Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

News Clash

Prosecutors In Rittenhouse Trial HELD BACK Hi-Def Video From Defense — Motion To Dismiss Has Been Filed

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

The prosecution has been awful throughout the trial, but this is a really big deal.

This is seems to be very good news for the defense, but we’ll have to see what happens in court.

The case that the prosecution has made against Kyle Rittenhouse has been failing. Their own witnesses made the case for the defendant, including the one who admits to pointing a handgun at Rittenhouse before the teen shot him in the arm.

WATCH: Witness Admits He Advanced And Pointed His Gun At Rittenhouse And THEN Kyle Shot Him

The evidence appears to show that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

WATCH: New Kyle Rittenhouse Footage Rips Media Narrative To Shreds

The judge has blasted the prosecution for commenting on Rittenhouse remaining silent about August 25, 2020 until he took the stand which is the defendant’s Constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment. At the time, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said that Rittenhouse’s silence enabled him to “tailor” his testimony to fit what other witnesses had said.

RITTENHOUSE TRIAL: Judge Blasts The Prosecution, Defendant Takes The Stand (VIDEO)

The prosecution’s case has morphed throughout the trial as it fell apart, but at the eleventh hour, they seized on FBI drone footage of that evening and used that as the linchpin in their closing by arguing that Rittenhouse provoked the attack by pointing his gun at protesters.

The prosecution received the drone footage, and shared a copy of the video with the defense, but according to the motion to dismiss, the file size of the video they received is just 3.6MB while the prosecution’s is 11.2MB.

Here’s a screenshot from Wednesday’s Rekieta Law live stream that shows the difference in clarity:

The defense filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice arguing that the behavior of the state was so egregious against Rittenhouse that charges couldn’t be brought back against him.

Prosecutors in the Kenosha shooter trial withheld evidence from the defense that was ‘at the center of their case,’ only sharing the high-definition drone video footage on which they have hung their prosecution after the trial had concluded, can reveal.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger played the enhanced drone footage to the jury during his closing statements and claimed that it showed Rittenhouse ‘pointing his gun’ at people – an assertion that opened the door to the state claiming Rittenhouse provoked the violence of the night of August 25, 2020.

Now, in the motion obtained by, Rittenhouse’s defense insist that the state only shared it with the defense after evidence had closed on Saturday November 13.

This is one just one of the grounds on which they have made a motion for a mistrial with prejudice filed by Kyle Rittenhouse‘s defense Monday afternoon.
Source: Daily Mail

The motion said, “On November 5, 2021, the fifth day of trial on this case, the prosecution turned over to the defense footage of a drone video which captured some of the incident from August 25, 2020,” it continued, “The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video. What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state.”

The state didn’t provide the larger file to the defense until two days before closing arguments and after evidence was closed.

The filing states, “During the jury instructions conference, the defense played their version of the video for the court to review. The state indicated their version was much clearer and had their tech person come into court to have the court review their clearer video. The video is the same, the resolution of that video, however, was not.”

You can hear them admit it if you listen carefully here.

According to some of the lawyers “lawsplaining” the trial on the Rekieta Law livestream, this kind of thing meets the requirements of prosecutorial misconduct because it’s a Brady violation.

Some of the grounds for the mistrial are as follows:

  • the prosecution suggesting there was something nefarious in Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent before the jury
  • when questioning Rittenhouse on the stand, the prosecution brought up evidence that wasn’t deemed admissible in court by the judge
  • the prosecution appears to have acted in bad faith perhaps in an attempt to provoke a mistrial and try prosecuting Rittenhouse again
  • providing lesser quality video to the defense that was significantly different from what the prosecution had
  • “prosecutorial overreach” in the case against Rittenhouse was “intentional and in bad faith.”

Screenshots of the filing for a mistrial with prejudice is included below.

The motion reasserts the contention made by defense attorney Corey Chirafisi in court that ADA Binger’s behavior was “clearly intentional” and “prejudicial.”

In court on Wednesday, Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards said that the video that the defense initially received was not the same length as the one that was given to the prosecution by the FBI.

Prosecutors then examined the video and had a police expert “zoom in” on a portion of the video to a blurry image that they hinged their case on.

Richards also noted that the software that was used to “enhance” the video to show one area says that “image enhancement with AI shouldn’t be acceptable in general for evidentiary use.”

In a late-night livestream, Nick Rekieta, a Minnesota lawyer who hosts the highly entertaining Rekieta Law channel on YouTube covered the filing by the defense along with some eyebrow-raising reports of ADA Thomas Clair Binger’s personal relationship with a Kenosha judge, and his rather interesting former email handle at the 15:25 mark. (Yes, that’s his real middle name.)

It’s three hours long, but he gets to the motion to dismiss at the 30-minute mark and explains it in detail.

Now, we have to wait and see what the Court does with this.

K. Walker

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll and on Gettr @KarenWalker

Related Articles