Rittenhouse Prosecutors CAUGHT MANIPULATING Evidence, Defense Demands Mistrial With Prejudice

Rittenhouse Prosecutors CAUGHT MANIPULATING Evidence, Defense Demands Mistrial With Prejudice

SUBTITLE'S INFO:

Language: English

Type: Robot

Number of phrases: 663

Number of words: 4009

Number of symbols: 18158

DOWNLOAD SUBTITLES:

DOWNLOAD AUDIO AND VIDEO:

SUBTITLES:

Subtitles generated by robot
00:00
yesterday the jury in the kyle rittenhouse trial began deliberations that is to say they went into private and began discussing whether or not kyle rittenhouse is guilty on one or more charges we did not get a verdict by the end of the day it was announced the jury would retire for the evening and they would come back in the morning and continue but my friends i believe we are screwed no matter what happens at this point you see we all knew that the defense had made a motion for a mistrial with prejudice what that means is
00:31
you ca the trial is over you cannot retry kyle written out on any of these charges ever again because double jeopardy would apply the reason for the mistrial with prejudice as we knew it was that the state violated the constitutional rights of cal written house the judge even said so and that they tried admitting evidence that had already been not allowed by the judge's ruling well they violated these the rulings the rights and that's what we knew right we're now learning
01:02
cal written house prosecutors withheld evidence that could have potentially exonerated kyle rittenhouse as per the prosecution's argument what i mean to say is i think we all know what happened on that night that we've all heard the testimony from the state's own witnesses and the defenses the cal written house was acting in self-defense but the prosecutors were able to get a major victory they said we have drone footage showing kyle rittenhouse pointing a weapon at people
01:34
the zaminsky's uh in particular and thus rosenbaum was acting in defense of others you cannot provoke someone and then claim self-defense unless you exhaust all uh effort opportunity to retreat and get away i believe that's the case now there's no footage of kyle right now it's pointing a weapon to anybody but they had this drone footage which you're like look we enlarged it you can see it that was their argument the judge said okay well you know if that's that's an argument show it to the jury the defense
02:06
argued you can't really see anything the only thing the defense was able to muster up was this is cgi enhancement and you shouldn't be allowed to show it and then the prosecution says still they were able to admit cgi evidence which they shouldn't have been able to do but they say well we still have the video itself anyway you can watch it here's what we learned the prosecution did not give that evidence to the defense but it's worse than that it's one thing if the state were to withhold evidence meaning like uh they got a video uh let's say there
02:38
was a crime of like you know somebody got punched in the face and the person who's accused says i wasn't even there i was playing skee-ball oh yeah do you have any proof you were playing skee-ball no but what if the state had a photo of the person playing skee-ball and they hid it on purpose okay that's withholding evidence and then later on you can say the state knew that they had the evidence that i was not guilty and it's malicious prosecution what the state did here is worse the state did provide the video to the
03:08
defense but a low resolution version so you know what this would have been like imagine if the state had a photo that clear as day showed the man was playing skee-ball the whole time and never got into a fight and they said we do have a photo but then manipulated that photo so it was grainy and you couldn't really tell what it was they give that grainy photo to the defense and say look it may be evidence but that's for the jury to decide and so the defense says look it's not a perfect alibi we can't really see if
03:40
that's you in the photo sorry so they go to trial thinking they've been presented all the evidence the state makes their case and says you know here you go and then sure enough they if the prosecution gets away with this what'll have happened is the defense thinking this was the video the low resolution version didn't know how to craft an argument against the prosecution's fake provocation narrative they looked at and said i can't see anything in this video it's too blurry that's why they argued against the enhancement
04:12
the state not only withheld evidence but manipulated it gave it to the defense so they would not know that they were being manipulated they would think they were given the real evidence but the state screwed up the state at the end of the trial in jury instruction said our version's much clearer whoa whoops they almost got away with it now i don't know what their intent was but i'm telling you this i don't think after grave constitutional violations i don't
04:43
think after trying to admit evidence into the trial the judge said no to that this was an accident there are two versions of the video the high def version the state had where they could clearly see or i should say they could see better what was going on and the manipulated evidence they gave to the defense the defense would then watch the video and say it's too blurry to see anything they would then think when the evidence was presented to the jury the jury would agree it's too blurry to see anything now i want to i want to read through the
