As we reported earlier, The jury in the Rittenhouse trial questioned whether it could review the video evidence.
This sparked a discussion about drone video, which is Part of a biased mistrial motion Defended by. The defense argued that it was not until Saturday, after the evidence was over, that they received a clearer and clearer version of the drone video. In their motion to the court, they argued that the prosecution had sent them a compressed version and kept a clearer version.
Their position is to conceal evidence and prosecute misconduct. This is supplemented by the prosecutor’s inappropriately negative talk about Rittenhouse’s silence, questioning his constitutional right to remain silent, and trying to obtain evidence that the judge has ruled against.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team argued that the prosecutor concealed and falsified the video evidence. pic.twitter.com/ug2pSNDwdv
— MRCTV (@mrctv) November 17, 2021
The question of the jury then triggered a discussion on the points of motion for the detention of evidence.
The prosecutor argued that they had nothing to do with the compression and did not know what happened.
On the other hand, the defense stated that the video sent on November 5-a compressed and unclear video-had different tags and metadata than the video provided by the New York State government on Saturday. They pointed out how one was created 21 minutes later than the other. They argued that this indicated that they were different versions, and therefore, the prosecution retained the clearer evidence to which they were entitled. The defense said they were aware of the difference on Friday and suggested that the prosecution mentioned that their version was clearer when they watched the video in court that day. They said that if they had a clearer file, they would put forward other arguments in their case.
Add this in.
“Our version is much clearer.” pic.twitter.com/n2UsNtin7F
— Wilson Canardi (@wilsonkanaday) November 17, 2021
But the prosecutor claimed today that there is no different copy. The “Miss Wisco” mentioned in the video is one of the defenders Natalie Wisco.
Development: The defense in the Rittenhouse trial claimed that the video evidence used by the prosecution was compressed and key evidence was omitted. pic.twitter.com/J5Fuc9cPok
— Newsmax (@newsmax) November 17, 2021
The prosecution further claimed that the defense must have a high-definition copy, because the previous defense attorney John Pierce participated in Tucker Carlson’s show, and the prosecution argued that Fox played a high-definition video.
“If you know Tucker Carlson got it, you can summon it, can’t you?”
Fun moment: Prosecutors claim that Kyle Rittenhouse’s drone footage of Joseph Rosenbaum (a video that may trigger a mistrial) is owned by Fox News. pic.twitter.com/yK9vKWTFwR
— Ellie Hall (@ellievhall) November 17, 2021
At some point, the defense said that they were filing an unbiased mistrial motion. They have acted with prejudice before-which means that the prosecution cannot return the case. But now they say that if the court is unwilling to rule in favor of a biased motion-we don’t know yet-if he will approve it without prejudice.
Now, this is an element of sports. There are other arguments in the motion, so even if the judge does not support the defense on this particular argument, they can also make other arguments. As we said before, if the jury is found not guilty, then all this has no practical meaning.
As things continue to develop, we will notify you in time.
