Why prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse if there is no real chance of a guilty verdict? (Not sure if this should be on the Politics.SE) From divibisan's answer to one of my questions on Politics.SE: You won't find many people seriously arguing that the Rittenhouse jury ruled incorrectly as a matter of Wisconsin state law. The standard for self-defense is so loose, that it's hard to see how they could have found him guilty of first-degree murder: Under Wisconsin law, you can kill people in self-defense if you reasonably believe that doing so is necessary to spare yourself or others from imminent bodily harm or death. This belief need not be accurate. Nor must it be reasonable from an objective perspective. It only needs to be reasonable from the subjective point of view of the shooter in the moment he or she pulls the trigger. If most people won't seriously argue this, then why would prosecutors even bother to bring the case to trial? It'd just be a waste of time and money. Furthermore, even if the prosecutors bring the case, presumably courts should decline to hear it (since they already moot cases to not waste taxpayer money). Are prosecutors empowered to prosecute cases that will never result in guilty verdicts? Can prosecutors ever be classified as vexatious litigants?
The trial was held because A Kenosha County Court Commissioner ruled there is enough evidence for Kyle Rittenhouse to stand trial for homicide charges. “All this court needs to find was that a felony was committed and probably committed with this defendant,” said Thomas Binger, the assistant district attorney of Kenosha County. The court agreed.
This is entirely possible in a number of different motions that could have been made. At this point, Vinny had destroyed the Prosecutor's eyewitnesses by showing they had issues that called their testimony into question (The first has a timeline that doesn't line up with events, the second has poor vision and her prescription glasses were not doing their job, and the third had many obstructions blocking his view of the scene). His first witness tears apart the &quot;expert&quot; witness, who was only there to testify that the tires were the same brand (albeit, a popular brand at the time... loads of cars had the same tires). While it might go by a different name in different jurisdictions, the Prosecutor is allowed to make a motion to dismiss at any point prior to the jury goes to deliberation (as is the Defense; Also they might be able to make motions while the jury is in deliberations). If properly titled, the Prosecutor should have made a &quot;motion for nolle prosequi&quot; (not prosecuting). This can mean any number of things including the prosecutor no longer believes the evidence can prove the charges OR even that the prosecutor is no longer convinced that those charged committed the crime. In the &quot;My Cousin Vinny&quot; case, as the jury was seated the case cannot be retried by the State of Alabama at this point. This is possible because the Prosecutor's duty is to uncover the truth behind a crime, no matter what that truth becomes. In this case, despite his previous beliefs, the prosecutor in My Cousin Vinny, upon realizing he was wrong, admitted it and dropped the charges. Given his backstory of having worked as a defense attorney and making the switch after getting a client off some serious charges (and knowing the client was guilty) shows that he was inherently an honest man and dedicated to finding the truth of the matter (as a government employee, he undoubtedly took a pay cut when he switched to prosecution. Private industry almost always pays way more than a government equivalent). With that in mind, it is expected of prosecutors to be perfectly honest with what evidence they have and make the choices in the case based on that evidence. This comes up in another scene when Mona Lisa Vito explains to Vinny that the prosecutor was required to give Vinny all the files he had on the case... because Vinny, by representing the Defendant, is allowed to examine all evidence against his clients. The only dirty trick he pulled was the stunt where his expert witness was not disclosed and while bad, really it's the judge allowing the witness to testify that would have caused a problem with the trial (his response to Vinny's objection could have created a mistrial on appeal). To give a real world example, I was charged with driving on a suspended license which I had no idea I was doing at the time. As it turned out, the license was suspended for an unpaid traffic ticket that I had paid in the last minute... essentially the DMV forgot to unsuspend. A quick call fixed that issue but I still had to go to court over the charge. The day of the trial, I show up in the court room and the prosecutor walks over and tells me that they were going to enter a motion of &quot;nolle prosequi&quot; for the charge... essentially dropping it... because the matter was a clerical error on the state's part and not anything I did wrong. Edit: Additionally had the prosecutor not motioned to dismiss, Vinny certainly could have. In fact there are two points during the trial where Defense attorneys are expected to make these motions. The first is when the Prosecution rests their case. The second is before the jury is given the case to deliberate. As for why it was called a motion to dismiss in the film, it's likely to due with the fact that the audience would not know what a &quot;motion for nolle prosecui&quot; and it is a type of motion to dismiss.
