The defense in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse called for a mistrial in open court on Wednesday. The reason behind this was that the defense claims they were given altered video footage by the state, which the state disputes.
The prosecution denied that they gave the defense altered footage. They did say that they received an HD version of the drone footage from a detective. That this footage was then emailed to the state as well. That emailed footage was compressed in transit, and that this compressed footage was given to the defense.
The defense said "We had the video, not the clarity, not the quality," and stated that they would seek a mistrial, albeit without prejudice, knowing that the state could then retry the case. "We didn't have the quality of evidence that the state had until the case was closed," the defense stated.
As a result of this, the defense requested a mistrial.
"So your Honor," began defense attorney Corey Chirafisi, "we were talking during the break. And the reality of it is, one of the main portions of the vide,o the thing that you watched, however many times you watched it on a video, that we we had the video, not the clarity and not the quality. I think that's been conceded that we didn't have that."
"We would, we were talking about it, we would have done this case in a little bit different manner if that was a situation where we didn't have specific—I don't want to say we didn't have the evidence, because I don't think that's a fair way to say it, but we didn't have the quality of evidence that the state had until the case had been closed," Chirafisi said.
"On Friday, the case had rested, and we were going to open our closings on Monday. We talked to Mr. Rittenhouse and I'm going to be asking the court for a mistrial based upon the fact that if we're really trying to get to the heart of it. We've watched the video I can tell you what we think. But it doesn't matter what we think because we don't get to present that to the jury anymore. I think we're going to try to do this in a way that is for anybody, not hiding anything, having the same evidence as everybody else has, where it is clearly a level fair playing field. We have to ask for this and I'm asking for it," Chirafisi concluded.
The state said that they did not believe "an unknown technical incident" should result in a mistrial.
The conversation in the courtroom on Wednesday revolved around evidence that the jury requested to see again as they made their deliberations. Questions were raised as to which version of the drone footage the jury would see if they requested it, the HD or the compressed file. The jury had not yet requested the footage that was in question.
Previously in the trial, the defense asked for a mistrial with prejudice, which would be an indication that the case should not be retried. A mistrial without prejudice would mean that the state could take up the case and try it again.
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