05:14
filing because it's really really important but i will mention you know when i first heard this it was breaking news it was yesterday i was doing the member segment on tim castro i thought there's no way the defense didn't know they had a low res version i mean they watched it right the defense had a 412 version i'm sorry i'm sorry a 480 and the prosecution has a 1920. so that's standard def to high def so i did a little experiment i i have this big tv to my left it's it it's uh it's how we show news clips to
05:44
the guests on tim cast irl this i'm i'm really excited for this mobile studio we got by the way but like the tv pops up and so i'm like this is a high def tv all right i'm gonna play a video on it standard def and see what it looks like and it was blurry it was kind of hard to see things but it was clear enough played some music videos and then i played the higher resolution version and it was definitely clearer but you could still make out faces eyes hands clothes details but you wouldn't be able to
06:14
make out the finer finer details the point is i think to someone who doesn't realize it and isn't looking for it they would not realize they were given a different version if it was watched on a tv that is to say when the state plays their their video for the defense i mean for the jury the defense probably didn't realize it was higher resolution only when they go back and play their video and they're looking at it it's grainy and they're watching on these screens then they see it in court on this tv it probably didn't occur to them they only found out about this
06:45
because the state said our version is much clearer you see the defense had played their version of the video for the jury for the jury instructions and i think here's what happened i think the state tried i think the state manipulated evidence and tried to trick the defense so the defense could not muster up an argument the defense would take the video back and say here's the evidence against you kyle and they'd look at it and say i can't see a thing okay we'll argue i can't see a thing then the state has a clear version they play hoping the defense doesn't notice
07:16
but when the defense plays their low resolution version the state the prosecutor binger and krause realize uh oh this is the jury is gonna not be able to see anything in their garbage version we need them to see our version before they deliberate so they had no choice but to say our version is better revealing the manipulation revealing the cheating so now we're looking at a mistrial with prejudice we knew that the defense had filed that motion
07:45
but what we didn't know is that this evidence was withheld and i'll tell you why i have the story from daily mail kyle rittenhouse prosecutors held back high def drone footage from kenosha shootings from defense and gave them low quality video sparking them to file file mistrial motion that could see kyle uh the teen walk free here was the story this is a story from nov from yesterday at 2 35 p.m how did we miss this how did we miss this if i had seen this i would have been like wow this is my main i gotta i gotta
08:16
record this is a big news breaking segment jack posobik posts at 10 p.m 11 p.m almost yesterday evidence was withheld and everyone's like whoa this is crazy take a look at the headline from the chicago tribune this is yahoo news posting it kyle right now's defense team seeks mistrial claiming prosecutorial misconduct that's an old story last week they asked the judge for a mistrial with prejudice so when i saw this headline and i and i saw these stories i ignored them because what am i supposed to do if there are 10 stories that i'll say
08:48
the same thing i i'm not going to read all 10 stories and i do fact check but i do like two or three sources and that was last week so when the story pops up again on monday i just felt like it was uh oh man it's like minority report an echo you ever seen minority port minority report where the pre-cogs can see the future and they have pre-crime and and the police will arrest you before you even commit the crime in that movie there's a thing called an echo where the same report would come out would come out a few moments later and they'd just ignore it that's exactly what happened to me
09:20
in this story from the chicago treatment they actually do bring up later on evidence was withheld now why didn't the tribune lead with that i don't know i mean they're bearing this is a huge huge story it says the mistral motion rehashes an issue that arose last week really then they say you know written house did x y and z and it's seven page motion for mistrial the the defense accused the prosecution of providing a drone recording at a lower resolution in the middle of the story after they already said it was rehashed and then they rehashed the the the the core of
09:52
the story the written house case that is intentionally burying the lead in my opinion let me now show you what we've got going on here let me go down to the filing first here's the video that james armstrong shows in court when you look at this footage you look at these photos it's blurry it's hard to tell but it was a higher resolution meaning if the defense had this they could have actually seen something and presented an argument their case was weakened by prosecutorial misconduct malicious
10:23
