Rittenhouse Files New Motion for Mistrial, Claims Prosecutors Withheld Video Evidence From Defense


Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense lawyers filed a last-minute motion for a mistrial with prejudice, which means Kyle cannot be charged again if the judge grants the motion, claiming the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. 

The defense claims on November 5 the prosecution turned over a compressed version of a drone video of Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum. The defense claimed in the new filing that the prosecution had a clearer version of the video but they did not provide it to the defense until after both sides were finished presenting their cases. The video was key evidence in the trial.

The jury will be back at it this morning. The judge has been underwhelmed by the prosecutors verbally clashing with them on multiple occasions. He warned them about introducing other ‘enhanced’ images calling them a house of cards that could fall on appeal.

The motion for mistrial said: “As it relates to the compressed drone footage. The prosecution should be required to explain to the court why they did not copy the footage for the defendant with the same quality as their copy.

“The video footage has been at the center of this case. 

“The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.”

From The Daily Mail:

According to the motion, ‘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.

‘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.’

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

The motion goes onto explain that the file size of the defense video is just 3.6MB while the prosecution’s is 11.2MB.

The motion states that this larger file was not provided to the defense ‘until after the trial concluded’

It reads, ‘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.’

SHARE:
join telegram

READERS' POLL

Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By David Hawkins

David Hawkins is a writer who specializes in political commentary and world affairs. He's been writing professionally since 2014.

Subscribe
Notify of

Recommended

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x