Experts Weigh In on Prosecution’s Failed Strategies in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial presented an overly complex case, and might have had better success if they sought a lesser charge, legal experts told The Post Friday, in the aftermath of the teen’s acquittal. . .

Lou Shapiro, a state and federal criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, said the prosecution “overshot” their case when they presented the argument that Rittenhouse “brought a gun to a fistfight.”

“They oversold the case because the prosecution was stuck on this theory that Rittenhouse was this guy out to kill,” Shapiro said. “If you can’t get that out of your mind as a prosecutor, you’re not gonna be able to offer lesser charges because that does not fit that narrative. They oversold and it backfired.” . . .

John Gross, an associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin and the director of the Public Defender Project, said the decision not to slap Rittenhouse with the lesser charge of second-degree intentional homicide made this case an uphill battle from the start.

“Under Wisconsin law, when a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the prosecution is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense,” Gross said. “Wisconsin has a mitigating circumstance called unnecessary defensive force, and that reduces first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree intentional homicide. (Read more from “Experts Weigh In on Prosecution’s Failed Strategies in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE.