going to pick back up with him. He testified a good portion of the morning, slight cross examination from Corey [inaudible] . And then that's the one that wraps up his testimony. We're also going to revisit something that happened in day two. Apparently there was an FBI agent who testified on day two and they didn't air the feet for anonymity purposes, but there was a drone apparently over the area in Kenosha, Washington. And so we're going to take a look at what the FBI drone captured, and we're going to have multiple interpretations of this. When we get to the government second witness today, this was detective Martin. Howard came out in court today. Lot of video exhibits got admitted into evidence a lot like 14 or 18 of them a ton. And we're not going to go through all the different videos today, but we're, we are going to just highlight certain exchanges that took place between the detective Martin Howard and between Elijah Washington. And so we want to make sure that we're giving sort of equal equal time to both sides. I'm going to try to limit some of the unnecessary comments today so we can make sure we get through a lot of clips and a lot of the questions, because yesterday there were just so many of them. And if you want to be a part of the show, we're recording this [email protected], where there is a question form that we use. So you can ask some , you know, substantive questions and don't have to pay a fee. If you're a supporter over there, you just get access to the form . We don't pay per question, right? Like you do on YouTube or on rumble or some of those other places. So it's very convenient. Does help if you keep the questions in order, of course, we only have one segment today because we are going deep on Rittenhouse. If you're looking for clips, we are going to clip up this show into the various sections . So it w it will be the Elijah Washington testimony. It will be the cross-examination testimony. It will be the FBI air drone testimony. Those will all be split up over at Robert ruler , Esq slash clips or clips, which is our YouTube channel, which is growing nicely. Thank you for your support over there as well. All right. So without any further ado, let's jump right into it. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day three, we heard from two witnesses today, specifically, we're going to take a look at Corey Elijah Washington. You can see this is the government's case in chief. It's still day three, still early in the trial government prosecutor, Thomas binger. You can see right here in the middle, still calling witnesses. And so today in day three, what we heard was Corey , Elijah Washington, this fellow right here, he's a live streamer. And he was actually there the same night that Kyle written all at the same night, all this went down, he was there. And then we're going to hear from Martin Howard. He was the Kenosha detective. Now, today, we also hear a little bit about gage gross crews , because during a cross-examination , by Mark Richards of Martin Howard, his name comes up in terms of a search warrants and accessing his phone. And so we'll get into all of that, but there was something interesting that happened yesterday. You see this new person who wasn't on the board yesterday on day two, this FBI agent, somebody named Brandon Cramon was called in as a witness yesterday. So you'll notice that yesterday on the show on day two of our coverage, Dominick black was the last person that we wrapped up the show with, but apparently they just cut the feet off of the trial and they were calling other Wix , uh , witnesses when the feed was off. So that was Brandon cram in the FBI agent. Didn't get much reporting about what he testified about, but presumably he was just somebody who could lay authentication for the aerial drone footage. And so th th th they just can't say, well, we just got this footage off the internet, who did it come from? How they get it, who can authenticate it before they get it admitted as an exhibit. And so, presumably that's what Brandon Kramon was called into court to do as the FBI agent. But apparently they also brought out Corey , Elijah Washington. You can see him here. And so we're going to hear from him, we're going to start off with him today. Most of the testimony, most of the, of the trial , uh , at least during the government's case was done by Thomas binger. So we hear a little bit from the assistant prosecutor, Jim , uh , James Cross , who, as I've been is the technical guy. And there was an exchange here that we're going to get into. I'm not sure how deep we're going to get into it today, because it is highly technical, but they were arguing about whether video footage could be played with the audio on or the audio off. Because if video footage has played with the audio on, it's going to have some commentary in there. And what if somebody is running around calling Kyle Rittenhouse, a militia person? Well, that might be pejorative. That might be something that might be offensive to certain people. And so if the jurors are hearing that language, in addition to what they're seeing, they might have a negative connotation about Kyle Rittenhouse. So they're arguing all about this stuff as whether it's hearsay or present sense exception , uh, impression ex exceptions to hearsay. And so it gets a little bit technical, but Jim James crossed the day was involved in those types of conversations. Kyle Rittenhouse, of course, didn't hear from him unlikely that we ever will. Mark Richards did a lot of the testimony today. A lot of the cross-examination except for Washington. This is Cory Chira . Feesey who did the cross-examination of Washington today. And then we're actually going to hear from judge Schroeder today. He was a little bit on a tear today. He had a special little segment comment for the media, not really happy with how he has been portrayed in the media saying I've been getting skewered over this other case, and I'm going to let the media know I'm not happy about their language that they're using about my performance. And so we'll hear from him. So we've got a lot to get to let's get into it before we do one quick reminder about the charges here. We're talking about first degree, reckless homicide, we've got intentional homicide attempted intentional homicide gauge gross. Groots wounded, still alive. We have a deceased Joseph Rosenbalm. This was the guy in the red shirt. And so we're going to hear a lot about these people. So just want to make sure that you're , you're sort of , uh , pink getting pinged with who we're talking about. Richard McGuinness , the reporter don't really have a good picture of him. Some unknown person that we obviously don't have a picture of. Anthony Huber is deceased. And then w uh, Kyle Rittenhouse also had a weapons charge in addition to one of the curfew charges. So just don't forget about that curfew charge it , it is a lesser charge, but it is going to come up. Okay. So once again, quick reminder that we are picking up talking about these two fellows. So Kerry Washington, the YouTuber from yesterday and Brandon Kramon FBI agent from yesterday, they had a sort of combined created this , uh , this composition of videos that are combined to show you a couple of different things simultaneously they're related to one another. So there's sort of time that they're matched in time. And so we can, we can see two different angles of the same timeline. We can see one from on the ground, which is going to be over here on the right, and you can see the FBI drone footage up on the top. Now this was assembled by , uh , somebody else bought by a third party. And it's presumably been exchanged by the parties here by the defense, presumably received it from the prosecution at some point in the case when there discovery being exchanged. But I want to just play it for us right now, so that we can see some of these things that we're talking about. The detective Martin Howard is going to talk of course, about the aerial footage. We're not going to hear from the FBI agent. Again, detective Howard is going to be the person who's explaining the FBI video. And then we're also going to hear from Washington, who is the person who took this footage there on the right. So I'm going to play this it's about a minute, I believe. And it's going to cut off before the shooting takes place. Okay. So , uh , just to make sure that we're not violating any, any , uh, rules or anything like that, right. Nobody's going to be shot in this video here is what it looks like, just so we can see the juxtaposition of the two angles in the same timeline.

Speaker 2:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

All right. Now you heard the first gunshot, but we're going to learn as we go through this, that that was not actually, Kyle Rittenhouse has gunshot. And so this was, as you can see, it looks like we got four different camera angles that are all being mashed together here. And the reason why I wanted to replay this is because today was sort of a video show. Okay, here we have aerial footage up here in the top. We've got another, this looks like surveillance footage down here from a building, looking onto the , the lot of the car car dealership here , somebody on the street with phone footage, another person here, drew Hernandez, we got his video footage. And so the point I want to make with this is that the prosecution they are using both of these witnesses, both Kerry , Washington , uh, and the detective Martin Howard, to get all of these videos in like a ton of them, 14, 15 of them. I have a super speeded up a list of the exhibits that prosecutor binger actually submitted at the end of the, at the end of his presentation today. And it's a lot of video and the reason he needs to do this is because there weren't any police there, right? Who , who could go in and say, well, I was standing there and I saw exactly what happened. So he's got to prove as evidence. He prove his case using other witnesses and other evidence. Now there's a common objection. That's kind of going around right now from people saying, well, you know, all of this should be excluded. All of this should just be , uh , you know, precluded as you know, not authenticated or that these people are not expert witnesses. We'll get into more of that when we get into the detective. But by and large, it sounds like Rittenhouse , his defense team is just letting this stuff come in. And there might be a reason for that, which I'm sure we'll explore as this continues to unfold. So this is what we're talking about today was testimony where we have two people talking a lot about videos, essentially. Uh , what , so you recorded this and you found somebody who had that on Twitter, and you submitted that a lot of videos. We're not going to talk about all the different videos. We are going to talk about the exchanges, because most of us by this point have seen most of the videos. And it's not anything really different aside from the aerial footage, which we will spend some time on at the end of this entire show. So quick screenshot from the aerial footage or from the, from the composition that we just looked at, you can see over here, the first shooter, this is a Minsky. This person is identified now. And when we did our original coverage of this back, you know , a year ago, well, over a year ago now , uh, we , we made very clear note of that. And we , we identified that gunshot in the audio profile before anybody else was hardly even talking about it. Now we know the person's name, and now that's sort of an additional component as Rittenhouse was running away. Not only from Rosenbalm somebody else named is a Minsky is back sort of behind him shooting the gun off in the ear . You can see that this is we're gonna spend a lot of time on this in the last segment here, but , uh, Rosenbalm is here. He's the guy in the right, in the , in the maroon shirt that we talked about [inaudible] is the couple they fired, fired the gun off in the air, and this is written house. And the government is going to say, so keep this theme in mind. The government is going to say that since the shooting took place, this direction sort of near where the car lot is , uh , this direction to the left of the screen, that written house was in fact actually chasing Rosenbalm . So see written houses to the right Rosenbaum's the left. They are both heading that direction. And so the government is telling us Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbalm and has been the understanding from our review of the law. It's not possible to sort of create a situation where you are the aggressor. And then when somebody responds to your provocations, that you get to suddenly invoke self-defense claims, right? If you go up to somebody in a bar and you smack them in the back of the head and they turn around and pop you in the jaw and, and, and you , you know, strike them back or , or shoot them. And you say, well , uh , that was self-defense because they were going to attack me. It's you started it. You hit them in the back of the head. You can't do that. You can't just smack them. And then when they are responding to you and you're in fear for your life, pull out a gun and shoot them. Now you're going to claim self. No , you can't do it because you provoked it. If he , if he was going to hit you, where are you? Kind of probably deserved it because you started it. You were the provoker , the provocateur, you were the person who was instigating the entire situation in the first place, which is exactly what the prosecution is trying to do here. And so we're going to hear from them when they do get to the detective. And we talk about this, this same theme happening that written house was this reckless lunatic out there that was really instigating the whole, the whole conversation. So with that in mind, with that idea, that Rittenhouse is chasing Rosenbalm with this idea that Rittenhouse was this lunatic with an AR 15 out there, let's jump into the testimony of the day. This is Corey Alijah, Washington. This is what this gentleman looks like. And so he was in court today. He is a live streamer and a YouTuber. And so he started testifying yesterday, and then he live-streamed yesterday and says on his channel, Corey , Elijah says, I can't talk about it, which is true. You can see this, he posted this 20 hours ago, says, ah , just saying, Hey, but I can't speak about the thing, which is true relation. And you know, it shouldn't be, I'm talking too much about it in public, but , uh, here he is in court today. And , uh, they're asking him specifically sort of , uh , you know, tell us about the environment what's happening when you are wandering around there in Kenosha. It's sort of madness. We heard yesterday from Dominic black, that it was like a war zone. A lot of people had AR fifteens, dangerous situation. Tell me what's going through your head. This is Thomas binger asking Mr. Washington, those questions at the moment,

Speaker 3:

This video was taken on the night of Tuesday, August 25th. Did you have any idea who Kyle Rittenhouse was? No. Had you even taken note of him at all that night up until this point?

Speaker 4:

Uh, briefly kind of. I took a mental note, just so when I , when I arrived on the scene, I kind of was, I kind of looked at the people that were there and kind of, I dunno, just took a note of the people that were around me, especially, you know, people that are armed to kind of gauge the crowd and, you know, the environment that I was in. Um, I don't know if he just kind of looked young to me and he had his gloves on and he was smoking cigarettes and stuff. So I was, I don't know . I kind of was like, ah , kind of seem like an interesting figure. So I just took a mental note of that. I couldn't listen to anything. I wouldn't say malicious. I just, you know, you young person in a situation, honestly, I would say it's mainly the , the gloves. I don't know why he had the gloves on it kind of stood out. So I was like, all right , let me just kind of remember that, I suppose.

Speaker 1:

So I think you can understand that the whole situation was kind of weird because it was a city , uh, you know, being burnt to the ground. It wasn't good. So yeah, there were, there was a lot of things that really stood out, but, and presumably somebody who is 17 years old about to turn 18, running around with a assault rifle on a sling across his chest, looking at a picture, right. You know, with, with a hat backwards, medic bag, running around with fire extinguishers and things with the gloves on. Yeah, it probably looks a little bit strange, but not anything that would be provocative or would be aggressive. He didn't use any of that language. He just kind of have mental notes, young gloves , cigarettes seemed interesting, made a mental note of that. A lot of weird things happening that day. And so he's probably making a lot of mental notes about a lot of things. So not much came out of that, but here is where we now sort of get into his actual testimony about the stream. So this is a video of his stream and we can see he's going to sort of walk us through it a little bit. This is now being, you're asking him specifically, what did you do after those gunshots went off ? So what we're going to play this, and this is the Mo this is where his vantage point is from when the gunshots went off. So you can see sort of, he's looking in to exactly the area where Rosenbalm, as we're going to see, what's chasing Kyle leftward on the screen. So back towards those lights in that direction. And th this is where he was standing. So we're not going to see anybody get shot. We're going to hear the gunshots. And then bingo is going to ask Washington, what'd you do after that? After he heard the gunshots, what happened next here? That is

Speaker 5:

[inaudible] ,

Speaker 3:

I'm going to represent to the jury. I don't think there's any dispute about this. We have just heard , um, the shooting of Joseph Rosenbalm . Um, and we'll go back and , uh, go over that in just a second. But Mr. Washington, there was a first shine , which was that Mr. Rittenhouse is shot. Yeah , we'll we'll, we'll get to that. Let me just , uh , let me finish and I'll go back. Uh , Mr. Washington, after you heard the gunshots , um, what did you do personally? Alright . Skated away to find safety. Okay. Um, and then eventually,

Speaker 1:

Yeah, skated away. Right. Pretty, pretty obvious. So he wasn't really all that close to the, to the scene. So we don't get much from him out of that. You know, he's not really in a good position to tell us much about, well, was , was Kyle, you know, running away in fear of his life or what was happening here. He was pretty far away. Just heard it. And just as soon as those four gunshots went off, he takes off Mark Richards, as you heard, he's like, whoa, whoa , whoa, hold on a minute now. And this is sort of the, the looseness of the trial that I was mentioning. You know, th th the , in the prior days that we've talked about it, it's just kind of loose right now . There wasn't a formal objection to any, there was no conversation about it. He's like, Hey, by the way, when you're talking about this, this is the we're , we're not talking about the first shot. That first shot was all about somebody that was the [inaudible] know family. It wasn't the shot that Rittenhouse fired. Those came after the first shot, right? Rittenhouse fired that second short succession of shots that actually ended up killing Rosenbaum . So very good . Just kind of loose. And then the prosecutor turns around you, I know, will , don't worry about it. I'll get there. And you're going, whoa , what is happening? And so we're going to see a lot more of that as this continues to unfold, but just kind of, you know, almost informal in the judges is a very hands-off. So now that was Washington and E and again, the government is not really getting much information out of these people, because there's not much to get out of them. They were there, there were sort of, you know , around the scene, they were just filming. Weren't really close to Kyle because it all happened so quickly. And there was only a handful of people there. This guy was not close to the actual shootings. He was somebody who just was standing there, and we don't know who the , who else the government's going to call, but, you know , presumably they've got some other people who are closer to this thing, and they're not where that guy was. Otherwise, this guy just talked us through a bunch of video and didn't have much to say about Kyle, other than, you know, kind of looked weird and had the gloves on his hand , not much came out of him. That that leads you to think that Kyle is a reckless murderer intent on, you know, multiple homicides. So , uh, that was that. Now the defense comes out, this is cheer FEC, and he comes out and he's going to spend a quick minute on this curfew point. I know the curfew point seems very minor, but it , it , it sort of isn't because what they're trying to do at least mentally is the prosecution is trying to show that sort of one domino leads into the other. Domino's now, you know how this will settle out in the court of law, how all the law lays out in Kenosha, Wisconsin. I don't know. I don't practice law there, but here's, what's , what's trying to happen. You know, mentally the idea being that Rittenhouse had a C a sequence of illegal actions that all compounded, that led into multiple homicide, shouldn't have had the gun. We heard that testimony yesterday from dominant black. We're going to hear we've heard previously. And I don't think we played it from the prosecution, but she refused. He's gonna lay out their argument and then rebutted here. So you're going to get both sides of this, but she refused. She then comes out and says , uh , well, let me back up Rittenhouse, shouldn't have the gun. According to the prosecutor, this comes out allegedly. This is the point they're trying to make from Dominic Black's testimony. Now, the prosecution is also trying to make the point and prove this count, that Rittenhouse was in violation of the curfew order. And so he was sort of stacking multiple illegal violations. One on top of the other, which leads a person to say that they are in such violation of the law, that they can no longer employ self-defense because they sort of cracking the protection of that. So, you know, whether whether that is legally accurate or not is a different, is it whole different conversation? We're hearing about how this is going to be settled about jury instructions and what the judge allows in and allows out it's a loose trial and know a lot of this stuff. We're , as we're going to see here in a minute, the judge is , is sort of dealing with on the fly . So, you know, you can't, you can't escape those, those permutations or possibilities. Okay. So enough of that, let's listen to cheer , FEC talking about the curfew charge. Here he is.

Speaker 3:

So, can I ask you if Mr. Washington on the night of the 25th , um, when this all happened, the video that you just showed us, did you receive , uh , a curfew ticket? No. Nope . Okay. Did you, were you aware there was a curfew in place? Yes. Okay. And you agree you were out past curfew, right? Yeah . Okay.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So you see what he's doing there. He's trying to minimize this thing. The government's going to come out and they're going to try to stack those dominoes one after the other. Well, grit, Rittenhouse certainly even had that gun. His friend Dominic said so, and he was out in violation of the curfew. And then he was like , you know , being the aggressor and so on, blah, blah, blah, blah. He goes , so, okay . This big, this big deal that they're making about this curfew violation, you knew it, right. You were out there and nobody cared. Nobody stops you to get a ticket. No one of your friends get a ticket. Anybody care at all? No. So it's not a big deal, right? It was one of those things on the books. Nobody was enforcing it. Prosecution's going to be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here. And he's going to try to minimize it as he just did a couple other questions here on this. This was something that I thought was symmetrical. So oftentimes what you'll see in trials is the prosecution will have a style yesterday. We talked about this with binger being or likes to come out and do those , the triad, right? And this is something very common in law. Not something you're new here, but they come out and they do the thing that , the one isn't it true that so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and you go, yeah, that's true. Wow. That sounded really true. Three things. That's a really powerful statement. And so the prosecution did that yesterday. They came out and he said, well, there were a lot of people protesting. Wasn't there, Mr. Washington. Uh, but, but they were just protesting and they weren't shooting. Were they ? Right? And there were a lot of people shouting, but they weren't shooting either. Were they? And there were a lot of people there with AR fifteens and they weren't shooting either. Were they ? No, they weren't. No, they weren't. No, they weren't. Okay. So you get that sort of sequence. It's got a nice cadence to it. A nice rhythm. Kyle was a reckless lunatic because everybody else was protesting. Everybody else was out there shouting everybody else had guns, but he's the only one that shot anybody. And we heard a lot of that. Yesterday. Here is cheer, FEC reversing that today. Did you see any,

Speaker 3:

To be fair at that gas station? Chase anybody else trying to attack them? Did you see that? No, not that I recall. You see anybody on the ground and another person trying to kick him in the face. Did you see that? Did I see another person trying to kick someone in the

Speaker 4:

Yeah, no. By , by the ultimate gas station now. Right.

Speaker 3:

Did you see anybody hit somebody in the face or the neck area with a skateboard at that location?

Speaker 4:

At the location? By the ultimate gas station? No.

Speaker 3:

Okay . So you , anybody chasing anybody pointing a gun? Have you see any of that at that? At the ultimate gas station?

Speaker 4:

At the ultimate gas station? No. Okay.

Speaker 3:

And,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So prosecution says Kyle written houses , a reckless lunatic because everybody else was able to not kill anybody, but he wasn't able to do that. So he's the odd one out. One of these things just doesn't belong here. Everybody else didn't kill anybody. Rittenhouse did so up. He's the one who stands out. And what GRPC did is just that , uh, not really though, because if anybody else here had been chased, had been hit with a skateboard, had been getting, you know, jumped, flying ninja kicked in the head, had been running from gunfire while they probably would've done the same thing too. But that didn't happen to all of those other people who were protesting, who were shouting, who were out there with a ours , if that had happened to them, presumably more people would have done what Rittenhouse did is what the defense is trying to glean there for us. And I think quite effective. So we've got a couple other things I want to just point out about Washington's testimony here is cheer FEC . Now going back through Washington's testimony through some of the video and specifically asking him about this. Did you see him being agitated? Did you see him acting inappropriately in any way here? Here he is. Okay.

Speaker 3:

Um, does he eat during this time that you saw him? Does he appear to be agitated or irritated in any way to ,

Speaker 4:

Uh , right there, it looks like he's just kind of standing, looking around. Okay.

Speaker 3:

If he would have been agitated or irritated or threatening in any way, would you have kind of followed him around probably, or know with the camera up to see what he was doing?

Speaker 4:

He was like threatening

Speaker 3:

Acting. I'll ask you this way. He was acting inappropriate. Um, would you have

Speaker 4:

Videotaped him if he was engaging with someone in an inappropriate way and it was in my radius and I caught it, then I would move to that direction. Yeah .

Speaker 3:

So is it fair to say there's nothing about his behavior at the ultimate gas station that made you focus on

Speaker 4:

At this point? There's , I'm just kind of standing around seeing what's going on. Cause there's not much happening, so yeah. There's no.

Speaker 3:

So just play it please. All

Speaker 1:

Right . So there's some footage

Speaker 3:

Walking around That fair. Yep . Okay.

Speaker 1:

Right. Is that fair? He's just walking around like everybody else, not agitated at all. Not, not upset about anything. And uh , yeah, he says, yeah, kind of looks like it. Now. This was an interesting clip. Uh, not really, not anything interesting here , uh, legally, but I wanted to play this because I think this man Washington is insinuating that defense attorneys have small hands, which you know, is a personal insult, but that's okay. We'll, we'll, we'll, we'll let it stand here. He is now getting into it about skateboards and about the trucks that are on the bottom of skateboards and about whether somebody would grab one of those trucks with their tiny lawyer hands and use it to smash somebody over the head. And so it's kind of a fun exchange because they're talking about something that feels like they're really battling over this thing about where to grab a skateboard. And it's not really consequential to this, but this is what happens. Oftentimes when you've got a lawyer, who's trying to make , get a point out of somebody and somebody just doesn't want to give it to them. It has nothing to do with the case. It's inconsequential really one way or the other. The attorney's just trying to get him to say something and he just won't do it. And so it is , uh, it is pretty funny. Let's take a quick listen in and what's happening here. This is about, about a minute and a half, I think. So we'll just let it play.

Speaker 3:

You had, you were asked , um, how you got around that night and you had mentioned that you had gotten around that night on a skateboard. Okay. Do you know , um , what the trucks have a skateboarder ? Yes. What are they

Speaker 4:

Where, what you attach the wheels of your skateboard to that attaches them to the board itself. Okay.

Speaker 3:

So can I ask you this, if you were, if you were going to swing that skateboard in an effort to create some velocity and hurt someone, how would you,

Speaker 4:

You just wing it ? If I was going to swing my skateboarder to hurt someone,

Speaker 1:

Grabbed it.

Speaker 4:

I mean, I suppose it depends on the situation you get . I mean, it's a plank of wood pretty much. So however you favor holding a plank of wood,

Speaker 3:

Could you grab it? Could you grab it by the trucks and swing it ?

Speaker 4:

You could, if you, yeah , you could hold it and you could grab it by anything, really anything that's on it. You could hold it by. So yes,

Speaker 3:

But the trucks would like you swing at one hand and right .

Speaker 4:

I mean, yes, I suppose, but again, you could hold just the port itself with one hand, depending on the size of your hands. Again, I've fairly large hands. I hold my board with one hand, all different types of ways. But if you have smaller hands, that would probably be the way that you want to hold it. If you were trying to strike someone, I , I suppose I don't, I'm not an expert at striking people with my skateboard. I kind of just ride it like, you know what it's for? So

Speaker 3:

I'm just asking your opinion on it . That's all.

Speaker 1:

All right . If , uh , look, I don't need to hold it by the trucks . Okay. I got pretty big hands, but if you need to hold it by the trucks, you little small handed, tiny handed defense lawyer. Well, that's your prerogative brother. I'm not an expert at striking people with skateboards, but, and so it has nothing to do with anything. Right. But you could see, he just did not want to answer that question. And he's like, well, maybe, I mean, I guess you could strike him over the head with the trucks if you wanted to. But , uh , hilarious, hilarious, just from a human psychology, you know , psycho psychology perspective. Just people just don't want to cooperate even on something that's so, you know, so benign , uh , as to this, and it's just funny to watch him. His facial features his expressions throughout the entire morning were quite hysterical. Uh , and he's got big hands. So he's got that going for him as well. A free Appalachian says it's not the hands that matter. It's the feet, especially for European descendants, which I don't know if that's true or not, but , uh, all right . So we've got that going now. Uh , here is where Washington talks about somebody on this entire scene. Sombody was very unreasonable. Wonder who that could be here. It is.

Speaker 3:

I don't know. You said that you kind of at least took mental note Mr. Rittenhouse, maybe because of his age, because of the gloves, things like that, right?

Speaker 4:

Yeah. I mean, I took them like, again, I took a mental note of some of people that kind of stood out to me, in my opinion, there was a lot of chatter on the internet and stuff like that. People are saying that people are going to like randomly kill people. Mainly they said they were going to be targeting black people or something like that, which is you can all see I'm a black man. So I took a note of that. So I was like, wanted to know who was around. I didn't necessarily feel like that was true, but you never know what may happen in situations that, you know, clearly, you know, who thought buildings would be set on fire and all of that. So you never know what really might happen. Um, so I took a mental note of people that kind of stood out. Like again, like people that were acting or writing , like, I suppose Mr. Rosenbalm or, oh, the little things I'd sit out, like chain smoking with gloves on and stuff, you know ?

Speaker 3:

So can I ask you this? You described if I have it right. You described the Rosenbaum is acting erratic

Speaker 4:

From all of the moments that I was around that you can notice. Yes. Okay .

Speaker 3:

Other than smoking with gloves on anything that Kyle written, how is it that you noticed that was in any way erratic, threatening use , any term you want Use any term that you want to describe? Anything that was out of the ordinary about his behavior?

Speaker 4:

The only thing I could say that was, I don't, it may be to be fair. Like, I suppose my opinion, he just seemed like he was young and like, he didn't know exactly like what was going on and because he was smoking so much and he, again, the goal , if he didn't have the gloves on, maybe I wouldn't have noticed as much, but I just don't know why, like in the situation, why you would have gloves on maybe there's some technical reason or something that you might know. But to me, that's just what stood out to me. Not saying that I felt like, oh, this is a guy that's going to go around and mow a bunch of people down or anything like that. I just was like, oh, that's interesting. Let me take a note of that. And when he ran by it , I was like, oh, I went into my Rolodex in my head like, oh, I remember this guy from before. Is there any re any one chasing him or anything? No. Maybe there's something happening down in that way . So I just headed in that direction. Not necessarily focusing on him.

Speaker 1:

Yeah. So you can see nothing there, right? It just kind of rambling on no, nothing stood out and it it's, it's hard to get him to, to give a solid answer, but he's not saying anything bad, you know, it's not saying, well, he didn't do anything erratic, correct? No. Correct. He's not getting any of those like hard ends where the testimony just ends with a mic drop, but the guys just kind of rambling on now, man. I didn't notice anything gloves smoking. Okay. That's fine. The other guy Rosenbalm was being erratic using his own words. This is the government's witness. They called him up. Rosenbalm according to their witness was acting erratic and the defense just called them out on that. And so that was Alijah Washington. He's Corey Alijah on YouTube. And so give him a follow. If you're interested in seeing what he has to say about this, I'm sure that we'll be hearing more from him next up in day three of the Rittenhouse trial, we've got Kenosha police department, detective Martin Howard. Now we're going to start off with a brief intro from him about what he does. Basically. He was really scouring the internet right after they got news of the shooting. They heard it was a four homicide type of a case and they just jumped right into internet research to go and start saving videos. Basically what a , what a lot of us were doing , uh , saving videos and trying to analyze what happened and, and piecing together , uh , how the shooting unfolded. And so it's this gentleman here. This is detective Martin Howard Kenosha police department. Detective been a detective for three years, was on patrol before then. And so right after this, he's he sort of is talking about a curfew. He testifies about a lot of different things, but he was doing surveillance. And so he started really doing the deep dive into everything, search warrants, going and sort of, you know, requesting documents and subpoenas and saving videos. And people were sending videos into Kenosha. Hey, I was there. I saw this, where should I send this? It lands on his desk. He also had a partner Ben and tar Marion at which I'm not sure if we're going to hear from him or not, but who interviewed some of the other individuals who were related to the case. And so let's start off by listening to what he says about what his involvement is in the written house shooting. This is detective Martin Howard.

Speaker 3:

Now, did there come a time in that evening when your assignment changed? Yes. When approximately was that

Speaker 6:

Just before midnight?

Speaker 3:

And can you tell us more about that?

Speaker 6:

Um, there was a report of a shooting in the area of 60th and 63rd Sheridan. And , uh, at that time , uh, we initially were , got a report that there were four homicide victims.

Speaker 3:

And that was a report that you personally received. Yes. And as a result of that, did your assignments , uh , that evening changed ?

Speaker 6:

Yes. At approximately 1230 , uh, detective answer , Raymond and I were assigned to investigate this case.

Speaker 3:

And since that time, 12:30 AM on August 26th, the following morning , uh, have you and detective Andrew , Ramian been the primary lead detectives on this case? Yes. And can you tell us a little bit about what you have done personally in the course of that investigation?

Speaker 6:

Um, one of the main things I did was , uh , go over the internet and try to find as many videos as I could of this incident. Uh , there were a lot of videos on social media, so I , uh , do Twitter searches for Kenosha and find , uh , videos that contain the incident and save those. Uh, there are also Facebook live streams like Mr. Washington's that we just saw. I was able to locate that and save that from , uh , Facebook. And , uh, there were several other locations that videos were found. Uh, some private citizens came forward with video. We gathered those.

Speaker 3:

Now you said that about 1230 in the morning , um , on the night of

Speaker 1:

All right. So that's it from him? Yeah, so he he's just gobbling up data, right? Gathering every single piece of video surveillance footage that he can gather watching everything. And so he was not also, he wasn't recording these things. This is a little bit different than Washington. We just got done with Washington and Washington testified earlier this morning and day three, and he actually recorded the footage. He was there on the ground. And so you can ask him questions about that, right? If he says something in the video, if he's walking around and says, oh, that car is red and he's in, we want to play his video in court. And he says that on the camera, we get to ask him questions about that. The defense can cross examine him about it. It's called confrontation. You can confront him about his statements because he's in court. You said Mr. Washington, that that car was red, but it kind of looks like it's a , a maroon. Isn't that true? Well, no, I don't think so. It really is red. Here's what I think red is. And this is why it's red, not maroon. And you can have a conversation about it, but you get to confront that person. If that person is not in court, and they're saying something on video, well, if it is something that might have an impact, if it's something that might be a statement and opinion, something that might persuade somebody, or if it's labeling something as something, or if it's offering a perspective that maybe you wouldn't get from just watching the video, then now you have to talk about that. What , what is the impact of that? And can that come into court? Because if that does come in and that person who actually recorded that footage is not in court, you don't get to confront them about it. You can't cross examine them. You can't have a conversation about it. You can't challenge their memory. And so this guy now is a detective. Who's just playing a bunch of videos today. And so I'm going to give you the full list of all the different exhibits that they go through. But we just heard him, my role in the investigation. I get on the internet, I download everything. I categorize it, I organize it. And I make sure that it's it's available for you. And so all of that went over to the prosecution and it's in the list of like 15, 20 exhibits. I don't, you know, I don't know how many, I didn't count them all, but he walks us through this all afternoon. I mean, it's like a full day of scrolling through videos. Most of these we've already seen, we're going to talk about a couple of them, but before we get into it, I want to show you that this guy also had a conversation with Kyle Rittenhouse. Remember Kyle, if you watch a lot of the footage that we've already watched here, he is sort of on the ground. Somebody is doing a flying ninja kick through the air, somebody swinging a skateboard, his direction. He sort of was banged up a little bit. And so the prosecution, this is again, the government's witness. They came out today and they asked this detective , um, can you tell us about Kyle's injuries because you met with him that very night. Didn't ya ? How did he look? What kind of shape was he in? Here's the detective, right ?

Speaker 3:

Um, face-to-face contact with the defendant. Yes. Did the defendant indicate to you that he had suffered some injuries that night? Yes. Did you take photographs and document those injuries? Yes. Can you tell the jury about those injuries?

Speaker 6:

He had an approximately half inch scratch above his left eyebrow. He had a small cut on the inside of his lower lip, slightly offsite , slightly offset to the right. Uh , there was a approximately two inch scratch below his left collarbone. Uh, there was some redness , uh, to the right side of his belly button, just below, just above his waistline. There was , uh, an approximate two inch scratch on his left forearm. There was some redness on his right forearm. There was some redness on the tip of his right thumb. Uh, and on his back, there was a scratch somewhere on his left side about the , uh, where the left shoulder blade would be in that approximate area. And also there were two bumps on the, on the back of his head that was , uh , uh, approximately here. So above the left ear , um, both of those injuries on his head, I could not get to turn up in the photograph because Mr. Rittenhouse has very thick hair. Uh , but with the gloved hand , I was able to feel it. And both of these bumps out approximate to be the size of a penny and that the skin was slightly raised. And I was able to feel that with my hands.

Speaker 1:

So he actually had a whole laundry list of injuries. When I first was listening to this, I was thinking, is he reading off of notes or is he just memorizing this? You can see he's sort of looking at the jury, just walk them through the list. One, this one, this one, this one, like a doctor. And he's just a big laundry list of all the different problems that he observed on Kyle Rittenhouse now , uh, Hmm . Something like that. Might somebody , uh , lead somebody to believe that maybe self-defense is appropriate if somebody is sort of on the receiving end of all of these different abrasions throughout their body, but not prosecutor binger. He , he just listens to that whole list. And his very next question to the detective is, I mean, that's the extent of his injuries. Is that all that all, that's it here he is.

Speaker 6:

That'd be the extent of the injuries that the defendant reported to you. Yes.

Speaker 1:

That's the extent. So, and you go, that's the extent. Yeah. That's a lot there . Two inch scratch, left collarbone, redness, right side of the belly button waistline, two inch scratch, left, forearm redness, right? Forearm tip of the right thumb, a braised back left side injury. He pointed to that one, two bumps behind the left ear , uh, you know, kinda kind of banged up a little bit banged and bruise prosecutors. Like, I mean, that's the extent of the injuries, right? Like he didn't get shot or like stabbed or anything, did he? No, that's it. Yeah. That's all that happened there. So yeah, it kind of sounds like he was in fact assaulted. Now, here is what I was sort of foreshadowing. This came up as we continue to play the videos. As I mentioned, a lot of videos today, probably too many videos, to be honest, but the defense didn't even care. They're just like, yeah, play whatever you want. Let it in. Who cares? Play it, play it all you want. And the prosecution for some reason seems to think that these videos are damning . I think that they're exonerating. If I can be honest about it, but they want all of these videos in and they went through every single one of them, one by one, like they have, you know, a winning hand, like every single video is a jackpot like, boom, you know, now what are you going to do now? What are you going to do now? What are you going to do? And so they just went through this, the defense just let it ride until we started to get to some commentary in the audio. They weren't really debating about what you see in the video. And they don't care much about that because it's, it's probably gonna come in as evidence. Anyways, once you kind of get one angle in probably going to get a couple of other angles in, depending on who you have the government, you know, may in order to authenticate this, this just may want to drag all these people in as witnesses, just like they did with Washington, right. They theoretically could have done this for all of the other witnesses, but they didn't, they didn't choose to do that. And so we don't know what the conversations were like between the defense and the prosecution, the defense at the start of this thing may have just said, yeah, play whatever you want. We don't care because it's a self-defense case. And our evidence is clear as day. You can see exactly what happened. Our defense is not going to change play at 35 different angles if you want, nobody cares. And you're going to see that, that actually, that was a strategy from day one, right ? It's sort of, you know, ultimate innocence. It's, it's look at everything that we've got. And you're going to see that even at the , at the early part of this case, when the investigation was still underway, Mark Richards and Kyle Rittenhouse gave the government access to his phone. Everything we're gonna hear about that in our last segment, during the cross-examination. But the point here is that all of this video was coming in. I know a lot of attorneys were upset about it. How'd they get that in this guy can authenticate anything. Whatever. I can understand that perspective, it's a different style. If you're Glenn Maxwell's lawyer, that's your style. You are fighting to get every stink and shred of evidence thrown out of court. If you're a Mark Richards, his style is let the jury see at all. If we hide it from them, if we try to fight over every nook and cranny in this case, well, maybe they are going to think that we're hiding something and we're disingenuous that the alternative approach is 100% in a sense, total, self-defense look at whatever you want. We don't care. Make the government look like a bunch of fools for just playing this, do this, this duplicative evidence, 14, 25 different videos, whatever it turns out to be. He goes all of them. And the only thing they do when every one of them is tend to show Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent. So play whatever you want. Now that's a little bit of a riskier gamble as we're about to see, but it is a strategy. And one that I don't think is all that terrible, honestly. So let's take a look now at the actual video, this is where we get into a problem with the audio. Again, the video is fine. Everybody can see what happened, but if somebody is on the video commenting saying, well, I think that guy's a murderer, right? You don't want that audio to come through to the jury because obviously that's that that's that person's opinion. It's not fact just like them saying, I think that car is red versus I think it's maroon. It's an opinion. It's testimonial. It's coming to a conclusion that hasn't been proven in court. And so if they're offering descriptions, you're going to hear the defense object to this. Let's listen how that sounds.

Speaker 7:

Um, they're protecting a local car shop across the street. I saw yesterday as this one is video , but on YouTube of this one burn and get them fired. People hit it with bats and a whole bunch other things,

Speaker 8:

Objection to this oil being played . And the editorialization, I don't have a problem with the

Speaker 9:

Video being played.

Speaker 3:

I think we we've agreed to the authenticity of it. I think that the, the , um, the individual who recorded this, this , uh, available to be subpoenaed if necessary.

Speaker 1:

I don't think it's

Speaker 9:

No, no, I don't want to continue to say , well, start there, start from that position. And we'll say, this is a confrontation issue .

Speaker 3:

May we approach your honor?

Speaker 9:

Um, it's it's no, because it's to be something that has to be a record and I'll have to send that .

Speaker 3:

It's not, I don't believe it's a confrontation issue, your honor, because we're going to be here. We've already heard audio from other witnesses. We're going to hear more.

Speaker 9:

There was not an objection. I , I, I could tell you , um, if there's descriptive material, then he's entitled to confront the speaker.

Speaker 3:

There is not descriptive material. The defendant, your honor, this is not a ,

Speaker 9:

You've heard it before. Yeah. I've seen it in editorialization. He makes statements. Assertions of fan . He just made one. He did.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Now this is all happening in front of the jury. Right now

Speaker 3:

We can play it without the audio. There will be times in which we will have audio of interactions with the defendant where he makes statements, statements. All right . I'll , I'll do my best to , uh, alert you when those occur.

Speaker 1:

All right. So they're going to get into that now. Now all that took place in front of the jury. Now, the reason why you have motions, eliminate the reasons why you have all of your pretrial motions, any, you know , any, any of those issues typically should be resolved before the jury is sitting there listening to you argue about this stuff, right? That issue presumably should have been resolved before trial ever started. Prosecutor should have filed something or had a conversation I'm intending to play this whole thing. Defense could have objected to that evidence in its entirety. And so the defense could have been waiting to save that objection until it came right out in front of the jury, just to show them , uh , look, you know, th this is not, this is, this is not something that you should be listening to. So that might be, that might be good if the defense wanted to sort of show that the prosecution was trying to do something , uh, nefarious or underhanded, but the jury could also take a look at that and say, well, why can't we hear what that guy was saying? Uh , that is the defense trying to hide something from us. Maybe there was very valuable data in there. And now if you're a juror who's already leaning towards a conviction. Now, what do you say? You say, oh, the defense is trying, oh, they're trying, they're trying to hide the ball from us. Why don't they want us to hear what's on that video? What did he say about it? Right. So, you know, you can see how that can split both ways. And so oftentimes what happens is both attorneys. They don't want to have those conversations in front of the jury, which is why it gets resolved , uh , via motions eliminate . But this judge has been such a loosey goosey operator that it's really hard to understand what's allowed in. What's not allowed in. And so it all just sort of takes place right in front of the jury. Now, the judge lets it goes on a little bit further until he finally excuses the jury and then gives us all a break because they're still continuing to hash this crap out over , uh , over the jury panel. All right. So let's listen in on the next clip there . Once again, going to be fighting over the audio because this guy, the guy who's actually recording the video, who's not in court. Government has not subpoenaed this guy to come in and actually be available to confront him. He uses the word militia members. He calls Kyle Rittenhouse, some militia members. And that's not in evidence. Nobody's proven that yet. That's this guy's opinion and he's not in court to cross examine him about that. What do you mean militia members? Do you have evidence of that? What is that like your prognostication? Do you just think because he's got an AR 15, that he's a member of a militia cause he's wearing a hat or gloves or whatever you think is in addition of that, that that's enough. It's not sufficient. So don't label him something that might scare the jurors. Jurors might listen to that word. Oh, this guy thinks it's a militiamen militia members. Well, I'm scared of militia members conviction. Same thing that we were fighting over about the use of victims or the use of certain language that is just overly colorful. So watch and listen to this one because as soon as he uses that phrase, Thomas binger comes out and says, turn the volume down. Oh, turn the volume down because the judge just told him previously, I'm going to play it. You play it with the volume down. Except when we're talking about the defendant's testimony. If Kyle Rittenhouse says something, we can listen to that. But not somebody else's opinion. Right? It'd be the same thing. If somebody else was walking around saying, gosh, you know, I , I , I, I sure think Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer and I'm just watching him, man. He is such a murderer. I can't believe he just executed those people out in cold blood. And , and you just let that testimony come in and it's his opinion. It's not relevant and he's not there to be challenged on any of that. So here is uh , how that sounded in court today.

Speaker 10:

Okay, cool. So are you guys , do you guys mind is your way up on the rough? Okay. No, that's fair. I thought I'd ask it to make for some cool footage, but we got a militia members. Oh , let's turn this out .

Speaker 1:

Yeah. Turn the sound off. Yeah. Yeah. Good call objection. Now they don't object. Right? They just kind of stay quiet. Listen, nothing happens. Right. Just let that ride for a minute. But that is a statement that is a , you know, a conclusion. It's not a fact in evidence yet if it ever could be. And so here is where you'll see, the judge gets frustrated with this and actually excuses the jury.

Speaker 3:

Yeah , there's a deescalation.

Speaker 1:

Stop it. Stop it. Here. It is.

Speaker 8:

Objection. If he wants to play my client, that's fine. But this is editorially.

Speaker 3:

I understand the objection. I , the problem is , is there are portions of this that, that don't have anything to do with the defendant that district described the scene. And I'm trying to give the jury it's hearsay. I'm not trusting anyone's statements for the truth of the matter sorted . I mean , you're using it for the state of mind of the defendant as he watched it for the truth of the matter is sort of insert relevant. Now it goes to state of mind, your honor, state of mind, of, of the defendant when he sees someone else's um, would you do me a favor and step

Speaker 1:

By jury by cause you're you shouldn't be arguing this stuff in front of them.

Speaker 2:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

So they, they , uh , blank out the audio and actually, you know, they actually, Yeah , it tells them don't talk about the case and that's all we get out of that one. So they actually end up , uh, arguing about it a little bit further. They take a break because the judge gets so stinking, frustrated over the whole thing. And then they come back and we don't really have a ruling. Then they actually do , uh , play the video. So , uh , they play the video with the audio. And so we don't really know what the ruling is on it. Right. And the judge is talking about curative instructions, whether he can just tell the jury to disregard all of these things. The assistant prosecutor, Jim Crouse was talking all about the exceptions to hearsay. So they're really trying to get this, this testimony in and we'll see what the judge decides to do. They want the audio to be in parallel. And you know, we don't know what the ruling is on this because you're going to hear, now we get w I want to put a pin in this. We're going to get back to this. The judge does in fact admit all of these exhibits. And so my question is all the exhibits with the audio or without the audio we're going to go case by case is the prosecutor now going to admit them with redacted audio, only the audio that is clipped that involves Kyle Rittenhouse statements. I don't know. Right ? That is something that I think would be very important for the defense to get their hands around. If the videos are going to be submitted, they need to make a decision about that. You know, what, what, what of that audio that is overly prejudicial can be allowed in or not. And from what I can tell, at least what we're going to hear about on the record, it sounds like going in. So I don't know. Now, quick pause on this. The judge ranted into the media today, unhappy about the characterization, about how he's running this trial here is judge Schrader kind of scolded them a little bit, say it up. They're saying some crazy things about me on TV. Here he is.

Speaker 9:

I'm going to comment about the media again, because there was a gentleman on TV right before last, who said, this is the most divisive case in the country today. So anything that undermines public confidence in what happens here is very important. It's important for this town. It's important for this country to have people have confidence in the results of this trial, whatever it is. And I don't care what it is, but people have to be confident. Yeah . There are people on the media on reputable sites that are saying things that are totally bizarre and I'm going to cite one only because it , um, is exemplary and it stems from the con the conversation we had the other day about.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he goes off into something who knows what, but, you know, he's he, the point that he was making there, I think stands, this is important, right? This is a reason why we're spending so much time on this trial. I've talked about this as being a case of clear self-defense that, you know, and I know that because I'm a criminal defense lawyer, I know when there are good criminal defense self-defense cases. And when there aren't, and I know that sometimes, you know, you get a little bit creative with self-defense . Sometimes it works sometimes not, but when you get a really good one, it stands out. This one is about as obvious as they come from my perspective. Now I am a defense lawyer. And so I am prejudice that way. So bear that in mind. But , uh , we , we are going through this sort of one by one. Judge is getting frustrated with the media. We're going to , we're going to see probably more of this as coverage continues, right? Trial is just getting warmed up, judge , uh, continue to brace for impact, especially with some of the issues that are coming up in the trial. So , uh , that's just getting started. Now we go back, we sort of break for lunch in day three and they sort out this video stuff. So they're fighting over this judge, scolds. The media goes back, talks about hearsay, a prior case that they had, that he was ruling on. And I don't get the sense that a lot of people really understand, even what they're talking about with all of these issues, kind of co-mingled into each other, hearsay, hearsay, exceptions, excited, utterances, present sense impressions. They hearsay rules, just so everybody understands. They are convoluted as hell. Right? You have hearsay, you have exceptions to hearsay, and then you have things that are actually hearsay technically. But you just say that they're not why, because the law just says, so they're just not. And you say, yeah, but that's, that is hearsay. And they say, no, it isn't. And you say , yeah, it is. You just said it was well, we're moving into a different section of the rules of evidence. And so it's not anymore . And you say, oh, okay, well I guess if you say so, and so it sort of becomes very convoluted and confusing and you watch it. If you're, if you're somebody who plays with these rules, you're watching all of these people , uh , try to fight it out. And you watch at one point, even the judge is sort of , uh , citing and referencing different parts of the law and the prosecution. Well , what did you just cite judge? And he , and they cite it and they open it up and he's like, well, that's , uh , in the sex crimes statutes, they're judged that doesn't apply to anything that we're talking about. And I said, oh yeah , uh, change the eyes to A's or the A's should be the eye . Okay. They flip the book. Okay. Go to a different section. And so like, a lot of this stuff is supposed to be , uh , fleshed out before trial starts. Right. You , you work out all of these issues, so you don't do this stuff in the middle of trial. They are. And , uh , you know, it's , it's just a different way to do it. Okay. So we get back into the videos now and the audio is here. So they're playing the audio. Uh, of course this is Kyle Rittenhouse having a conversation, but they were also playing a lot of the other audio , uh, throughout the remainder of the afternoon here, we're going to see Kyle Rittenhouse is having a conversation about having non or not having non-lethal having this conversation about what is lethal, what is not having non-lethal he's actually asking , uh , the detective about this. So we're still here in the prosecution's direct examination of Kyle Rittenhouse is Thomas binger asking detective about it,

Speaker 11:

Protecting from the citizens. And I stopped by a person in the crowd. Man , we respond, we don't have non-lethal. So you guys are full on ready to defend the property. Now , if I can ask, can you guys step back medical,

Speaker 1:

Detective

Speaker 6:

Howard, in that video, we heard the defendant say that there , that he does not have any non-lethal . Did you hear that? Yes. As a law enforcement officer, are you familiar with that term? Yes. What does that mean to you? As long as a police officer, there are various options that we could have as , as non-lethal force. Our presence is a non-lethal force. Our verbal commands are non-lethal . Um, and there's also some physical things we can do as well. We can go hands on . We can use , uh , different instruments, like, oh, sea spray, it's pepper spray. And , uh , we also have a taser and we haven't asked the time police officers in the city of Kenosha carry all those things.

Speaker 1:

All right . So what he's saying is that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't have those things, right? Kyle Rittenhouse showed up with a gun. That's what the prosecutor is trying to get. After here, he showed up with an AR 15 style weapon, and he was just out there to just kill people. He wasn't out there to soften solve any problems. He didn't have any non-lethal . He didn't have anything that this detective just laid out, pepper spray. Uh , anything else that is sort of, you know, non-deadly in his arsenal, all he had was a gun and a medical kit. So maybe he was really just out there for blood. It's kind of the theme kind of the direction that the prosecutor is going for. Now, we also hear a breakdown of the shots he's running us through the conversation about the eight shots and specifically refreshing our memory about Joshua Zen Minsky . This is the person who had the gun up in the air at the very outset, right. He was the first, the first gunshot that we hear when we get into the aerial drone footage in our last segment, he's talking specifically about, about this right here. This is the detective. Once again,

Speaker 3:

Shots that we just heard, one of the first one was Josh was in Minsky, correct? Correct. And can you tell the jury what he does , uh, with regard to that shot?

Speaker 6:

So Joshua was the Minsky is at this time you could see it on the red and Cognito video at this time, he's walking slowly , uh, southbound on the west Sheridan roads sidewalk in front of car source. So Josh was walking right at about this spot right here while , uh , the chase is going on in a Southwest direction, through the car source parking lot. Um, at that time, Josh was a Minsky, has a handgun in his right hand and he raises his hand up in the air. And the fire is one shot at that time. Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Rosenbaum are running through the , uh, the car source parking lot. So Mr is a Minsky's gunshot happens behind them

Speaker 3:

Shortly thereafter, the defendant fire .

Speaker 1:

All right. So once again, the government's witnessed that somebody else fired the first shot. It wasn't Kyle Rittenhouse. It was Zim Minsky who was , uh, shortly , uh, around the corner right nearby. But that kind of opens the door to a lot of questions. Doesn't it? Which we're going to get to during the cross. Now, this is where we're laying the foundation for the FBI aerial footage. And I want to make sure we save some time and spend , spend a quick minute on this because it's very interesting. We have the same drone, the same aerial surveillance footage, two different interpretations. Let's take a quick look at how they're laying that foundation here, like to show exhibit number nine, which is , is the detective

Speaker 3:

From the FBI.

Speaker 1:

Now We are going to see then zooming in. This is the corner where there's the car lots . And so let me swap onto my laser pointer here. We're going to watch this several times. So you can see where my laser pointer is. There's this white dot, running to the left side of the screen over here in the bottom, right? See this running right here. And we're going to break down all of this, but this is the FBI aerial footage. They're playing this for the detective. And he's just sort of, they're watching this. There's the, the chase and the cost

Speaker 3:

Is 26 .

Speaker 1:

Now this is where they're laying out their narrative, that there was a chase happening there. So they're going to play their own exhibit. That was the first FBI surveillance footage. And then they're going to sort of come back with their graphics. It was the raw video, and now we're going to see what the government or what the FBI prepared for them showing them essentially Rittenhouse. As we see here before I play it, let me show you, let me give you a sort of a rough outline. It's going to diagram pretty well, but Rittenhouse is chasing. The theory goes, Rosenbalm this direction and that's, that was the provocation, according to the government. So here is their video now of the FBI aerial footage.

Speaker 3:

I go back to the beginning of that and then pause, please. I'm going to replay it . Yes . And that same video, detective Howard, the video that we just watched here at the beginning of the video, let's keep it pause there for a second. Um, there are two individuals identified. One has a circle around them with , uh, the , uh, label person of interest. One, the second has a square around them with a label of person, person of interest to do you see that? Yes. Based on your investigation, your review of all the other.

Speaker 1:

Alright .

Speaker 3:

So who are those two individuals person of interest? One is Joseph Rosenbalm and person of interest who is Kyle Rittenhouse?

Speaker 1:

Two Kyle Rittenhouse right here. Please play

Speaker 3:

The video again, Brian .

Speaker 1:

Okay. There's Rittenhouse bottom, right? Okay . Person to slow motion. It looks like he's coming on person. One sort of person. One comes out from behind this car and we see the circle in the square come together right there. Person two is written house. Now is ahead of the circle, running back towards the building, the circle one Rosenbalm chases him until the drone zooms back out and everybody scatters. Thank you . Okay. So that's the narrative. That's the conversation written house was chasing Rosenbalm that's the conversation that detective Howard was sort of led through and that that evidence got submitted as an exhibit and it was published and it's going to be available for the jury to take a look at. And we saw sort of a, of the square and the circle Rittenhouse was this square circle was back. Rittenhouse comes up to the circle. There's something that happens. And then Rittenhouse is running away and the circle is following him until the shooting happens. And so the prosecution is trying to make the argument that Kyle Rittenhouse, the square was chasing the circle. First. He started it. He provoked the entire incident. And so then as a provocate tour, he doesn't get to shoot and kill somebody. He doesn't get to use self-defense as justification for homicide because he was the chaser. Rosenbaum was the chasee . That's what the prosecution tried to communicate today. Now all of those exhibits came in together. This was during the direct examination of detective Howard and all of these got admitted into court today. Let's listen exactly how that sounded. When Thomas being here was making the motion today and listen closely. I'm going to have you, I'm going to have this plate at double speed just for the sake of time, because there's so many videos, but he says motion to admit any objections, no, no objections at all accepted. And then he says, I'd like to publish those to the jury. Ready to go. Let's listen in on how that happened today, your honor ,

Speaker 3:

Um , exhibits that I've just used. I believe they are exhibit one, Jordan and his video zero to three, except number two you're and his video zero to nine, except number four. There's Minsky after Rosenbaum shooting video, except number five, the BG on the scene video except number six, the CJ TV running video, except number eight, the Elijah ripe video except number nine was displayed . It has already been admitted evidence. That's the FBI video exhibit number 12, which is the Kyle Cook they'll except number 14 , which is the Lakota licked waltz livestream except number 14, which is the wretched incognito livestream exhibit 15. Richard McKenna said Rosenbaum's body exhibit 16, bridging against Kyle interview. Number 17 for minutes , walking with Kyle number 18 rundown live video, and number 19, the drew Fernandez shooting video. I would move also there he is exhibit 24, which they feel, it feels like Rosenbaum in a plastic bag, exhibit 25 and FBI video with markings , uh , annotated at normal speed. And then exhibit number 26, which is a second FBI video with markings , uh, which shows the , um, fi it's a five second clip from second 23 to second 28. I would move all of those exhibits into evidence.

Speaker 1:

Well ,

Speaker 3:

Your honor .