it's worse than just not giving them the footage they knew they'd never get away with that if they wanted this in court they had to do something but they knew it didn't prove their case so they gave a garbage version let me read you what they what they write in their motion for mistrial now they also mention the grave constitutional violations and things like that but check this out on november 5th 2021 the fifth day of the trial in this case the prosecution turned over to the fence footage of a drone video which captured some of the incident from august 25th 2020. the problem is the prosecution gave the
10:54
defense a compressed version of the video what that means is the video provided to the fence was not as clear as the video kept by the state the file size of the defense video is 3.6 megabytes the state's 11.2 further the dimensions on our video are 480 by 212 and the state's 1920 by 844. the video which was in the state's possession wasn't provided to the defense until after the trial concluded during the during the jury instructions conference the defense played their version of the video for the court to
11:24
review the state indicated their vision their version was much clearer and had their tech person come into court to have the court review their clearer video the video is the same resolute the video is the same the resolution however was not the state did not provide their quality video to the defense until saturday november 13th and only did so upon specific request by attorney wisco two days before closing arguments and after evidence had been closed they're going to say typically in a mistrial that means that the defendant is foregoing their right
11:56
to a single tribunal it's a valuable right in a mistrial with prejudice they're saying you cannot cheat and we demand these charges never be brought again because it wasn't the defenses the defense's fault this happened the prosecutors in this case cheated questioning the defendant's right to remain silent and the judge snapped but wait there's more quite possibly the most important factor in this filing that needs to be brought up section 11
12:28
after lengthy comment the prosecutor stated i thought my good faith belief you had left the door open a little bit now we had something new and i was going to probe it the court responded i don't believe you the judge may be a good guy i think he's making some some some errors and he's got some difficult choices and i think we are all in serious trouble philosophically and um our judicial system and our freedoms and i'll explain that a second but i want to point this out the judge said to the prosecutor i don't believe
12:59
you that is an acknowledgement to the defense that the prosecutor is not acting in good faith in this trial but the judge took no action the defense can now definitively state the court is prejudiced against them the court itself stated i don't believe the prosecution but we're not going to do anything about it carry on that is to say the court
13:29
believes the prosecution is acting in bad faith and trying to cheat but they will allow it the defense now knows this there is no way kyle rittenhouse can have a fair trial if the judge knows the pro or believes the prosecution is being untruthful and allows him to continue so we're in trouble because where might this go okay there's a few scenarios
14:00
the jury comes back and says guilty on all counts they'll hand the verdict to the judge the judge will see it and say hmm fold it up crumple it and say at this moment i am going to grant the motion for a mistrial with prejudice to the defense for the reasons stated and then explain it to the jury and the jury will be confused why we did all that deliberation and all that work for no reason if he does the left will say the judge is corrupt the jury made their you know announcement they saw the evidence and the judge is just protecting kyle rittenhouse
14:32
when in reality the prosecution sabotaged this case something else might happen the jury could come out the judge could read the verdict and it says not guilty on all accounts and the judge could be like read your verdict and they say on the count of one not guilty two not guilty three not guilty for not guilty and then what happens then the prosecutor laughs and goes i may not have won this time but i got away with it the prosecutor will get away with it if the judge does
15:04
not issue a mistrial with prejudice but there's more there's more so not not completely but i'll put it this way the judge cannot allow the prosecutor to get away with this and some people have said the judge wants the jury to issue their ruling because he wants it to be clean he wants people to say the state made their case and the jury said it you can't complain and i understand that point it's not a bad point but it would allow the prosecutor to get away with it so there's something else that could happen maybe the jury comes back
15:34
the judge reads the verdict not guilty on all counts the jury then reads it we find the defendant not guilty on all counts and then the judge says now hold it just a minute before everyone leaves binger i am going to go after you for prosecutorial misconduct and overreach and i want to make sure you are not allowed to do this again i don't know exactly what the judge could do in that capacity but it's possible there's major complaints filed after the fact but it's a gamble isn't it
16:05
