Rittenhouse Prosecutors’ Case Reportedly on Brink of Collapse After They Withhold Key Evidence
© REUTERS / POOL
Subscribe
Antioch, Illinois resident Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and wounded a third during the August 2020 riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin sparked by the police shooting of an unarmed black man. The Rittenhouse case has divided Americans, becoming a microcosm of a broader debate about gun control and vigilante justice.
The prosecution’s case in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial threatens to come apart at the seams amid claims that the state willfully held back high definition drone footage of the Kenosha shootings, and provided the defence with a low quality video instead.
In a motion to the judge in the case said to have been issued Monday and leaked to the Daily Mail, Rittenhouse’s defence accused prosecutors of only sharing the higher quality version of the drone video at the end of the trial. The teen’s lawyers argue that the withholding of the evidence, and other elements of the prosecution’s behaviour, constitute grounds for a mistrial. Such a move would allow Rittenhouse to go scot-free.
The footage in question was turned into one of the central pillars in the prosecution’s case, and features Rittenhouse, 17 at the time of the incident, pointing his assault rifle at one of his victims, giving the state grounds to say that he provoked the 25 August 2020 violence which left two people dead and a third injured.
The drone video shows Rittenhouse sprinting away from Joseph Rosenbaum – one of the two men he would end up fatally shooting, through a parking lot, reeling around at one point to point his semi-automatic rifle at Rosenbaum, then continuing to run, and spinning a second time and emptying several rounds into the 36-year-old as he approached within less than a meter of the teen.
The difference between the low-def and high-def drone footage is significant, with Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum almost indistinguishable in the low-quality version, but seen clearly in the higher quality footage.
SCOOP: @HumanEvents has obtained both versions of the Kyle Rittenhouse drone video
— Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱 (@JackPosobiec) November 17, 2021
The low quality version provided to the defense
And the HD version withheld by prosecutors
Here is the low quality version: pic.twitter.com/FmkRWsgS2Y
HD version of the drone footage the prosecution withheld from the Rittenhouse defense team. pic.twitter.com/funFSzWb3Y
— 🐸OneMinutePepe🇺🇸 (@TheRealDoctorC2) November 17, 2021
“On November 5, the fifth day of trial on this case, the prosecution turned over the defense footage of a drone video which captured some of the incident from August 25, 2020. The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video. What that means is the video provided to the defense was not clear as the video kept by the state,” the motion obtained by the Mail reads, noting that the defence was not given the better quality video until two days before closing arguments, and after the deadline on the submission of evidence.
The motion specified that while “the file size of the defense video is 3.6 MB,” the state’s was 11.2 MB. “Further, the dimensions of our video are 480 x 212, [while] the state’s [are] 1920 x 844.”
On the basis of the new information, Rittenhouse’s defence called for a mistrial, and for teen to be protected from a new trial under constitutional rules prohibiting double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same alleged crimes).
“The failure to provide the same quality footage in this particular case is intentional and clearly prejudices the defendant,” the motion alleged.
The new grounds for a mistrial being cited by the defence comes following their earlier allegations of “prosecutorial mistrial” and “over-reach” over the alleged violation of Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent, and Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger’s attempt to enter new evidence which Judge Bruce Schroeder had explicitly excluded. Both of the earlier actions prompted Schroeder to angrily explode at Binger.
“The state has repeatedly violated instructions from the Court, acted in bad faith and intentionally provided technological evidence which was different from theirs. For those reasons, the defendant respectfully requests the Court find ‘prosecutorial overreach’ existed, that overreaching was intentional and in bad faith and thereby grant the defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice,” the motion concluded.
America on Edge Over Rittenhouse Trial
Judge Schroeder threw out the misdemeanor charge against Rittenhouse on possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor on Monday, ruling that the law on possession was unclear. Jury deliberations in the Rittenhouse case began the same day, with the teen facing life in prison on charges including intentional homicide if convicted.
The Rittenhouse trial has bitterly divided Americans over whether he acted as a vigilante or a civic-minded activist, with liberal progressives also alleging that there was an element of racism involved in his suspected crimes – even though all his victims were white.
Along with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse also shot and killed Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 28, with his rifle, which he brought with him to the riot after traveling several kilometers from his home in Antioch, Illinois. All three of Rittenhouse’s victims have criminal records, with Rosenbaum convicted for the sexual abuse of minors, Huber having two domestic abuse convictions involving his siblings, and Grosskreutz facing charges, but not convicted of, noise violations, disobeying police and felony burglary, plus a misdemeanor for use of a firearm while intoxicated, which he was convicted on. The prosecution says the victims’ criminal records have nothing to do with the case.
Rittenhouse's defence maintain that their client is innocent, and that he acted in self-defence.