Speaker 1:

Oh , no objection. And receive. So however many exhibits, those were, I can't even remember. He just said it, but you know, 20 something exhibits, a lot of them all submitted in front of the jury. They're gonna be able to just scroll through them as exhibits, run through them, go through whatever they want, make their decision rewind, super slow-mo freeze frame it. So you're going to pay a sort of a , uh, if Rittenhouse is acquitted kind of sounds like an obvious thing because it's so obvious. The evidence is so obvious that it looks like self-defense. But if not, if the jury comes out and convicts him, you're gonna have a lot of defense attorneys saying I can not believe they just let all of that evidence fall right into the jury's lap without going through a more robust process , uh , determining whether or not certain audio can come in or whether certain video should come in or not requiring the government to meet their burden. Right. Making sure that they subpoena everybody. And before they get any single video recorded in that it's authenticated that we have the witness there, the person who recorded it there for confrontation for cross-examination Hey , this guy didn't, didn't put up much of a fight. They're putting all their eggs in the basket that the jury is going to look at all of this and just say, yeah, it's pretty clear to us. It looks like self-defense so a little bit of a gamble there, but we'll see if it plays out for them . All right. And so that was Mark Richards, who was , um, uh, I'm sorry. That was Thomas binger, who was doing a direct examination of Martin Howard. The detective after Thomas being interviewed detective Howard, it was time then for Mark Richards to come out for the cross examination . This is day three of the Rittenhouse trial. Now Mark Richards is up. He's got the opportunity to go in and cross examine the detective. And he starts off by laying out the foundation, the framework, talking about the idea that you investigated Rittenhouse didn't you search warrants. You had checked his emails. You looked through all of his social media accounts, Facebook and Tik TOK and everything you did that didn't you, it's going to be important to understand that you did that because I'm going to ask if you did that for other people associated with the case, people like gage gross Kreutz specifically, did you do that same investigation for him? And if you did, did anything happen during it? Hmm . Let's take a look. Here's Mark Richards. Cross-examining the detective asking him specifically about the scope of this investigation and the inquiry using search warrants and other types of retrieval methodologies. Here he is. Now

Speaker 8:

You went and got a bunch of information in this case through documents. Is that a fair statement? Yes. You did multiple search warrants. Yes. You did multiple subpoenas for records, correct? Correct. And a lot of those search warrants were directed at my client's social media, correct? Correct. Is telephone correct? Um, I'm trying to miss somebody, Instagram, Tik, TOK. All of those. Yes. Multiple email addresses. Yes. Google and Facebook. Yes. And that's so you can get as much background on the individual who is the suspect, correct? Correct. That's all done after that night. Correct. And that's not something you really have to worry about in the short term, going away, you get the subpoenas to these computer companies. It's there. They provide it to you to get it correct.

Speaker 6:

And we'll typically do, is send a preservation letter to preserve the records of that search warrant subpoena . Those could come a little bit further .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he talks through what the process looks like, sends a preservation letter. Hey, Facebook. I know you're not going to give it to us just because we asked, but don't at least destroy it. No, you've got some information. We're going to go and get a search warrant. So we're going to get a court order to get it. So you're going to, you are going to give it to us, but until then, since we know you required that just preserve, it just don't destroy it because we're going to come looking for it and we're going to come in hot. So he walks us through the process and Mark Richards helps communicate and explain to the jury, educate that getting access to an iPhone is very difficult. In fact, the FBI says that they can't even do it. So when all of this went down, the FBI wanted to see what Kyle Rittenhouse had in his phone. And they started to look into it and they started to tell Kenosha and the prosecutors over there, I'm not gonna be able to help you get into this puppy. It's an iPhone. It's like weapons, grade security, right? They had to hire some Israeli company to hack into, I think the San Bernardino shooters or whatever, really difficult to get into these phones. So what did Kyle Rittenhouse in his defense team do about this? They wanted to help they're out there helping solve problems. Here is what Mark Richards was asking about today.

Speaker 8:

Mr. Rittenhouse has fallen. You wanted to get into the phone, you immediately sent it to the FBI so that it could be opened or craft. And they told you they couldn't do that. Correct? Correct. And myself and Mr. Rittenhouse found out about that, correct? Correct. And we said, you want to get into his phone, we'll give you the code. As long as we get a copy of whatever you take. Correct? Correct. And those of range cements were made and his phone was downloading . Correct. So there's nothing to hit .

Speaker 1:

Yep . So there's nothing hidden. So he's setting that baseline, right? I phones really difficult to get into. You wanted to get into it. So you looked as a detective, right? You're looking into all this stuff. You wanted access to it . You sent it to the FBI. FBI said we can't get into that puppy. Mark Richards , his defense team got notice of this. And they said, we'll just give you access to it. We'll give you the code. We'll give you the fingerprint. We'll give you the face ID, whatever you need. We just want a copy of it. Hmm . Well that sounds pretty helpful. It doesn't sound like a lunatic murderer. Sounds like somebody who might want to be, you know , useful and help the government investigate the case. Very helpful. Very nice to him. But what about gage gross? Kreutz one of the so-called victims in this case. Uh , did you also want to investigate him? We're talking about self-defense we're talking about a multiple homicide. We're talking about a shooting. Somebody is charged with murder here. So presumably you're not just going after one person you're investigating all the relevant entities. Aren't you? What happened when you went and looked for a gauge gross crudes ? What happened when you looked at his phone? How'd that go down? Here's the detective .

Speaker 8:

Okay . In this case on September 23rd, 2020, you got assigned search warrant from judge Wagner for page gross, which is form , correct? Correct. And that was in preparation for a meeting that was going to occur on September 24th, between yourself gage girl . Squits his lawyer and members from the district attorney's office, correct? I believe that to be correct, but I was not able to attend that meeting. Okay. Who attended? Uh, detective answer Ramian and I'm not sure who else. Okay . But the meeting was in person. Yes. Okay. So search warrant in one hand, correct? Yes. Yep . Phone of Mr. Gross, quits. Presumably Mr. Gross with hand Jess . And for some reason that search warrant was never served on Mr. Gross was and his phone taken, correct? Correct. So you have a video from Mr. Gross, which is phone, correct? Correct. But you don't have the download of his telephone, correct? No. And you wanted to download it as phone, correct? Yes. You wanted the information that was in that phone? Yes. You had a search warrant to get all the information in that phone . Yes. And yet you didn't execute it? No, I didn't.

Speaker 1:

Okay. All right. So just to put a pause in this one, just to make sure we're crystal clear about the difference between these two people. We've got Kyle Rittenhouse. He was involved in a shooting gage , gross crudes , also involved in a shooting. We've got two people who were there at the same time at the scene. One on one side of the firearm, one person on the other side government says we are investigating this. We think a crime happened here. We want to make sure that we have evidence from everybody. We need access to both of your phones. Kyle Rittenhouse says he had no problem at all. Uh, not only will I give you everything in my , uh, any, any videos I have, I'll just give you access to the entire phone. The whole thing. You can make a copy of it. You can do an image, you know, duplication of the entire hard drive, everything you get access to it. We just want a copy. We just want it. There's nothing to hide. There. Just want a copy of it. No problem. They do that. They go ahead and get that same detective, same case, same shooting. Presuming there's going to be a self-defense claim. You'd think would want the symmetrical data from the other side, they do. Detective does want it . He wants it very bad. He, in fact, he wants it so badly. He goes and issues, a search warrant and gets it goes and submits a probable cause statement and affidavit types it up says, I want gage gross. Kreutz phone. Can I have it? A judge says, yes, you can . There's enough probable cause here here's a search warrant. All you have to do. If gage gross groups , doesn't want to give it to you, like Rittenhouse did just go execute the search warrant. It's a court order and you can just take it. All you need is the city attorney or the county attorney. You need the prosecutor. You need everybody to kind of sign off on it. That it's okay to go ahead and do that. It seems fair. Doesn't it? It does. Doesn't it. Unless you're a victim of a crime, then you have all sorts of special rules to protect you. Here's what that sounds like.

Speaker 8:

Do you know why it wasn't executed concerns with Marcy's law? Who had the concerns with Marcy's law? Several of us did I , the attorneys did, when you say attorneys, you're talking about attorney finger, correct? Correct. Marsy's law. Is the victim rights amendment, correct? Correct. And have you ever not executed a search warrant because of Marsy's law? No. Okay. This is the first time ever. Yes. Is it the last time ever? I can foresee the future since that date, September 24th, 2020 to today . Have you ever not executed a signed search warrant by a judicial officer of Kenosha county? Because of some concern of Marsy's law? No.

Speaker 1:

Yeah , yeah. He says, yeah , yeah, you haven't. Right. Because what happened was the prosecutor kind of got in there and said, don't go and get access to that. If you have, if you go get access to that, then we're going to have to disclose it. And so what he's saying is Marsy's law is a victim's rights law, right? If you are, the victim of a crime is exists all over the place here in Arizona as well. We've got a victim's bill of rights, even though a defendant hasn't been convicted yet. Right? They they're , they , they are presumed innocent in this country. For some reason, we still have a bunch of victims , rights laws that are presuming that somebody is in fact guilty, even though they've never been adjudicated to that degree at all. So same concept here, right? Victim's rights. They get shielded. You can , you can't sort, you there's all sorts of things. You gotta be, you know, a kid gloves around the victims. Uh , and so that's, what's happening here. He is the victim of a crime Marsy's law says that they have all sorts of confidentiality protections. Uh, normally nobody gives a crap about them, but in this case, Thomas binger, first time ever, we have a signed a search warrant from a judge executed by a lawful judicial officer determining there is probable cause in a written affidavit from a police officer, but city attorney, Thomas binger come out and they say, not going to not going to go get access to any of that stuff. Sorry about that. So they say, well, that's okay. We don't need it. I engage gross. Kreutz can you just email us that video? Can you just send that over to us? Just email that over to us, but they don't actually get the same full copy that they got from. So it's a nice little way to sort of, you know, rub their faces in that in front of the jury and Thomas binger kind of let that happen. You know, if I were a prosecutor, I think I might've objected to that entire line of questioning and just said, judge, this is burden shifting, right? The law is meant to protect the victims. They have no, they have no right to get that data. It'd be sort of like commenting on the defense. If the prosecution came back out and said at any moment, while Kyle Rittenhouse, he could have come up here and explain this, but he used his right to remain silent. And therefore you should find him guilty because he didn't come up here and talk to you about this stuff. If the , if the prosecutor did that boom mistrial right away, and you can make a similar argument, if you're a prosecutor saying , uh , well, you know, the victim doesn't have to approve that. Doesn't have to disprove their innocence or something like that and make an argument. I don't think it ultimately would win because victim rights bills, I think have a lot of problems in general, a burden shifting. And so the defense would just say, it's their burden to prove their case. Uh, somehow that sort of gets flipped for many defendants in many parts of this country, but you get the gist of what's happening here. So he goes through government really wanted gross Cruz's phone, they got a warrant and they still didn't execute it because some bureaucrat somewhere stopped it from happening. And so they actually go and we take a look at the aerial photo. This is again, cross-examination Mark Richards and the detective, and this is the photo that we're going to spend some time walking through. You can see here that we have a little bit of a same area, same drone, obviously, but little different , um, sort of notations here. So we're going to see a lot of different circles around the people in question. And so it's going to be really hard to see on your screen. And so let me just sort of use the , uh , the pen tool here and , uh, and diagram what's happening. So we've got a blue circle that we're going to see , uh, turns out to be Rosenbaum . The white circle, I believe is going to be Rittenhouse . And then we're going to have the zoom Minsky's here in the red and the greens or the Christmas colors. And so let's listen in as Mark Richards interprets this for us. And again, it's the same drone footage, two different interpretations. And you're going to see that one is sort of expanded a little bit in time. Let's take a look at what's happening here. Okay. So the blue circle, he starts off with

Speaker 8:

What I would say the second and third row of cars. Mr. Rosenbaum, correct?

Speaker 1:

Correct. Blue is Rosenbaum

Speaker 8:

Is red. Is Mr. Zicki green , Mrs . Yes.

Speaker 1:

Yes. White . It's

Speaker 8:

Kind of , again , this is from the left of the television screen, correct? So the right pig to the right of the television screen. Sorry. Rolling please.

Speaker 1:

Okay. McGinnis is over here in the right. We can see him. We can see that sort of all the parties are here. And so the drone is capturing a lot of the footage that we saw on the ground McGinnis over here on the far right. We've got written house right here in the white. These are Minsky's who fired the gun down here in the bottom. And then you can see in the blue that Rosenbalm is sort of tucked away behind the cars. Now watch as this video plays with these notations.

Speaker 8:

Okay .

Speaker 1:

So stop it is

Speaker 8:

Kyle, the white circle comes to the Duramax. This individual, Mr. Rosa ball begins to come out of his hiding place. Yes . He comes around the vehicle at that time. And he's massed . Yes. And he comes around roll.

Speaker 1:

Okay.

Speaker 8:

Well again, Mr. Rosenbaum, correct? Correct. And now you begin with the chase, Mr. Rosenbaum of Kyle Rittenhouse, correct? Correct. Not yet, correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a classic ample

Speaker 1:

Objection.

Speaker 8:

Objectives to the calling for the defendant's interpretation of things. The jury can make their own decision as to what the assistant .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So, you know, kind of , um , an obvious objection there, it sounds like he was ambushed. Uh , you call it, you know, calling for speculation. It's asking for a conclusion. It's not an evidence, but the judge sustains that. And then we pick this up again with another question kind of sounds like maybe if it's not an ambush, is it something else? And listen to the language that Mark Richards gets this detective to use.

Speaker 8:

Rosenbalm you said hiding as my client arrives, correct? It appears so. Yes. My client gets to this side of the Duramax, which would be the far side for Mr. Rosenbach . Correct? Can you repeat that please? My client calmness to the far side of the Duramax from Mr. Rosen and the opposite side of Mr. Rosenbaum. Yes . His circle. My client is stationary and his circle is closing on my client's circle. Mr. Rittenhouse, Brad . Correct. And,

Speaker 1:

Okay, so he is hiding, he's closing in, on my client. You can see him coming around the car. He's got a mask on, right? All of these things, he doesn't , he , he says the word ambush. The jury heard the word ambush. The jury is going to be told. Uh , the objection is sustained. Disregard the word ambush, right? It's not technically an ambush, but that's going to be sort of implanted in their brain, just like it is ours now. And what he's communicating to the jury is that when we see this down here, you see this blue circle. You see Kyle in the white, you saw Rosenbalm the car hiding. And then as soon as Kyle came around the corner behind the Zinski's , Rosenbalm the mast man who was attacking Rittenhouse, approaches him, jumps out of hiding and follows Rittenhouse along the way,

Speaker 8:

Which we don't have sound because it's from 9,000 feet. This is right about the time where Kyle yells friendly, friendly, friendly, friendly, friendly. Yes. And it does not dissuade Mr. Roosevelt , correct? Correct. Rule of TIG. Scott , Kyle goes out into the road, goes back into the car sort of slot with him. Meaning Mr. Rosenbach following , right ? Correct.

Speaker 1:

All right. Again, Mr. Rosenbaum following. So we see what we saw from the prosecutor. We saw the square, chasing the circle and in the circle chasing the square. Kyle was the provoca tour. We see the same aerial drone footage and it's reversed. Now we see Rosenbalm running away, hiding in , wait , lying in. Wait. The detective himself said he was hiding, said he had a mask on. Kyle comes running around the corner. The guy jumps out. What does Kyle say? Friendly, friendly. Did he say friendly, friendly? That's what the defense attorney said. No, he didn't. He said it three times. He said friendly, friendly, friendly. The witness corrects the defense attorney. Now he didn't say it twice, said it three times, friendly, friendly, friendly. And then what happens? Kyle jumps out into the street, runs back towards the building. And now the circle that is white is ahead of the circle. That is blue because he's being chased. He wasn't the provocateur. Like the government said he was somebody who was responding to somebody else lying in wait. And then that chased him. After he yelled friendly, friendly, friendly, he was trying to disengage from that person who was hiding ambushing. Him, ran to the building. What happened after that was self-defense. And so that my friends was day three of the Rittenhouse trial. We just finished talking about Mark Richards . Cross-examining detective Howard. And it looks like we are going to pick back up on day four with more testimony from the detective. They didn't quite finish the cross examination with him. And so we'll start up with him. Tomorrow. Trial is moving very quickly, got a lot of evidence. A lot of exhibits admitted today without a lot of witness testimony. So we didn't get to hear from every single person who recorded all of those 20-something exhibits, all of those got admitted. And so we're going to be able to really fly through a lot of the evidence in this case, since the jury can just look at whatever videos they want now. And so let's see what you have to say about this and more from our tremendous friends and our supporters [email protected] See what you have to say about this. A lot of questions here, I can see them piling in. Uh , Thomas binger says, Rob, please don't play the clip. Me getting owned by judge Schrader. Sorry, Thomas it's too late for that. Already played a lot of them. We've got another one from Don MC in Ohio, says , uh , sent before the show started, says my wife is a criminal defense attorney and a recovered former prosecutor. Yeah . I hope she's recovering nicely. It's a lot of work here in Ohio. I'm a lay person. We watch these types of trials together. She has the opinion that the defense was way too lax today on objections or lack thereof. My question is, does it matter if it isn't relevant to their trial strategy? So it's , it's a great it's. Uh , so it , it doesn't matter if they win, it matters if they lose, that's how these things work. So , uh, you know, certainly I can look there. There are a couple of different ways. If you had to plot all of defense attorneys on a spectrum, you're going to have these defense attorneys that are incredibly litigious. They're going to fight over every stinkin , syllable and article a versus , and or the verses . They are , you know, all the different words, any different permutation of any argument. They're going to try to flesh that out and, and, and think about every variable and permutation and fight over everything. That's one way to do it. And sometimes that works, right. Sometimes you can get some evidence thrown out sometimes. Uh, you make it so difficult for prosecutors because you've got 35 motions, eliminate motions to suppress, right? This is kind of the Bobby stern Haim approach that we're seeing with Golin Maxwell. She is fighting over everything. I mean, amazing stuff. If they send an email to her, she's like you sent an email at an inappropriate time and I'm offended by it. And I found a statute that was written back in 1637 that says that you shouldn't do that. Uh , an offend , a nice person like me. And so then she files 37 different emails and different motions about it, and it's just making it a mess. And so that's one approach. It works. It's used all the time and that's not something that I disagree with at all. There's also another approach where other attorneys just sort of are reliant on persuasion. They're reliant on common sense arguments. They're reliant on , uh, just talking in plain English, right? Not killing each other over all the legal, ease, not killing each other over all of the motions and lemonade and hearsay rules and objections and rules of evidence and all blah, blah, blah. It's like, Hey, we're going to go out there and we're going to communicate cleanly and clearly, and we're going to be persuasive. And we're just going to try to lay, you know, sort of even our, our frequency match that with the juries. And I'll tell you some, you know, there there's a lot of attorneys who are very successful with that approach as well. Now I don't think that either one of the sides can sort of exist in a silo. I think that you're really the most effective attorneys are going to be somewhere in the middle. I can see in this case why your wife says that they have been very lax with a lot of these issues. You know, I would not be comfortable personally if I were sitting there and they got to hear that my client was a militia member or something like that. Right. I'd be able to, you know, I think I'd be a little bit concerned that that is a little bit too lax. I think I agree with that actually way too lax. I'm not sure about way, like how many let's see how many wise you have here. We have a 1, 2, 3, 6 wise in terms of way too laxed. I don't know if I'd go with six, probably like three, let's say way too . Lax. Not way too lax, probably wait , maybe, maybe two , maybe, you know, I kind of liked a more approachable style out of lawyers. You know, a lot of lawyers are very rigid, very formulaic, and it's off putting to jurors , uh , especially in a smaller town like this Don MC in Ohio, shout out to your wife, criminal defense, glad she's recovering from being a prosecutor, thoughts and prayers with her says , uh, Rob former Elio says , uh , maybe you should take a few weeks off, volunteer your talents for the team over at Rittenhouse. They're in desperate need of a video producer because of constant downtime of waiting for videos. They are destroying the continuity of the defense cross . Also a very big fan of easels and whiteboards trying to follow on IRR video was difficult, probably confuse the jury. As much as the defense attorney, he could have mapped out the route that was taken along with the duration of Rittenhouse , his escape from the mob. Then everybody would know what direction north and south are, including the defense attorney. Just keep it in front of the jury so that they can refer to it as needed. The part that I did see was him leading the lead detective around by the nose while the detective helped him . I like my strategy better than the defense attorney. I didn't see all of the cross , but what I saw looked pretty good, just saying that's a good time. Right? And that's former Leo , former law enforcement officer, who is , um , somebody who has a lot of familiarity with criminal law and criminal cases. I think very good comments there. Yeah. There's a lot of different ways you could do this. And I don't really know where the projector is or the camera is relative to the jury. And I don't know what they're leaving up there. Right. I can't really see that. So I'd be curious to see, you know , how they're using that. Uh, just physically speaking , uh, boneless ravioli is here, says, I know it was mentioned that the nature of Rosenbaum's hospital visit and the restraining order warrant going to be discussed in the trial, but isn't his restraining order and criminal history publicly available info. Uh, yeah, probably also wouldn't there be some mention in his criminal records that he has been seen by men's mental institutions. Yeah. So it would be, but the question is, you know, the jury shouldn't be going out there and doing their own investigative research, right. They're not supposed to be going and looking these people up or going onto Google and trying to investigate and dig deeper into any of these issues. All of that, you know , don't talk about the case. Don't do any research, don't watch the news, don't look up any of that stuff. Just listen to what's happening here and make your decision accordingly. And so they , they, they shouldn't be looking up those records, but yeah, it should be publicly available. Trial. Pat says , uh, watch the trial on [inaudible] channel says what a , what an S show from the defense. I saw him on Twitter, say something like that. I'll have to watch that later and see what his perspective is on it. I know, I think that he was objecting to the admission of any of the videos, which is like , you know , it's somebody who's on a, on a, on a more litigious part of the spectrum. Uh, I think, well , I don't know . I , I shouldn't even say that cause I don't know what he said, but if it's, if it's those sort of foundational questions, I can at least see the justification for why the defense didn't object to any of it just said, let it all come in. Right? Because they're not arguing about the shooting that took place shooting took place. He was chased. He was running around all over the place. You can look at it 35 different ways from Sunday. It doesn't matter submit 200 different videos. If you want to. He was acting out of self-defense a shooting took place. It was totally justified. Yeah. Juries watch it 400 times. And even the witnesses that are coming out in court, they're not, they're not changing the, the interpretation of any of the evidence, right. Washington came out and he's like, yeah. I mean, it looked weird. He had gloves on his hand, but you know, so what's okay. Uh , he wasn't acting erratically. Rosenbaum was, but Rittenhouse wasn't. And uh, you know, in fact he was out there as we heard yesterday from Dominic black providing medical aid to other people. So it's almost like who cares about what the video looks like or about any of those , uh, any of that evidence and people , uh , again, that all being said, it's about the narrative. It's about the testimonial nature of the commentary in the video. So if they've got 20 something videos and every single video is like, oh, these guys are murdering white supremacist militia. neo-Nazis , that's a problem, but I don't know how that's going to be delineated because we've got a lot more trial ahead of us that I think would be a problem. We have de Del spa de Del spa is here, says it's somewhat strange that in the contract to the Shovan trial, all of this video evidence has just allowed without testimony for those who shot it. I suppose that's part of the reason why the defense was going on about something being admitted into evidence when it wasn't at the end of the day today. Yeah. Yes. But those videos , uh, were, gosh, I can't remember how many of those videos did we get? I mean, several of those videos were, were body camera videos from the police department. So those could be authenticated by the police agency. They would just bring in the government , uh , expert to come authenticate those videos. And then those are, you know, sort of , uh , formal records that get admitted. But I think the other videos that we got, then we get them actually testifying. I don't recall eat on test as written defense should have hired you, Robert griller, Esq, just based on what you put together last year. I feel like I'm oriented on those videos because of your breakdown. You showed all the angles in the geography, the area that was really helpful, understanding how this played out. Well, thank you, Eden test. Yeah. It, it seemed pretty obvious to me at the time. And we did do a very detailed breakdown. That was a fun , uh , a fun sort of a time for me, not because of the situation, which was obviously horrific and tragic, but I had no idea what I was doing on YouTube at the time. I was like, this case is crazy. I need to make a video about this. I don't know how to do it. I don't know how any of this stuff works, but we're just going to talk about it. And it turned out to be a good, a good sort of a decision because it is a very interesting case. And I hope it turns out, well, three girlies is here says, is binger trying to overwhelm the jury with all the video, with this amount of video help the defense. If it is not being slowed down for the jury to see, it seems like a stupid question, but can't Richard slow it down for the jury later on. It's from three girlies as a good, another very good question. And you don't know. Yeah. I mean, it really could. It really could. And sort of being it, being duplicative, it being overly cumulative. It's too much. The jury is going to get overwhelmed. They're gonna go in there. They're gonna play one video and another one and another one. And they're going to see it often and over and over and over again. One of the reasons why the defense may not want that to happen is because the jury is gonna see Kyle Rittenhouse shooting and killing somebody multiple times, many times over. And that's not a good thing for most people to see. That's why you want to keep a lot of that stuff out of their hands. So they don't get this scroll is back multiple times and watched shot, shot, shot, shot, and see a 17 year old kid shooting and killed multiple people. And so oftentimes you want to sort of limit that stuff. And if they get 14, 25 different opportunities to watch that from multiple different angles, it can be disturbing to a person's decision-making abilities. And it might cause them to be prejudiced against Rittenhouse, but we don't know. We'll see. It depends up. It's all up to the jury news. Now Wyoming says, have to admit watching all the TV pundits respond to the hearsay argument has been hilarious. They can't justify the argument that the prosecutor was going with, that he was trying to show Rittenhouse a state of mind by showing what someone else was saying about what he was seeing, but that doesn't stop them from trying. There was no legal justification where the pundits don't care about the law, only their feelings question about it though. Do you think the prosecutor just wanted to get in the commentary or a repeating militia over and over again? Also have the jury request to view the video during deliberations when someone have to go in and edit the video to remove all the talking except the written house talking. And that was my question news now, right? That's sort of my, my, my problem with that. I agree with the objection that any commentary, that's not a fact in evidence should be scrubbed from the final videos. It should only be written houses , testimony, stuff that is actually his state of mind, not other people's state of mind , um, and all of that can come in, but all of the external stuff is it should, should not come in. I don't know what they decided because during trial today, they actually, the judge, you know, got irritated called a break and they came back and they played a lot of the video with a lot of the audio in it. So I don't really know what they decided, which is sort of par for the course with this trial. A lot of it , uh, isn't isn't uh, isn't very clear. Monster one says AR 15, isn't an assault rifle, Rob . Well, that's not what they say on MSNBC. All right. Monster one, take it up with them news. Now Wyoming says, I have never heard a prosecutor testify as much as this guy does. Uh , do you know who that person was answer from the, from the witness note we're going to represent that person was ex there was a lot of him representing what the evidence shows. And I think a lot of that had to do with sort of the agreements that took place between the prosecution and the defense. It felt like there was a lot of that. Like the defense was just like, do whatever you want, just get it in. It's fine. Don't care. We'll see if that works out for him , we have three girls. He says, what is the benefit of bringing in Washington? If he was not anywhere near what was going on? He seems like a useless witness because he wasn't next to any of the shootings. Is it only because he had video? Not really good video at that. Yeah. I think that's a fair assessment. Three girls. They needed somebody to come in and talk about the video. They had a video, it was continuous. It had some interaction with Kyle Rittenhouse, but he was not a great witness other than he was somebody else to talk about videos . Somebody else who was their soul Viking says I skated away to find safety. This has to be the quote of the day. Yeah, I was, I was sort of laughing at that. He kind of says it obviously. Well, what'd you do after somebody has shot someone else, they're 30 yards from you. I skated away to safety, like a sane, rational human would so it's interesting question there from binger. Let's see what else. We've got a couple more questions. Cut . A lot more 5 0 3 says the defense dropped the ball all day long and the prosecutors got to have a field day. I'm in shock from the back half of today. I'm not even a lawyer. I was sitting there asking myself how much of the video it was relevant in any way. That's a good point. Yeah, it is a good point. As I said, right, you're going to see people split on this object to everything, fight scrap for every single iota versus letting it in, dealing with it on the backend . Steve says, please don't use the term assault rifle or weapon. He had a semiautomatic weapon. That's all also the witness. Did it use that term? Great show and analysis. Thank you. Is that a patrol ? Are we not supposed to use that word? I have an assault weapon right over there as a matter of fact. So it's , uh , you know, it's perfectly , um, uh, it's sunk in a boat. I forgot it's not there anymore. It fell in that boat accident. And I forgot about that. We have a dreary or spider says, you told the story of how you became a defense attorney on Viva Barnes , sidebar. Wasn't fully able to put myself in your shoes until this case. Binger is complete scum who is prosecuting a 17 year old. That knows that he knows is innocent to advance his career. And for political reasons, I wish malicious prosecution was a realistic possibility. It's from jury or spider. Yeah. Right? This guy I told you about binger. You know, I try not to make these things personal, but this guy, you can just watch him and you just go this guy. I can't believe we're even charging this case, but you know, he's a prosecutor and he's that exact prosecutor type who you'd meet outside a courtroom. And you'd say, Hey, listen, man, this is not, this is not a justifiable case. You cannot bring this. And he'd say, oh yeah. Well, my officer said so-and-so and so-and-so, and this I've seen this before, Rob, this is your client and you don't know what he's going to be like in two years, this is the start of something like this. He's going to be a monster. You take it easy dork. Gosh, it's like hall monitors. These guys it's the worst. All right. Uh , and this guy is worse than that. Joe D uh , yo does says prosecutor led a cop witness over and over and over again, the defense just let them. So essentially the prosecutor was testifying. Just letting the cop agree with him. That that is true. Yeah . That's all true. No question about that. Totally true. My point here is that the defense doesn't even care. So the defense wasn't sort of making a mistake. This is part of the strategy. It's just let him , let him talk about it all day. It's self-defense yeah, he shot him. He shot him and shot him quickly, but it wasn't reckless and it wasn't home . It wasn't murder. It was all self defense . So it looks like the defense is rolling over and it looks like they're laying down, but you know, maybe not , uh , Natalie's dirty diapers here. It says, did I hear you cheering? Uh , Chira Feesey I'm getting uncomfortable at 33 pounds. Now Natalie's diaper is just , uh , getting more bloated by the day we've got, let's see, leafy bug says I've seen people noting that Kyle appears to have put on a fair bit of weight since his last public appearance, weight gain side effect many well well-known antidepressant meds. No idea if that explains the weight gain, but it did make me think about what Kyle has gone through and is going through taking the life of another, even in self-defense would deeply trauma, not traumatize, any thinking and feeling person. Then the stint in jail being subject to daily character assassination in the media fed by a zealous prosecutor, the ongoing threats to himself, his family. And now this trial, hell I hope Kyle has the strength to endure the burdens thrust upon him. That's from leafy bug in the house. Nice comment there, leafy bug, some nice empathy for him. And I always try to have that for anybody. Who's going through a situation like this, no matter who it is, even juicy. Jessie , small led even Alec Baldwin, right? People going through the justice system are usually, you know, in really hard positions . Some people themselves are broken and traumatized . Some people are put in the middle of , uh , horrific tragedies like Kyle Rittenhouse. It is just a horrible thing. It's its losses all around. So I appreciate you just sort of pausing, recognizing what this young guy is going through. It is held. There's no question about that, right? I'm sure he does not want this upon him. His family he's got a mother or a sister or brother it's a lot news now says slight correction. The attorney questioning about beating with the skateboard was the defense assistant attorney. Yes. That's cheer. FEC, right? Cheer. FEC is co-counsel on the defense. And he was also, yes, he is a defense attorney on Kyle's team Biden. Baby says, Jill hasn't swung my plank of wood with high velocity in a long time. She says she boundaries. Unlike our country, poor Joe . You know, maybe if Jill went and grabbed his skateboard trucks, things would be a little bit better in this country. One can only hope. See rose says Washington helped the defense a lot with the Rosenbalm bomb, the state not prepped their witnesses. I know. And it sort of feels like binger . Sometimes we'll have these long pauses where he's like, I can't believe they just answered that way. That's not what I was going for three girls. He says, oh, how bad did Washington just mess up the prosecutor's case by saying Rosenbaum was acting erratic. It's like, he just nailed something to the coffin of bingers case. Yes, it was said it was his witness. He called him. He knew what he was going to say. Leaf bugs says Kyle was smoking while wearing gloves. Gosh, how damning these prosecution witnesses? Sure are dynamite. Why are we putting Kyle through this again? It's because during an election year he did something that I think was racist. Somehow. I think during an election year, even though if you look at our trial board and all the different people there, not a whole lot of black people or even non white people. So I don't know how this whole thing was racist, but for some reason it is three girls . He says, could this detective actually believe that Kyle is innocent of all these charges? It is clear. The detective understood that Kyle had been assaulted. I've been through shootings and riots before. So I've had to testify in court and others, I haven't, but things tend to cement your brain. Like you wouldn't have in any other circumstance. He is reliving that night. And what he saw on Kyle, it makes me believe this detective truly understands the circumstances that happened that night. And it sounds like he's not helping binger out at all. I agree with you. And you know, part of this is a great 0.3 girls , and I wanted to mention this, but what we did see with all of the videos, you have to remember that this also sort of takes a toll on Kyle Rittenhouse. He's sitting in court watching this multiple times, watching the shooting, watching the chase, watching the horror of that night, 14, 21 times. However many times we watched it today in court a lot. And he's sitting there having to relive this shooting and killing somebody, shooting an injuring, somebody shooting and killing another person being chased around this horrific scene. And Thomas binger, this loser prosecutor is just over and over and over again. Play it again, play it again, play it again. Play it again. And so I can have people. I can understand people saying that those defense attorneys should have just enough already. You got what you needed in what's your point. You got a video of the scene, you got your FBI surveillance footage. You got another one of Washington on enough. You're done. You don't need any more of this. It's duplicative. It's overly cumulative. It's too much. We don't need at all. And if you have too much of it, it might be overly prejudicial to the jury. And it's cruel to the defendant to have them sit there. If you believe that Kyle Rittenhouse, as I do act it out of self-defense to watch him have to relive that same night over and over and over again, as cruel as hell. But Thomas binger doesn't care much about any of that. Does he? Let's see, we've got some other questions here. We've got speech unleash says the judge should have blocked that video from being played to the jury should have told them to dismiss what they heard from it. So far those names describing Rittenhouse as militia and other things can not be unheard by the jury. I agree with you speech. I would have freaked out about that objection, right, right there. And they did not do that because he was probably going to object shortly thereafter. And he did. That was from speech unleashed. A couple more here. D Del speed says it highly. It seems like the jury process in this case is great, but the procedural process, electronic evidence, which is highly used in this case, evidence admission is absolutely atrocious. I wish I would have spent more time on this process. Maybe you can talk about the difficulties of attorneys in courts these days. So the difficulties here de Del SPE is the judge. Honestly, the judge has been very loose in this case, very haphazard. We've talked about this , uh , you know , many times on this channel, even at the start of jury selection, even when we were covering the pretrial proceedings before jury selection started at the very outset of this case, we were commenting on the fact that they were doing their Dobber hearings with the expert witnesses. And the judge sort of was, was in the middle of a Dobra hearing where they were examining the expert witness, and then just launched into a sort of a parallel conversation about a and eliminate about a similar issue involving expert witnesses. And I made this comment at the start of this case. It's very difficult to have clarity about what you can talk about. If you don't do things in order. For example, if you have an expert witness, well, you're going to have to know what types of questions to ask that expert. If you don't have an expert, while you don't have to talk about what type of questions to ask an expert. And so this judge is like, well, I want to know what questions you want to ask an expert. You say , well, we want these questions, but I also want to know, do we need an expert? And who is the expert? So well, it's this person. So we examine them. But then the judge goes back to the questions you want it . So it's just, it's this it's this topsy turvy world. It is, in my opinion, it is, you know , basically atrocious. You run into these, into these problems. When a judge thinks that they can just deal with everything on the fly, you don't have any clarity. And that's why you have a prosecutor like binger to his defense, right. He came out and he started to play evidence, videos that he probably thought was perfectly legitimate because this judge, at some point in this convoluted pretrial proceeding process, might've said, I'm open to it. Like I'm open to hearing that he might've said, well, we'll, let's see what happens. And then the objection happens in the middle of the trial, right in front of the jury. And the judge has to deal with it then. And he makes the right ruling then, but it makes the case very cumbersome. And we have to deal with all these issues in the middle of the trial. It goes fast. It makes everything, you know, go relatively quickly. But you know, honestly I think it opens up a lot of room for appeal. I don't think it's the right way to handle a courtroom, but it's not my courtroom. And he's been doing it for 200 years. It looks like John Haugen says, speaking about the judge, addressing the media. Even if the media is wrong, they have that right. What line is there, if any, for the judge scolding the media from the bench, it seems like he should have left that sleeping dog alone. Yeah, honestly, I think this judge was just trying to talk about anything else other than the hearsay rules. Cause he didn't really know anything about the hearsay rules. So he started this sort of pivot into the media tirade and then took a break to go look at the hearsay rules. And then they talked about all this stuff offline as they should have in the first place and then resolved it some way, shape or form. But we don't know what that looks like yet. Other than the fact that they came out and actually played the videos. Good to see you, John three girly says I worked these kinds of environments for a long time. I made sure I had every non-lethal capability as redundancy. I carried OCE taser, et cetera, security. The idea that he did not have any non-lethal capability that's beyond me, but that is a personal choice. And a preference saying that Kyle not having non-lethal is irrelevant to the case. He was being threatened with firearms and with a skateboard to his head, those are both causes to use deadly force. Should it be available? I think this prosecutor is an idiot. Some three girlies . It's a very astute observation. Yeah. He seems like one of those now DOB says, Hmm , no, we're not running behind a door . We got this , let's get this. If you're running behind, I don't know who made me more mad today. The prosecutor or the defense, the problem is the defense can be held accountable for malpractice, but the state lawyer risk, absolutely nothing can lie. Cheat tip the scale. There was nothing people can do about it. This has to be changed to make state lawyers put more than a raise on the line for what they say, disbarment and jail time should be mandatory with the trust we put in them. That's an a dark, you know, in the dark, you're speaking my language. You know, I get really irritated about this. It is , uh , an asymmetry in , in , in how we practice law. Especially as a defense lawyer. If I screw something up, somebody goes on Yelp or they go on Google or they file a bar complaint or they blow us up wherever they want to blow us up. That's fine. That's well and good. We do good work here. I stand by our team. I stand by our reputation. I believe in what we do. So I'm okay with all of that. I don't need to hide the ball. Go look me up on my easy bar.org, go look. My name up right . Bar complaints would look , I'm fine with that. I love accountability, love transparency. I believe in it thoroughly. And it applies to people like me, but not to government prosecutors. There is no Yelp page for them. There is no financial repercussions for them. If they send somebody to prison unlawfully, they don't even really get in trouble about it. Right? You can file a bar complaint. What does the state bar do? They say, oh, oh, it's a prosecutor. It , nobody likes prosecutors. Defense defendants are filing bar complaints against them all the time. So who cares? Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss, whatever. They've got no skin in the game. They don't care. They go to bed fine. They wake up the next day. They do it all again. There is no repercussion for that. In fact, they are incentivized the opposite direction. They get promoted, they get raises. They get made bureau chiefs. I actually, at one point I had this grand vision. I think I still own this domain name. I actually bought prosecutor watch.org. I think I brought that. I might do something with that someday, but they even criminalize that like if you, if you, you know, anyways, leafy bug says sometimes the judges interaction with binger. Remind me of an indecisive parent trying to deal with an argumentative child. How about a hard? No. And because I say so, if he wants to know why yeah. Binger is not having a good time interacting with this judge. No doubt. Uh , Kincaid says, Rob, I liked the strategy for the case. So far facts are leaning for the defense. Even the judges interactions being unsure has favored Kyle side. Thank goodness. He seems so far to be honorable. The defense can change tack for O S moments and let the prosecution walk into the judges . Procedural quagmires. Maybe Kyle's team knows this judge's demeanor. I thought of the judge for Floyd's case was very well-spoken technical. However, seemingly biased in courtroom practice. What say you? I agree with that. I agree with that. I liked judge Cahill a lot, but I thought he had a political bend slightly in court. Like I think that , uh, you know, more evidence should have been admitted that was highly relevant to the case, but he, you know, he, he made some rulings against Shovan no doubt Marsy's law. He says for an adult who fired a weapon in a crowd, potentially instigating the events that caused a death. What the F uh, can I send you an email asking some questions about becoming a lawyer? Of course, king kit , send it over, send it over any which way email is probably the best on that one. G gum giga says as a mother, if Kyle was my son, I would be so that the defense lawyer isn't objecting and fighting tooth and nail against the prosecutor , sneaking things in and breaking the rules to push his narrative. He allowed them access to Kyle's phone. What forget about being nice. I want them to defend my son as if his life depended on it. It's from gum giga . And you know, I understand that perspective, G gum , this is a very common thing in law and I'll never forget. One of the first times I got fired as a lawyer, I won a hearing and I got fired for it, but they just didn't like my style. It was something like this. Uh , we went into this hearing. It was actually sort of a family law custody matter, went into it. It was a Tucson court went in and they, the family wanted me to just destroy the other side, just eliminate them. Right. Uh , they , they didn't even really, after the fact, I recognize this, I almost didn't even really care about winning so much as they cared about just destroying the other side. The other side was a husband who , uh , they were making claims about alcoholism on our client . And it was just this big battle that happened anyways, long story short, this whole hearing goes forward and I let everything come in. Everything they were saying, our client was an alcoholic and a drunk and a horrible mother and a lunatic and a race . All of it, the worst person, all of that, not even relevant at all to the underlying legal issue, had nothing to do with anything. It was all about essentially jurisdiction. We were in the wrong court. And so everything that they wanted to argue about. Okay, if that , if, if, if you feel good about that, that's all fine and well, and good. And so we come to the conclusion of the case. I said, all right, you get your stuff out of the way. Hope you feel better about that. And I made my argument and the judge goes, yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. Right. Mr. Girlier, exactly rights . Uh, and so we're going to have to , uh, you know , uh, move to dismiss this out of this court. And the defense attorney for the opposing counsel stood up for her side and just jumped out of her seat jaw because they lost, you know, they, it was a , it was a catastrophe for her. And so they freaked out and we left the courtroom and the family was like, wow, I can't believe we won that. But they were a little bit shook because all this stuff came out. And about two days later, they call our office. We got a different lawyer why we won the case. Yeah. But we just kind of wanted to make a change. They didn't like the style. They didn't like they wanted, they wanted a , uh , a battle. Right. They wanted to draw blood more than they wanted to win. And so you can see a situation like that could