if the prosecutor broke the rules you need to come out immediately and say he broke the rules if the judge says you've committed a grave constitutional violation you've admitted evidence against my rulings i don't believe you are you're acting in good faith and now there's evidence they withheld now there's there's new filing and evidence they withheld evidence from the defense the judge must say in these united states we do not allow prosecutors to get away with this and to all of you who want who are expecting a conviction
16:36
of kyle retinous and want him convicted i can only say blame binger that's what the judge could say because when he withheld evidence from the defense i have no choice but to issue a mistrial with prejudice the state cannot just keep retrying written house and it's the prosecutor's fault this happened a mistrial would be really really good for the state and the defense has argued they're trying to get another kick at the cat that's what they call it that the state knew they were losing
17:09
against written house so what could they do let's try again let's trigger a mistrial and force this trial to be you know this this trial to be a mistrial so that we can then re-charge and bring back another trial not recharge but like have a a new trial with new jurors and a new attempt at proving his guilt because they screwed up they called witnesses who who testified that written house was acting in self-defense their own witnesses did do you think those same witnesses will
17:39
want to come back they will i'm not going to keep doing this and they maybe won't even call them they cheated and we have this tweet from jack masobic i want to point out jack besovic tweeted two jurors holding decision up outright sighting backlash per u.s marshal in kenosha he says they're worried about media leaking their names what will happen to their families jobs etc including doxing threats from anarchist groups maybe jack's source is bad maybe jack is wrong maybe jack's lying i don't think jack's lying i think jack
18:10
has sources it doesn't mean his sources are right jack bosobic has had some scoops that turned out to be accurate and he said some scoops that didn't pan out but we don't know like there was talk about a major lockdown or something and then it never happened but that could just be because the scuttlebutt the source you know was was relaying to uh to uh jack it was just that something they may or may not do the left keeps saying there are no u.s marshals in kenosha right now that's a federal thing kyle rittenhouse was in illinois when he was arrested he was transferred to kenosha so yeah wouldn't there be
18:42
marshals to transport across state lines illinois jurisdiction law enforcement wouldn't do it would they i could be wrong but my understanding is that when it's dealing with transporting someone arrested in one state to another state the u.s marshals would do it so pending the verdict a u.s marshal would then be here wouldn't they okay maybe the u.s marshal has nothing to do with this because marshals are federal and this is a state issue maybe there is a federal marshal in wisconsin simply because a different individual needs to be transported to tennessee
19:14
maybe the marshall's there for that reason the marshal knows jack pasobic and was having a discussion about safety issues at the courthouse and they said well look we got a couple jurors holding things up because they're worried about these protests so consider that when you're transporting your guy out i could speculate a million and one reasons why there could be a u.s marshal saying this if you want to debunk what jack is saying debunk what he is saying if you want to say one source is not confirmation i will agree with you i will absolutely agree with you and i'll say okay maybe i was a little
19:45
hyperbolic maybe we should be skeptical on this a little bit i don't know for sure but i think it's fair to point out that the jurors are scared protesters and supporters were outside the courthouse they were yelling they were bull horning and there were some fights breaking out you think the jury doesn't know that how about for lunch they want to break for lunch around 12 30 during deliberations so they say to the bailiff or whatever we could really go for some pizza man do you think we can get a delivery and the
20:15
bailiff goes um look there's a lot of people outside protesting i don't know if a delivery is going to be able to come in i can maybe pick something up with this protesters outside well that has nothing to do with the trial they didn't sequester the jury the jury knows there's protesters out there screaming demanding quote unquote justice so i think they were probably worried i think they were probably scared and i think jack's tweet makes sense so we're screwed because no matter what happens now they're going to riot
20:46
i i think even if they get a look if they get a guilty verdict after the prosecutorial misconduct and the judge does nothing we're screwed our fair trials are over it's a cultural issue it's not just a state issue it's not just wisconsin if the judge no matter what happens it's just bad news across the board but at the very least if kyle rittenhouse is found to have acted in self-defense which i believe should happen that will still be a victory the riots will be bad but so what we we do not tolerate the threat of riots and violence to stop justice
21:17
next segment's coming up at 1 pm on this channel stay tuned we got more information coming on this and i'll be tracking the verdict and i'll see you all then you

DOWNLOAD SUBTITLES: