Skip to content

Judge Calls for ‘Competent Testimony’ After Hearing Prosecution’s Explanation for Withheld Evidence in Rittenhouse Case

    Major update: The defense’s motion for ‘mistrial with prejudice’ has shifted the timeline for an expected verdict in the Rittenhouse case. Judge Bruce Schroeder has adjourned the case and it is expected to continue tomorrow.

    Judge Bruce Schroeder, after watching the prosecution’s painful explanation for withholding high-resolution video evidence in the Rittenhouse case, has called for “competent testimony” to be “taken under oath” to explain the screw-up.

    The judge is deliberating whether or not to rule the Rittenhouse case a “mistrial with prejudice” after the defense’s motion pointed out the state had withheld potentially exculpatory evidence that could clear its client.

    The defense team’s motion was shared by Human Events Senior Editor Jack Posobiec on late Tuesday night. It reveals the prosecutorial misconduct that would potentially lead to a “mistrial with prejudice.”

    The motion argues that the state has “repeatedly violated instructions from the Court, acted in bad faith and intentionally provided technological evidence which was different from theirs.”

    In closing, the motion stated that the “defendant respectfully requests the Court find “prosecutorial overreaching” existed, that “overreaching was intentional and in bad faith,” and thereby grant the defendant’s motion for a mistrial with prejudice.

    As earlier reported, there is a strong belief that the jurors are being intimidated.  Reportedly, two of the jurors are afraid to come forward with their verdicts, citing “backlash,” according to Human Events Senior Editor Jack Posobiec, who says his source is a U.S. Marshal in Kenosha.

    They are “worried about media leaking their names, while will happen to their families, jobs, etc.,” he added. Posobiec also said the concerns included “doxxing threats from ‘anarchist groups’.”

    Notoriously, Black Lives Matter activists have been caught attempting to dox the jury members in the case.

    “This morning at the pickup there was someone there [who] was video recording the jury. The officers approached the person and required him … to delete the video,” Judge Bruce Schroeder told his courtroom Tuesday. “If it happens again” police are “instructed to take the phone” used to record the court, the judge added.

    One prominent Minneapolis BLM activist named Cortez Rice, who was apparently close to George Floyd, said ominously that the jury is being watched.

    “Cortez Rice, who is a BLM activist in Minnesota, says on video that jurors in the Kenosha trial of Kyle Rittenhouse are being photographed,” Wisconsin Right Now reported.

    “The names of the jurors in the trial were sealed by the judge making it harder for them to be doxxed,” the report added. :However, the public has access to the court proceedings, where the jurors sit in plain view. Only journalistic pool photographers are allowed inside the courtroom.”

    However, Rice told a different story on video.

    “I ain’t even gonna name the people that I know that’s up in the Kenosha trial. But it’s cameras in there. It’s definitely cameras up in there. There’s definitely people taking pictures of the juries and everything like that,” Rice says in the video.

    Rice later claimed that he did not know that people were spying on the Rittenhouse jurors.

    Even the judge in the Rittenhouse case hasn’t been safe from intimidation in the self-defense trial in the form of threatening emails.

    “Your Honor, I didn’t know that under your black robes of justice you wear a white robe of the klan,” one email read. “There is no way a fair trial can be heard under your supervision. Better yet, resign.”

    “Enjoy your term, judge, it’s going to be your LAST,” another read. “If I ever meet you in person, I fully intend to spit directly into your face, regardless the cost. You’re disgusting.”

    “Make sure and tell Schroeder what a worthless piece of s*** he is,” one email said. “He’ll find out officially when his heart seizes up in a few years and he has to stand before a real judge.”

    Schroeder said he had received “thousands of communications.” He promised that he would “deal with” the threatening email senders. “I wouldn’t want to be those people,” he added.

    On Tuesday, Tucker Carlson argued that the jurors haven’t reached an “obvious verdict” because they fear that “Biden voters” will riot.

    “The average jury,” Carlson said, “reaches a verdict in just a few hours, so these jurors are taking much longer than most, but it’s probably not because the evidence they have heard is confusing them.”

    Tucker argued the verdict is so obvious that “no honest person could reach a different conclusion” than Rittenhouse  hadacted in self-defense.

    “The question is why is it taking so long for this jury to produce a very obvious verdict?” Carlson asked. “Want the answer? Well, look outside the courtroom. There are hundreds of National Guard troops assembled tonight in Kenosha. Why are they there? Well, they have come in case Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted.”

    “If he is acquitted, pretty much everyone expects the usual mobs of Joe Biden voters to burn and loot and destroy,” he continued. “Why does everyone expect this? Because people on the left are openly calling for it.”

    It is now in Judge Schroeder’s hands to decide that this case be ended with a “mistrial with prejudice.” The judge is now calling for more “competent testimony” to be taken “under oath” to help decide the matter, which may shift the timeline for the resolution of this high-profile trial.


    The Saddest Sound in American Politics: Biden Receives Pathetic Smattering of Applause Touting ‘Infrastructure’ in New Hampshire

    "*" indicates required fields

    Who's your favorite former President?*
    This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

    OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.