Changes

The prosecution provided a copy of a drone video to the defense that was 1/16th the resolution of the version that was shown to the jury during the trial.  The drone video was the only evidence offered by the State to support their argument that Kyle Rittenhouse provoked the attacks upon himself.  The prosecution had a Constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the evidence to be used against the defendant in court and failed to substantively meet this obligation by providing the defense with only a low-resolution version of this video, rather than the high-resolution version actually used as evidence before the jury.  The defense would have shaped their legal arguments different had they been given the actual evidence.

The prosecution provided a copy of a drone video to the defense that was 1/16th the resolution of the version that was shown to the jury during the trial.  The drone video was the only evidence offered by the State to support their argument that Kyle Rittenhouse provoked the attacks upon himself.  The prosecution had a Constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the evidence to be used against the defendant in court and failed to substantively meet this obligation by providing the defense with only a low-resolution version of this video, rather than the high-resolution version actually used as evidence before the jury.  The defense would have shaped their legal arguments different had they been given the actual evidence.

 

The claim of provocation – specifically, that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at others, provoking Joseph Rosenbaum to chase him across a parking lot – is not supported by any other evidence but this drone video.  Without the video there is no act of provocation, and the prosecution would have the task of attacking Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense directly.  Assistant District Attorney James Kraus (aka "lunchbox") had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense received only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, with a different file name including blaming Assistant DA Binger and the detectives.  The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to why the defense did not receive the proper video before it was presented to the jury.

The claim of provocation – specifically, that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at others, provoking Joseph Rosenbaum to chase him across a parking lot – is not supported by any other evidence but this drone video.  Without the video there is no act of provocation, and the prosecution would have the task of attacking Rittenhouse’s claims of self-defense directly.  Assistant District Attorney James Kraus (aka "lunchbox") had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense received only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, with a different file name including blaming Assistant DA Binger and the detectives.  The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to why the defense did not receive the proper video before it was presented to the jury.