WISCONSIN – Prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse case reportedly asked the presiding judge to prohibit the terms like “rioters” and “looters” during the upcoming trial when describing the three men Rittenhouse allegedly shot during the August 2020 riot in Kenosha.
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) October 26, 2021
The now-18-year-old Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the August 25th, 2020, riot where his current charges stem from, made an appearance in court on October 25th, where the prosecution sought to bar a litany of terms and testimony in the upcoming trial.
Prosecutors asked the judge during the appearance to prohibit words such as “rioters”, “looters”, “arsonists”, or any other term that could be thought of as a pejorative when making reference to the individuals shot during the Kenosha riot.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger claimed during the hearing that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the men shot during the Kenosha riot were engaged in a riotous activity. However, the judge did not appease the request, noting that so long as the defense can present evidence to substantiate such labels, then they’ll be allowed in court.
Kenosha Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder had already previously ruled that the three men shot during the riot cannot be referred to as “victims” by the prosecution during the trial, a decision that was reached after Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards explained that “The word victim is a loaded, loaded word.”
Prosecutors also tried blocking evidence that showed police officers were passing out water bottles to those who were in Kenosha the night of the riot that were armed and protecting businesses in the area.
Videos that circulated online from the riot depicted the aforementioned, which defense attorney Richards said was key evidence in the case:
“If the conduct was so obviously dangerous, it seems logical that law enforcement would have either removed the defendant from the situation via arrest or informed him that he was to leave the area because of his actions. They did neither.”
The judge ruled that the video can be introduced into evidence, delivering the following remarks on the relevance of such evidence:
“If the jury is being told, if the defendant is walking down the sidewalk and doing what he claims he was hired to do and police say, ‘good thing you’re here,’ is that something influencing the defendant and emboldening him in his behavior? That would be an argument for relevance.”
Though prosecutors didn’t stop there in attempts to quell evidence that behooves Rittenhouse, as they tried to disqualify use-of-force expert John Black from sharing testimony during the trial. The rationale for that attempt was that prosecutors claimed that Black’s use-of-force expertise only relates to police work and not that of a standard civilian.
Judge Schroeder also did not appease that request from the prosecution but did note that there are some parameters to what Black can attest to while on the stand – saying that the use-of-force expert cannot try to characterize what Rittenhouse may have been thinking during the time of the incident.
Prosecutors are also trying to bar any reference to Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber’s criminal records during the trial – as the two deceased individuals both have some rather serious criminal convictions from their past.
As for Rosenbaum, he’s a convicted pedophile out of Arizona who was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor – 10 years for one count, 2 years for the second. Which sentencing guidelines within the state betrays that – based upon the time he served in prison – he had to have accepted a plea deal for an offense that involved a victim aged 12-to-14-years-old.