be happening here. Right. And , and a lot of the times there's a concept called I attra genics it's when the healer is the Harmer, it's when you do more harm, trying to help, then you, then you, then you do by doing nothing, sort of like when they would draw blood from people to heal, you go, you go to your healer, you're sick. They cut your veins open, you bleed out. Oh, well, we thought we were going to try to help this person survive. And now he's dead. Now I will not do that again. The healer does more harm a defense attorney trying to get in there and metal with every stinking thing can maybe do a little bit more harm than if they just let, let the natural progression unfold. So I can see this [inaudible] as you wanting to get in there and, and, you know, see somebody fight, but that's not always how the law works. Sometimes you can fight over a bunch of stuff. That's absolutely irrelevant. And , um , there are better arguments to be made. Great question though. All right. We have another one from thunder. Seven says if there was a mistrial where they retry or just let it go really enjoying your analysis. I would honestly, I would think that they would have to just let it go. Cause it's not a good case. Somebody says , uh , never knew you could walk Rob, first time I've seen your legs when you have to go into the other room, what'd you think? Yeah. What'd you think about it? Did you think I had actual pants on? I hope so. Cause I do we have another one from , uh, let's see , uh , tree Mendez says, if I recall correctly from your original Rittenhouse videos, I don't think McInnis said anything about Kyle chasing Rosenbaum . McGinnis is going to be the key witness to this whole mess. I think I just hope he doesn't change his story. I agree with you tremendous. He look, I don't think that he will, because a lot of his testimony is going to be documented and sort of memorialized in the probable cause statement and in all of his interviews and the defense seemed to be pretty robust, pretty sure of the idea that he was going to , um , testify a certain way during mark Richard's opening statement. They, he, you know, he said, you're going to hear it from a Guinness . Who's going to come out here and say, none of this is , is, is true. I'm not gas as Rob, did you get a chance to take a look at the allegations made by barns over at Barnes , uh , even Barnes with defense. Self-sabotage some interesting allegations, not sure how much is actually egregious and how much is just sour grapes for no longer being on the team. You know, I saw a little bit of that. I did see , uh, Barnes talking to Viva about this. Something about him not being on the team anymore. Um, I have no idea about any of that stuff, to be honest, you know, so many, this has changed hands so many times, you know, I know that , uh, Linwood was working on it for a summer for a period. John Pierce had some work on this. We have a number of different foundations and a number of different people working in it's . I haven't, you know, I, I don't know. Um, I think that my perspective on all of that is to just watch kind of what happens in court, you know , um , even really sort of , uh, irritated with some of the media personalities who were reporting on this. I was reading some article in the New York times. The court is not letting a lot of people into the courtroom and the court is not very transparent about what's happening behind the scenes. They're shutting off the camera. We didn't even see the FBI agent yesterday. All of their motions are not publicly available. I have a stack of motions here from the court that I got, you know , I got these look, I requested these. I don't know. These came from the county of Kenosha. The , the , the circuit, you can see that there, I got this whole stack of Rittenhouse documents that I got, you know , some time ago didn't have a chance to make videos about it. Cause I got sick in September, but these were all the motions to admit evidence and all this stuff, right? These are all of written houses , documents. I read through all of them. And , uh , I've been studying the case, but it was like a pain in the butt to get those. And it's not because of the court's fault. Like the, the clerk of the court who was extremely helpful. She was very useful, but we have to send a, check-in got to pay for it. Then they've got to , you know, and , and you can't, you know, Venmo them or something that you have mail it in. They got to mail it back to you. It takes several weeks. And so even when it comes to some of these, you know , more substantive motions, I can't make heads or tails about what the defense is actually doing because in order to get the documents, it takes weeks. And so if they filed something this morning, I won't get it until the trial is over. Whereas in the Shovan case, all of that stuff was publicly available. It's right on the internet. So , uh, so my perspective, when it comes to sort of the, you know, the, the outside, the courtroom stuff, what , what the New York times is saying about this, what any of these people are saying about it? I don't know. I, you know, I don't know. There was some New York times reporter who was in the courtroom today and she was talking about, you know, jurors and about how a gas, they were, it all the videos that they were seeing covering their mouth one man was crying and all of this stuff. I don't know what to believe because I'm not in there. I can't see it. And this is a New York times reporter the judge, the court is very, you know , lacking in any transparency. So I, it's hard to make sense heads or tails of any of it. I just wanted to focus on what's happening in the courtroom, play around with both sides of the analysis and hope that Kyle gets the best outcome. I mean, that's , that's where I'm going to keep my head here. Um, you know, and hopefully that makes sense. Speech unleashed says any opinion on Viva Barnes video about Rittenhouse defense being sabotaged by his own lawyers. Uh, yeah . I've not seen that. So I got to watch that. I don't see it right. I mean, I don't see that today. Uh, personally, I don't see anything that would lead me to believe that it's active, sabotage. I don't know what that's about, but I can take a look at it. Rob's racist lamps says I played that video. So Rob can get up and show everyone that he has legs happy Halloween. Yeah, that's fine . Which is going to be interesting. Cause I'm going to clip that out when this premieres , and so you're going to have to , uh, the , the, the premiere people, probably not going to see any legs, probably. Maybe I'll leave it in . I have decided 5 0 3 says AR stands for ArmaLite, which is a company, not an assault rifle, rifles. Don't assault. People do glad to be back by the way, miss the locals . Good to see you. 5 0 3. Thanks for being here. Yeah, I know it didn't stand for assault rifle. I just kinda like how that sounds, you know, having a nice assault rifle. I don't think it's pejorative at all, but I can understand it. I guess it's meant to scare people. Oh, it's an assault rifle. Well, yeah. I mean, it's, it's a rifle. It kills people or animals or it's for shooting practice or it's just to look nice sitting in a gun safe somewhere. Uh , let's see what else. Alec Baldwin says Kyle's guilty. Obvious what he did was intentional. Take it from me. I've been down this road before. I'm the poster child for gun violence. Couple more Yoda says it's the smoking glove versus the smoking gun. Talking about Kyle written houses , uh , blue gloves, little John says shots, shots, shots. Another angle of the video, little John in the house, getting the, getting the, getting the club riled up. We have Larry says, did someone explained to the jury what hearsay is and why it should be disregarded? I'm thinking about the time when the audio said the militia is here. Yeah. And we played that Larry , uh , earlier today and the judge sort of started talking about it, but that's not what hearsay is not one of the things that you can communicate to jurors. You can't communicate it to lawyers, most lawyers. So it's literally a difficult concept because it's so complicated. Hearsay exceptions to hearsay things that are hearsay, but we say they are not hearsay, non hearsay. It's really confusing. So even if the judge said, let me give you a crash course on hearsay, the jurors would say, all I heard was militia. Don't know what you just said, judge. I just heard militia. So that's where some of the problems can can come in. News now says, just end the show, just to end the show, go, Virginia and New Jersey for change. How is New Jersey doing? Where are we at on the new Jersey's hangs by a thread. Let's see. Projected winner . Hm . Well who are they saying? Oh, Murphy projected winner Murphy. Okay. Well, Virginia still went to a Yuncken , which is pretty cool. Shout out to Thanh 2 0 4 over on Twitch who just joined us over there. Big election news. Yeah. They were melting down about that. A couple other questions on Rittenhouse before we wrap up for the day, Greg Murat says, Rob, if someone is using an illegal weapon for self-defense that they still get charged for using an illegal weapon or does the charge become no, because it was used in self-defense. It's a great question, Greg. And you're going to see that , uh, you know, probably probably be a very fact based , um , analysis. I don't think you're going to see sort of a hard line either way on that. It's gonna be up to the prosecutor, right? So a prosecutor might theoretically charged somebody with a misconduct involving weapons charge or something like that. So I'm trying to think of a scenario where somebody would, would have any legal weapon and it's not necessarily an illegal weapon. It's more of the idea that you're a prohibited possessor, which I think is really what you're kind of asking about an illegal weapon. It's hard for me to fathom, right? Because in Arizona we have V we have very , uh, free gun laws. So an illegal weapon might be a weapon that wasn't properly registered to somebody or something that was, you know, stolen or something like that. Like that would make the weapon illegal. I think what you're asking about is a person that is a prohibited possessor. They don't have the right to possess a weapon and use a weapon. So in the United States, that would be somebody who's a felon. If you're a convicted felon, no right. To possess a firearm, unless you do a restoration of those rights and get that right back, which we can help you with in the state of Arizona, if you need help. But it is up in that, in that situation, if they use that firearm defended themselves, a prosecutor might take a look at this and come to a charging decision, right? Uh , a conclusion about, should I charge this person with homicide? Is this a Rittenhouse case where I should actually file murder charges against this person? If yes. Yeah. They're also going to get hit with a misconduct involving weapons charge for being a prohibited possessor in possession of a weapon. But if they decide that it's actually, it was a pretty clear case of self-defense they're probably depending on the prosecutor going to consider that person to also be the victim of an assault, a victim of an intentional attempted homicide, which justifies their use of self-defense, which justifies the killing, which would make them the victim of a crime that was committed by the deceased. And in that case, they're not going to charge the victim of a crime with another crime, right? They're not going to sort of add insult to injury. That's how, if I were a prosecutor, I would sort of work my way through that logic. Hopefully that makes sense. So the answer is probably no for most prosecutors, but you certainly are going to find those Thomas banger would probably be the first guy to charge you, Jay . He says, I remember watching your analysis of this last year really helped me understand everything that happened. Appreciate your breakdown. All the hard work you put in, especially for those of us who are not legally minded, keep up the great work brother. Well, thank you, Jay . Hey , that's a nice comment and I appreciate you being here. I'm having a lot of fun. It is a lot of work. I got to tell you, it really is going through the trial today, man. I remember how much work this was during Shovan. Uh, but it's also super interesting. I'm feeling like I'm getting to ride, you know, sort of shotgun in a trial. So it's fun. Monster one says Rittenhouse got hit with an assault skateboard. That's true by the trucks unless you have big hands. If you're a small handed defense attorney though, then not a monster. One says that you miss my first comment about self-defense. I don't know, monster one , send it again. If I skipped it , I don't think I skipped over anything today. So send that again. Uh, miss lucky says medical people wear blue gloves when dealing with any injury from Ms . Lucky in the house. And , uh, those were all great questions from watching the watchers.locals.com monster one, if you're out there and you want to resubmit that question, if you have it handy, we'll hang out for a few more minutes to see if that one comes in. Otherwise let's get some shout outs around the communities we've got free, Appalachian and cat man dot and are over at rumble. We , uh , they're chatting away. I see free. Appalachian says if Kyle is acquitted, will he prosecute black? I doubt that. Uh, um, well, listen, you know, Kyle could always be convicted on that charge or he can be convicted on a curfew charge or something like that. Sometimes a jury might split the baby , uh, separate the baby from the bathwater to some degree convict Kyle and a couple of the smaller lesser charges, just so that he gets something, but not , uh , not on any of the higher charges. Three girly says whoever does Nadler's diaper. Every time I see Nadler, now I can think about is this dirty diaper? I know me too. And he just kind of waddles around, like he's just hauling that hollering, hauling that thing around every which way. Pretty a pretty gross visual, but it is true. And , uh, over in our secret YouTube unlisted , uh , cabal chat, we've got just cows playing hooky, Ronnie Cole carabiners over there. Zulus EIT is in the house. As if I got up with my pants down, they would be sufficiently intimidated. I reckon talking about those big hands. Good for you, Zulu a way to, you know, way to be proud. My man, I appreciate that. I can respect that. Very admirable and congratulations as well. So we've got , uh , all of those amazing questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com over from our secret unlisted, YouTube chat over on rumble, over on Twitch, we're all over the place. And the show is going to premiere on YouTube. As soon as we're done recording here, going to make a couple of quick edits, get that public uploaded and ready to go over there. So if you're looking for a late show, that will be there soon. I want to welcome some new people over to our watching the watchers.locals.com community big shout outs to G nonsense is in the house. Just signed up. Welcome Jean nonsense frappe bod is here as well. Welcome frat bod, glad that you're here. Flee Jay joined us for the year over on our locals communities. We've got bad guy, 24 cc's in the house. Very clever name joined up mind, magician in the house. See rose is here. Saw him in the chat today. Hyperspectral Erin . Caroline is joining up along with day five, 20 Donna B3 hundred in the house. Roy bought Ronnie Cole, French toast, the AI guy, martini junkie , just cows, a cold painter, many others [email protected], which is our community. We'd really appreciate it. If you joined us over there because we have our November monthly meetup coming up this Saturday, it's like in a couple of days, three days, Saturday, November six, seven to 8:00 PM. Registration link will be up and [email protected] If you want to join us, it is a very fun thing. We just hang out on zoom for about an hour, hour and a half. Come with your camera on, turn it off. Use your real name. Use your fake name. Doesn't matter. Hang out for five minutes, hang out for the entire time. But it's for all of our supporters, all of our community [email protected] It's a lot of fun, very low key, very low energy. If you're looking for something fun to do on a Saturday night, that's when we're doing it. So 4:00 PM Arizona, 7:00 PM on the east coast. I don't think that the time zone changes yet, right? That's the six time zone changes the seventh. So hopefully we don't screw anything up there, but uh, come and join us there. And uh, it's going to be a lot of fun and that my friends is at for me for the day. Want to thank you so much for being a part of it. Reminder, we do record every day , 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 7:00 PM on the east coast [email protected] And then it is premiered on YouTube. If you want to be a part of the chat, make sure you stick around. It goes live as soon as it is done in coding on YouTube. And so be sure that you join us there. Otherwise everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. We're going to be back here to do this all again tomorrow quick reminder on the show for tomorrow, we are going to have Rittenhouse coverage, but I don't know what time it's going to be because I have a big annual event that I have to be a part of. And it is all day, Thursday, all day Friday. So the shows might be later if the show is later, if it's like a seven Arizona time, it will be live across the board, right? So we're not going to record it and then re upload it. If it is later tomorrow, then we'll just going to be live across the board. But it may not be at 4:00 PM. It depends on when this , uh, when this event wraps up. And so I'm going to be juggling multiple things tomorrow, but the Rittenhouse coverage must go on. And so , uh , keep your eye out on that. I'll make sure that I , uh , keep everybody apprised of what my schedule looks like, but we'll do more Rittenhouse day four tomorrow, day five on Friday. Make sure you subscribe wherever you're watching this. I appreciate everybody being a part of the live show. A part of the recording sleep very well. Have a tremendous evening. I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Bye-bye .