WTF

[conuly]

As trial approaches, judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters' -- but 'victim' isn't allowed

Seriously?

Apparently, that judge has had a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as "victims" at trial.

I just can't even. I can't. Kyle Rittenhouse did something atrocious because he has indefensible beliefs, but as he's still quite young I hold out hope that he might learn and grow as a person and one day feel bad. The odds may be low, but they're slightly higher than nonexistent.

But I just don't see any hope for this judge at this point.

Comments

[sabotabby]

this is such bullshit.

[elayna]

I fear that things like his victims not being called victims will only validate his beliefs.

[dewline]

That's exactly what it was (Wrongly) intended to do.

[low_delta]

How about "the person who was shot by Mr. Rittenhouse"? Is that allowed?

[dewline]

Seriously.

This was blatant scale-tipping for all to see as such.

[rose_griffes]

Apparently Wisconsin trial laws are their own special beast, and some trial lawyers aren't all that surprised by this decision. (A few even agree with this as a standard for trials... and not just the extreme right-wing type, either. I don't bother reading those types of lawyers on twitter anyway, so...)

https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1453029492037984263
https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1453037743957811206

[ioplokon]

Yeah judges run weird little fiefdoms based on their biases. We finally voted out our egregious one (who was professionally sanctioned) a couple years ago. When I was working in a law-adjacent field, I would hear about all the weird, damaging, or petty shit judges were up to in their courtrooms.

[dark_phoenix54]

In other words, the judge has already made up his mind that Rittenhouse is innocent, and that the murder victims deserved what they got. Wonderful.

[pauamma]

Not necessarily. I've seen lawyers claiming the opposite is sometimes true.

[silveradept]

That's certainly a potential weighting factor. Then again, this is also the case where the popular conception of what happened focuses quite a bit on how non-violently Rittenhouse was taken into custody, with being armed and with having done something that killed people, compared to how the people who were protesting get treated by the police. So, I hope the prosecution's evidence is better than the potential prejudice of the magistrate and the jury.

[pauamma]

I actually understand the "prosecutors can't call them victims" bit. As some mentioned above, this is pretty standard - I've seen the other US defense lawyers writing the same - and is arguably a requirement for presumption of innocence to have meaning. Also allowing the defense to call them looters or rioters feels like a double standard to me, but maybe something like https://twitter.com/pauammapublic/status/1453050968195706888 is at work.

[cellio]

If the judge's argument is that "victim" is prejudicial language, then he would have to also bar "rioter" and "looter" for being about a thousand times more prejudicial. So despite the claims, that is clearly not the reason. Ugh.