Judge in Rittenhouse Case Denies Prosecution and Defense Motions

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- On August 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse was at the scene of the Kenosha riots. In the next few hours, he scrubbed graffiti, offered first aid, was threatened, was attacked, and shot three people in claimed self-defense. The situation has been covered in depth at AmmoLand. A good summation of the actions that night are here. Kyle was charged by local prosecutors in spite of voluminous video evidence of his self-defense claims. Eventually, supporters raised two million dollars for bond in Wisconsin.

On Friday, September 17, 2021, there was an evidentiary hearing in Kenosha, about what will be allowed as evidence in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Jury selection is scheduled to start on November 1, 2021. The hearing may be seen on YouTube. The video is two hours and 36 minutes long.

The hearing was held by the Honorable Judge Bruce E. Schroeder. The view seen is from the bench. Seated at the table on the left of the screen are the prosecutors.  DA Thomas Binger is in a blue suit, wearing glasses. On the right of the screen is the defense table. Defense attorney Mark Richards is on the aisle side of the table in the black or very dark blue suit; defense attorney Corey Chiriafsi is in the grey suit in the center of the table; defendant Kyle Rittenhouse is on the far side from Richards in a blue suit.

Judge Schroeder is considering several motions for evidence to be admissible at trial by prosecutors and defense. Both sides have presented their arguments to the Judge, in writing, before this hearing.

In the video, both sides give a preview of what their case will look like at trial. Several facts are mentioned which this correspondent has not seen in previous coverage.

DA Binger attempts to show Kyle Rittenhouse as a “teenage vigilante” with a pre-disposition to shoot people. Binger claims Rittenhouse is from outside the community and came looking for trouble. Binger claims Rittenhouse was “armed with an illegal weapon.”

Defense attorney Mark Richards counters with statements Kyle had a job in Kenosha as a lifeguard, and Kyle’s father lives in Kenosha. Richards says he has not found any evidence, after an intense search, that Rittenhouse had any interest in or knowledge of militias or any racist organizations.  Richards:

“All three of these people shot were chasing Kyle Rittenhouse. All of them. That is not debatable.”

The prosecution wants to include a fight between Kyle’s sister and another girl, which happened 2 months before the Kenosha riots, where Kyle stepped in on the side of his sister. The defense says:

“The probative value of this is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial value.”

Judge Schroeder:

“No connection to these two events at all.” 

Judge Schroeder denies the prosecution the use of the event in court.

The next motion is about evidence of an event after Kyle is released on bond. Rittenhouse goes to a bar to celebrate. At the bar are members of the Proud Boys in Wisconsin. This is four months after the events of August 25. The prosecution attempts to claim this association has some bearing on the state of mind of Kyle Rittenhouse, four months earlier.  The prosecution claims the Proud Boys is a far-right, racist, violent organization, based on a newspaper article.  Judge Schroeder makes extensive comments about the situation. Here are some:

“I don’t think it is for the court, except in most appropriate circumstances, to be making determinations, and certainly not on the basis of an article in a newspaper in Seattle, about what an organization is.” 

“It is an unfortunate fact that this case has become a surrogate for a lot of emotional reaction that has nothing to do or little to do or nothing to do with the issues of the case, but if then the accused is ensconced, which can send him to prison for life, and he encounters some people who embrace him and start to, can we take pictures with you and somehow make him feel better about himself; and he reacts by smiling with them and taking some pictures; for me to let that in as evidence, of a motive that existed, four months earlier? Can’t see it. Absolutely not. I would expect to be reversed if I did that.”

“I am not interested in these accusations about group responsibility, unless it is directly connected that the defendant is active in the criminal enterprises of the organization.”

“Pope Benedict was a member of the NAZI youth, because he had to be. This type of evidence is very dangerous. You make some points that might be legitimate. I certainly will keep the door open, if you can show that there was any connection between the defendant on the day in question and this organization.”

Judge Schroeder’s use of  “on the day in question” refers to the events of August 25, 2020.

The defense wishes to enter evidence the first man shot by Kyle, Joseph Rosenbaum, was a convicted felon. Mark Richards claims Rosenbaum had a motive to steal the rifle Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying because he could not obtain one legally. The defense mentions Rosenbaum was heard saying (in evidence revealed by discovery from the prosecution) “I just got out of jail, and I am not afraid to go back.”

Judge Schroeder found this of interest. DA Binger denied the statement is decipherable.

Judge Schroeder refused to allow the evidence of Rosenbaum being a convicted felon to be entered at the trial.

The prosecution did not endear itself to Judge Schroeder over the issue of a list of witnesses, which the defense is entitled to, as a matter of law.

The prosecution provided a potential witness list of 175 witnesses to the defense.  The defense complained it was too many witnesses, citing precedent. The Judge agreed. The prosecution narrowed the list to 27 possible witnesses. The prosecution did not provide the addresses of the witnesses. The prosecution does not want to make a public filing in court, to avoid witness intimidation.

Judge Schroeder asks defense attorney Mark Richards if he was satisfied. Richards says he could deal with 27 witnesses, but he says, the prosecution had not provided the addresses. Then defense attorney Richards states:

I was told by Mr. Binger, they are in discovery, find them.

Judge Schroeder to DA Binger: Is that true? 

DA Binger:

I emailed Mr. Richards yesterday. I gave him a narrowed down list, I said the addresses that we would be providing to him would require us to go through the same 400 plus pages of police report…

Judge Schroeder: (interrupting) What does the statute say?

DA Binger:

The statute does requires us to provide addresses in a written filing with the court. 

Judge: (Interrupting)  Well, I can expect that will be done by Monday at five.

DA Binger: Would you like us to file with the court? 

Judge Schroeder:

 I understand your desire to keep this from being filed. If the defense objects, we can discuss about it. No, you can do what you did, but you need  to send to him the addresses.

By five o’clock, Monday.

The prosecution wants the defense to provide lists of people who had donated to Rittenhouse’s defense fund. Judge Schroeder says he does not have the authority to order a third party to provide a list to the defense to give to the prosecution. The motion was denied.

There was some discussion of expert witnesses, which was deferred to later.

The prosecution wished to have admitted, as evidence, a video of Kyle Rittenhouse, two weeks before the riots in Kenosha, commenting on watching people loot a CVS in Chicago. Defense Attorney Corey Chirafisi reiterates Rittenhouse took no action, it was merely words, and should not be admitted.

At about 1:47 on the hearing video, DA Binger makes a startling revelation. He says Rittenhouse does take an action at the CVS looting. Rittenhouse calls 911. From DA Binger:

“There is an actual action he takes at the CVS incident, and that is, he does call 911, using his personal cell phone.”

At about 1:50 in the hearing video, Judge Schroeder, after the prosecution finishes, says: “I think I heard now, for the first time, that he called 911.”

That neither the Judge or the defense team knew this before is amazing. All prosecution evidence should have been made available to the defense team long ago.

 Judge Schroeder says, in differentiating the two incidents, about Kenosha, “you could call 911 all you wanted, there was no law and order. ”

DA Binger continues his attempts to justify including the CVS incident as evidence at the trial. Then DA Binger makes revealing comments about the rifle Rittenhouse was carrying.

At about 1:59, Binger talks about the rifle. To this correspondent, Binger seems to be making the case for the defense.  It is difficult to see this as a prosecution argument.

DA Binger:

“He was running around with a assault rifle type weapon, a very threatening,  aggressive weapon. One that deters people, it is designed to deter people. It is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got.  Other people that night are carrying around semi-automatic pistols, Glocks, which you can conceal and hide. Other people can’t see it.  It is not designed to tell people to go away. It is not designed to tell people to leave me alone. You carry around an assault rifle like this you are sending that message to other people. That is what the defendant was doing.”

The defense picks up the revelation that Kyle called 911 at the CVS incident.

At about 2:02 Defense attorney Chirafisi:

“I was unaware that Mr. Rittenhouse had actually called the authorities on the August 10th date.”

Binger continues to try to convince Judge Schroeder the CVS video should be included as evidence.

At about 2:06 in the video, DA Binger states the FBI made an infrared video from an orbiting plane that shows Rittenhouse running after Mr. Rosenbaum.  Binger says the defense was made aware of the video on 3 May, but he does not believe defense attorney Richards has seen it.

Binger claims there was a confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, He claims Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum. The defense has not seen this FBI infrared video.

Judge Schroeder says the events are too dissimilar for the CVS incident to be included as evidence, but he will not make a final decision at this time, pending seeing the video evidence, which he has not viewed.

The Prosecution then makes a claim about a defense motion to dismiss the charge of illegal possession of a firearm by a minor. The defense is probably calling the attention of the judge to the structure of Wisconsin statute 948.60, with regard to possession of rifles and shotguns by minors. To this correspondent, DA Binger appears to misstate the statutory law.

DA Binger appears to ignore Wisconsin statute 948.60 (3)(c), which excludes most firearms from the law.

Judge Schroeder agrees to send the brief by the prosecution, about the firearms possession issue from the Dominick Black case, to the Rittenhouse defense team, which has not seen it before.

Judge Schroeder says he will take the issue of legal possession of the firearm under advisement. He has not considered it in either the Rittenhouse or Black cases, as of September 17th, 2021.

Judge Schroeder has required DA Binger to read or refer to statutes at least twice at other points in this case.

Many have wondered if Dominick Black would be charged with the straw purchase of the rifle, under federal law.

Earlier, in this hearing, DA Binger noted Kyle Rittenhouse’s access to the rifle was limited. It was stored in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse had only shot the rifle one time prior to August 25, 2020.

This makes federal prosecution of Dominick Black for a straw purchase of the rifle unlikely, as the rifle was never permanently transferred to Kyle Rittenhouse. It is permissible to loan a rifle for a limited time and purpose, without transferring it through a federally licensed dealer.

Both the prosecution and defense agreed they would be ready for a November 1 start of the trial.

There is an issue with the use of questionnaires for jury selection.

The judge states he did not like to use questionnaires during jury selection. Judge Schroeder said no questions will be allowed about gun ownership, gun possession, or membership in a particular organization.

He said: “This is not a political trial, it is not going to be a political trial.”

Both the defense and prosecutors want to use questionnaires for jury selection.

Because both prosecution and defense attorneys want questionnaires, the Judge Schroeder said he will take the use of questionnaires under advisement.

Judge Schroeder makes comments on media coverage of the Rittenhouse case:

“There has been some grossly irresponsible misreporting on a few occasions about what happened in this case.”

 “The case should not be tried in the media.”

If you are following the case closely, it is worth taking the time to watch the entire two-hour and 36-minute hearing.

Coverage by other national media was extremely limited. There is much detail in the video. It would require tens of thousands of words to completely cover it in a written article.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Austin
Austin
14 days ago

I just want to thank Dean Weingarten for his extraordinary work on this case. Sir, your attention to detail is greatly appreciated.

Doug G.
Doug G.
12 days ago
Reply to  Austin

I second that commendation.

Russn8r
Russn8r
12 days ago
Reply to  Doug G.

Stop smoking commenters for upvotes.

WI Patriot
WI Patriot
16 days ago

Sound like a shitshow to me…binger is going to have his ass handed to him, one way or another…

Doc
Doc
16 days ago

Thank you Mr. Weingarten for doing such a thorough job reporting this article. Once again we see that obtaining justice through the court system is not about what is right and what is wrong. The courts appear to focus only on what can be entered as evidence and then manipulated into what someone wants to prove. Right and Wrong have been removed from the court system. I completely understand why the Statue for justice is depicted as being blindfolded. What I don’t understand is why she has a scale in her hand that she cannot see. Perhaps that is it’s… Read more »

nrringlee
nrringlee
16 days ago

OK, time to get real. Wisconsin is a Progressive New Left utopia. You are actually expecting public prosecutors and law enforcement to abide by such antiquated concepts as the rules of evidence and provable culpability in a politicized trial? Folks, here is the dictum of jurisprudence in play: Show me the man and I will show you the crime. This is why you need to pay attention to the Great Sort. Self sorting of folks who actually believe in law and right behavior is happening. And just like the Book of Revelation warns, don’t ignore the signs and don’t get… Read more »

Autsin Miller III
Autsin Miller III
15 days ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Don’t disagree but where are the right thinkers going to congregate? Balkanization, though generally denigrated, maybe the last best chance of morality and traditional American values having sanctuary. The question is, where and are believers really willing to uproot and move to said sanctuary? Tough decisions are on the horizon for sure.

Vince
Vince
16 days ago

Superficially, it seems the scary “assault” weapon is on trial.

WI Patriot
WI Patriot
16 days ago
Reply to  Vince

Aren’t they always…???

Tionico
Tionico
16 days ago
Reply to  Vince

that about sums it up nicely. Thing is, had his pal loaned him a GLock, whicih seems to be favoured by the Prosecution’s minions, he’d REALY have been in violation of the law.. a minor cannot carry a handgun in public concealed. That WOULD have him behind bars. SOmeone needs to whack that DA over the head with this little factoid. I’ve read Dean’s study of Wisconsin law on possession of long guns by minors, and unless Dean is WAAAAY off base, the DA has NO case on illegal possession”, nor on the provenance of that rifle. He is using… Read more »

PAF145
PAF145
16 days ago

Sounds like Binger is a leftist on the payroll of Soros

glockster68
glockster68
16 days ago

I sure hope so BUT you never know. The media, and looney left anti gun zombies will paint him as a young Charles Manson….and they already have.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
14 days ago
Reply to  glockster68

There is nothing like video evidence. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of video recordings showing abuses of power. Here is a small sampling to search for: $3 Million Settlement – 2 Cops Charged 3 Resign – Corruption From The Top Down Cops Retaliate When He Refuses To Answer Questions – He Knows His Rights Officer Detains His Daughter’s Boyfriend P.I. and Ex-Cop OWNS Clueless Cops on DashCam POLICE lie to Uber Driver/Attorney Video shows Miami Beach cops kicking suspect in rough arrest 19 Cops Quit “Special Duty Task-Force” Over Open Carry Confusion Cops Bust in the Wrong House… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by JSNMGC
Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago

Don’t bet on it. Juries wrongfully convict every day.

swmft
swmft
16 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

depends how much the prosecution can hide illegally from defense , prosecutors should have no immunity from malfeasants

Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago
Reply to  swmft

I agree, especially with the word “should”. Sadly, they are effectively immune.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
16 days ago
Reply to  swmft

,
Well, then this will be happy news to you. A prosecutor that hides exculpatory evidence (often known as Brady evidence from the case of Brady v. Maryland) from the defense can be charged with prosecutorial misconduct at state or federal bar to which he belongs and disbarred. No immunity from that.
The defendant wins a new trial.

Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Key words “can be”. But they virtually always get away with crimes and abuse with total impunity.

Tionico
Tionico
16 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

I may be off base here, but from the little bit we can learn about this judge from this article, it would seem he is likely to take a very dim view of the DA sequestering evidence that helps the defense. Note how he ORDERED the DA to come accross with the lilst of all witnesses he will prsent, AND their addresses, by Monday next, after said DA was on a whinge about those addresses being buried within four hundred pages of otehr records. Bull puckey.. he’s got the addresses of every one, else they’d NOT be on his list.… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago
Reply to  Tionico

Judge seems refreshingly, relatively honorable. But full honor would be: Dismiss on self-defense & prosecutor abuse, and Own Recognizance, not $2m bond. $100 says the DA pays no cost for scumbaggery.

Last edited 16 days ago by Russn8r
Wild Bill
Wild Bill
16 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

You can not accurately say, “… virtually always get away with crimes and abuse… ” or … “total impunity…”! It depends upon the state bar.

So unless you have done an exhaustive study of the issue for each bar and then written the definitive article including facts gathered from each bar …

Oh, wait! You have done the study and defended your findings!!! I stand corrected and can not wait to read more.

Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I can & did say what any honest man knows.

Only time I recall a prosecutor paying was the Duke LaCrosse case. Nifong did ONE day in jail in 2007 for fraud, perjury, withholding DNA evidence. Big Joke. Justice would’ve been the same hard time he tried to give his vics.

DA Coakley & Sgt Taylor hid-destroyed evidence, suborned perjury, wrongfully imprisoned Kenny Waters for 20yrs, fought all efforts to save him. When freed, he died in 6mos. Neither Coakley, Taylor, or the ‘witnesses’ paid for taking his life.

Can’t wait to read your 1000s of true punishments of prosecutors.

Last edited 16 days ago by Russn8r
Russn8r
Russn8r
16 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Crickets Chirping, BillyPoo.
Chirp…Chirp…Chirp…

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
15 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

The deficiency in your argument is that it presumes that you know the total to begin with, which is highly unlikely, and your antidotal statements do not make up the deficit. If you were honest with yourself you would just admit it and form a better argument next time. I am just giving you the law and a citation so that you can better yourself. Go read Brady. It is classic. The deficiency in your insult is that it presumes that I have nothing else to do and can be here all day … like you. I am fairly sure… Read more »

Last edited 15 days ago by Wild Bill
Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

In other words, you have nothing but handwaving, your typical slimy low-IQ M.O.

Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Crickets Chirping…

swmft
swmft
15 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

and he is correct they are almost never punished in any way and as for the wins a new trial 17 years in jail for judicial misconduct and wow judge gives up his law license,but keeps his pension, not equal or right

Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  swmft

Who’s correct? Where’s the big list of DAs who faced true justice? Same time they made or tried to make their vics do. Every copsucking troll downvoted.

CRICKETS CHIRPING

Last edited 15 days ago by Russn8r
Wild Bill
Wild Bill
15 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

@8r,
There are 50 State Bars and one Federal Bar. Why would there be one list? Things are not organized as you imagine, and won’t be just because you want it.
All the answers are in Brady v Maryland et cet. Read the cases rather than just guessing.

Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

You’re still evading.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
15 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

@8r,
I am trying to help you self improve. It is not my job to spoon feed you.

Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

You sockpups don’t care about the injustice of Duke LaCrosse, Kenny Waters etc, can’t name a case where a DA had to do anything like the felony hard time he tried to frame innocents for.

Last edited 15 days ago by Russn8r
Oldman
Oldman
15 days ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I think I now understand who Russn8r is. By all his/her downvotes and comments devoid of any content, I believe he/her is Superman incarnate. In the future I shall see no reason to recognize this degenerate as anything more than a troll. The new one just like the old one.

Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Oldman

Troll says troll. Snippy evasion by sockpups who don’t care about the injustice of Duke LaCrosse, Kenny Waters etc, can’t name a case where a DA had to do anything like the felony hard time he tried to frame innocents for.

Last edited 15 days ago by Russn8r
Russn8r
Russn8r
15 days ago
Reply to  Oldman

How many sockpups you got OldWildBillMan? 7? Can’t name a DA who did the hard time he framed innocents for or care about the injustice of Duke LaCrosse, Kenny Waters etc.

Last edited 15 days ago by Russn8r
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
17 days ago

This is just another of many, many, too many abuses from a D.A. against an obviously innocent man. That has nothing to do with rule of law or righteousness, it is based on tyrannical political values and probably funding. Rittenhouse was attacked by several different people and as he tried to run away during these attacks, he was chased and he was continually attacked and HAD TO defend himself or possibly loose his life or suffer grievous injury. That is clearly seen on the films of this event. I think any normal, reasonable, person would have come to the same… Read more »

I Haz A Question
I Haz A Question
17 days ago

Very thorough article, Mr. Weingarten, and much appreciated. I read every line and you retained my interest to the very end.