Jurors make their decisions in isolation. The problem is that in some cases, their verdicts can have sweeping consequences.
The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is one of those cases. A Wisconsin jury acquitted him of all charges relating to his conduct in the streets of Kenosha in August 2020 that left two men dead and another wounded. For some observers, the verdict seems outrageous. Looking at this case broadly, how can it be that our laws permit a teenager to escape criminal liability after he travels from out of state to a scene of civil unrest, violates a curfew specifically designed to keep people off the streets, and ostentatiously carries with him an assault weapon that results in deadly harm?
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Rittenhouse claimed he was in Kenosha to protect private property, even though the property owner testified he did not ask for his help. Rittenhouse further claimed that he went to the scene of unrest to provide medical assistance to the injured, even though he had no training as a medic and rendered aid to no one that night. Because he was not a government official, he wore no uniform or badge. Instead, he wore a backwards baseball cap and openly carried a weapon of war. And when people saw him, they understandably assumed he was an active shooter and attacked him to protect themselves and others from the threat of gunfire. Predictably, people ended up dead.
But juries don’t look at the big picture. Judges instruct juries to focus only on the facts they hear in court, to tune out the media, and to disregard anything outside of the admitted evidence. Juries look at the minutiae, and the details matter. The prosecution bears the burden of proving each and every element of every charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant claims self-defense, as Rittenhouse did, the prosecution also bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Proving a negative is a steep uphill…
Source : time