Maybe, but we'll probably never know for sure. Officially, of course, he was not punished for his speech. He was punished for selling explosives without a license, which he admitted to. (He was also charged with illegally storing explosives and illegally mailing 'injurious material," but those charges were dropped in exchange for his guilty plea on the first count.) Whether those charges were a pretext to retaliate is probably unknowable. While it's a well-known fact that law enforcement frequently retaliates against people for exercising their right to free speech, this guy's story doesn't sound very credible. There is precedent for a prosecution for distributing Pest Control Report 2000, including the prosecution of white supremacist Leo Felton, a sad-sack loser who used the same material to build a bomb around to incite a "racial holy war" the same time. And just about a month after Ver's conviction, the man who owned the company that manufactured the product was convicted of violating federal explosives and transportation laws. Several months after that, he and his company entered into a consent decree with the Consumer Product Safety Commission ordering them to stop manufacturing Pest Control Report 2000.
It would be murder (assuming the facts surrounding her getting shot would support a murder charge, of course, and it wasn't something like an accidental discharge.) The fact that she was on life support for a time is irrelevant. Under Maryland law § 2-102 it doesn't matter how much time has elapsed: A prosecution may be instituted for murder, manslaughter, or unlawful homicide, whether at common law or under this title, regardless of the time that has elapsed between the act or omission that caused the death of the victim and the victim's death. It's a Wisconsin and not a Maryland case, but according to State v. Below, 799 NW 2d 95 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2011, it doesn't even matter if life support was wrongly terminated; the defendant is still guilty: [E]ven if the Defendant can establish that the termination of Madison's life support was &quot;wrongful&quot; under Wisconsin Law, that wrongful act would not break the chain of causation between the Defendant's actions and Madison's subsequent death.
There actually is a practical effect to a "not proven" v. "not guilty" verdict in Scotland, but it is mostly sociological or social in nature rather than legal. If your question is, are there future legal concerns, than no. Not proven is, to be sure, an acquittal. However, it is an acquittal that the tells the public something important: that the trier(s) of fact thought the person likely guilty. That's a fairly substantial distinction. In Scotland, a criminal case may be decided either "in solemn procedure", which is simply the Scot term for a jury trial v. "in summary" or in "summary procedure" which is the U.S. equivalent of a bench trial. The difference between the two (and the divergence from the U.S. procedural vehicle) is that for lesser crimes the accused doesn't have an automatic right of a jury trial for any criminal matter. In some ways this lesser included makes up for the fact that the Scottish accused is without absolute right to choose jury or bench trial, which in the U.S. can be very meaningful from a tactical perspective. Think of how important the make-up and emotional proclivities of juries are to both convictions and acquittals. A bench trial can be beneficial to the truly unlikable defendant, or in especially brutal crimes, where juries may convict out of fear or sympathy for the victim, even if the case is weak. At the same time, they may nullify the conviction for the sympathetic defendant. Juries are notoriously emotional and bias driven. Being able to choose a bench trial where the judge will follow the evidence and avoid the emotional response of a jury can be invaluable. Just as a sympathetic defendant can appeal to the emotions of the jury for acquittal or jury nullification, on the opposite spectrum. In Scotland, lesser crimes are always (with limited exclusions) tried by a judge, while more serious allegations always (again w/ limited exclusions) get a jury trial, automatically. The defendant does not choose the type of trial he is afforded. Hence, a defense or a prosecution cannot fiddle with the balance of proof based on emotion or lack there of. They get what they get. There are various rules procedurally that differ in comparison, but since this isn't the question that is the general rule and should suffice for background. Also hugely important is the fact that in Scotland, jurors decide a case by majority vote (like a civil trial in the U.S.); hence, there are no hung juries and they don't need a consensus. So, one way or another the verdict will be given in a Scottish criminal action. Scots also get comparatively huge juries to any other country (15 jurors) and they only need 8 in agreement to reach a verdict. Tactically, the "not proven" is a lesser included verdict (like U.S. uses lesser included charges in cases that are weaker for the prosecution). This lesser included finding can be used by choice when the Prosecution has a sympathetic defendant or when the defendant is probably guilty or unlikable. If the jury thinks the defendant (called "accused") probably did the crime, but the prosecution has failed to prove the elements, they can/will issue a "not proven" verdict. This sends a big message. This, again, is typically only reserved for those cases when there is strong but not conclusive proof that someone committed a crime. They don't want to profess their innocence with a not guilty verdict, so they are still acquitted, but with he stigma of the "not proven" verdict attached. Some estimates have from 1/5 to a full 1/3 of all acquittal verdicts by Scottish juries as "not proven" as opposed to "not guilty". Not proven can also be used by judges in the bench trial (summary procedure), however it's much less common. The proportion of 'not proven" acquittals in general is higher in the more severe cases; but so then are the proportion of acquittals versus convictions. These would likely be hung juries in the U.S.. Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally or even factually convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction under the elements of the crime on the jury instruction/verdict form. I look at this as similar to the adage oft used in the U.S., which is an acquittal, despite the fact that the verdict is termed "not guilty" does by no means indicate the person is in fact "not guilty", it just means the prosecution couldn't prove its case. Sociologists in the U.S., as well as legal scholars, have studied the phenomenon, and it appears that most not guilty verdicts in fact let go a guilty person. This can be intuited by the evidence the jury never saw, either by suppression from bad searches, by the exclusion of witness testimony due to procedural rules like hearsay, privilege, etc., and other forms of keeping relevant evidence from the jury to protect the rights of the accused. But in the U.S. the person can go forth and say, "Hey, I was proven not guilty!" Scotland also has another interesting rule of criminal procedure, whereby a criminal can't be convicted without corroborated evidence. What this means is that if all the prosecution has is the victim witness, by way of proof, testifying, and no physical or corroboration testimony, Scottish law requires acquittal, but often will be so by the verdict "not proven". This is huge, if you think about it. Use, for example, a rape trial. A woman testifies, saying that Joe Schmoe climbed through her window and raped her. She knows Joe - he's her neighbor. Nobody saw him climb in. But she knows it's him. He leaves no physical evidence, having shaved his entire body and used appropriate protection (gloves, condemn, etc.). She has a rape kit done. Rape is obvious, but the only proof is her testimony. Joe goes free. But in Scotland, he goes free with a stigma attached. He's found "not proven" rather than "not guilty". I think this corroboration rule has a lot to do with why this verdict system still exists. In the U.S. the trier of fact would weigh the testimony and decide if one person was substantially more believable than the other, and a verdict would issue. That is a substantial difference, procedurally. Since Scotland doesn't have the hung jury because there is no consensus required they use the "not proven" in the same way a U.S. jury uses the hung jury when one or more jurors thinks the prosecution didn't prove their case but it's fairly clear the defendant is, in fact guilty. Then, you will often get a "hold out" juror, and since the U.S. requires a unanimous verdict, the hold out hangs the jury. It's sort of the opposite of jury nullification. The person knows that the evidence fell short, but their conscience can't reconcile letting the person go free, so they will vote guilty to hang the jury, almost ensuring the prosecution gets another shot. There has been a lot of debate about this three verdict system in comparative law circles, with many legal scholars saying it's antiquated. But I think it serves an important purpose. It carries the stigma of likely guilt for those people who probably committed the crime but got off. Further, the hung jury cost tax payers millions of dollars in the U.S., and this is often the side effect of people not wanting there to be absolutely no recognition of the fact that the accused probably committed (especially serious) crime(s). The Scots, on the other hand, have found away to accomplish this without the cost and emotional toll multiple trials takes on all the players involved, from witnesses and victims, their families, the accused, and even the lawyers and the prosecutions, who have to put in all the work of a trial just to start anew. Here is a really good scholarly article that deals with this interesting phenomenon not seen in (I don't believe) any other country: https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/iiclr/article/viewFile/17848/18019
Considering that the US legal system is more or less similar in practice to the English Courts, yes it is possible to plea bargian a deal. I'm linking to the wikipedia article on the matter with a specific link to the England and Wales for guidence. Normally, I'd explain, but I'm an American and the differences between Magistrate and Crown courts are big enough differences that I can't tell you what the differences in the case is. I should point out this is a legal area where America differences with much of the world. 90% of the United States criminal cases (and a good number of civil cases, which are settled privately before discovery phase) are plea bargained to lesser sentences. Additionally remorse has nothing to do with the plea bargain. You might only be sorry that you got caught breaking the law and can still plea. The lighter sentence is sort of a "thank you" for saving the state money in not having to build their case against you. It is also used to coerce cooperation with the police, as they may have the accused dead to rights and can prosecute him successfully, but he's a little fish who can give intel to a big fish (this usually comes with the caveat of it being a sworn statement, so they can still prosecute you for something if you're lying... OR that the deal holds on condition that everything is factually true. If evidence contradicts you, you're charged as if you never made a deal). It's also important to note that the police will not honor their deals made for your confession... but they will offer you deals (In the United States, police are allowed to lie to you and do it all the time). However, the prosecutor will honor their deals. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. Finally, most jurisdictions allow the judge final say at sentencing, so if the prosecutor does honor the deal and advises the sentence, don't get upset if the judge is tougher and gives you a harsher sentence on the crime, or rejects your plea outright (expect him to scold the prosecutor for wasting his time with a horrible deal, too. Watch the Law and Order SVU episode Raw for a particularly wonderful instance of this rare event occurring). As a part of US federalism, the rules about this change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so make sure you understand this. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. I would definitely do some leg work into the English Legal system's opinions on plea bargains. Just because they have it does not mean the state lawyers like employing it and many jurisdictions see it as full on corruption in other parts of the world, even the Common Law jurisdictions.
A prosecutor's discretion is almost unassailable. The main reason for this is to prevent prosecutors from having to defend in a legal forum every single decision made. In a civil matter, prosecutors have absolute immunity form being personally sued for their actions (again, to prevent a prosecutor from being sued from every single defendant). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity Misconduct by prosecutors may be resolved by reversal or retrials of court proceedings. But this is not something that really has criminal penalties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_misconduct#:~:text=In%20jurisprudence%2C%20prosecutorial%20misconduct%20is,is%20similar%20to%20selective%20prosecution. Occasionally, a prosecutor may be subject to discipline from the state's Bar. This is rare, and is not much of a deterrent. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/state-politics/harmful-error/misconduct-and-punishment/ Theoretically, a prosecutor who out and out breaks the law can be prosecuted. Examples seem to be rare, and are more about government malfeasance (expense reports, misuse of government equipment, etc.). Due to the above standards, proving criminal conduct around prosecutorial discretion will be extremely difficult, as will finding a fellow prosecutor willing to even go down that road. It is in no prosecutor's interest to set the precedent of prosecutors being jailed for their behavior. So, why has nothing happened? Because in general, prosecutors can get away with almost anything. And I will add, Because America seems to like it this way.
A lawyer is obligated to accurately state the law as stated in the jury instructions in closing argument (and also not to make a clear and deliberate misstatement of the facts presented at trials, and also not to express personal knowledge of the facts based upon anything other than what the jury has seen). But a certain amount of poetic license is allowed so long as the closing argument is not so misleading, as a whole, that it is likely to lead the jury astray. In this case, the prosecutor is alluding, with poetic license, to the idea that an aggressor or interloper can't assert self-defense. You can't &quot;look for trouble&quot; and then be shielded by that doctrine. A more full quote from that prosecutor makes that more clear: you lose the right to self-defence when you’re the one who brought the gun, when you’re the one creating the danger, when you’re the one provoking other people I have no opinion concerning whether his statement does or does not cross the line. I'm not sufficiently immersed in the case, and don't have enough context from having heard the closing arguments as a whole, to have a confident opinion on that point. If there is an acquittal we'll never know. If there is a conviction and appeal and this is an issue raised on appeal, we might find out. Opposing counsel has a right to object in closing argument if it goes too far, and appealing an argument that a closing argument is objectionable is challenging unless it is preserved with a timely objection at the time. Particularly if the prosecution makes a misstatement in their initial closing, rebutting it in the defense closing may be more effective than objecting. But, if the prosecutor makes a misstatement in a rebuttal period to which the defense can't offer a corrective statement, an objection may be wise in order to preserve an issue for appeal.