The Kyle Rittenhouse defense team has asked for a mistrial with prejudice, which means he cannot be tried again for the same crimes, making the argument that the Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger acted in bad faith during the trial and accused him of engaging in prosecutorial misconduct.

Binger told Judge Bruce Schroeder, the presiding judge, that he made his arguments in good faith. To that, the judge said I don’t believe you.” Yikes!

The judge told the defense that he will take their motion under advisement.

At this point, many people think the prosecutor is throwing the case because he doesn’t believe Rittenhouse should have ever been charged in the first place. There is no evidence that the young man did anything but protect himself in self defense.

Earlier in the day, the judge blasted Binger by yelling at him over his line of questioning to Rittenhouse for his use of his AR-15.

When the judge asked the jury to leave the room, Judge Schroeder reprimanded Binger for trying to make an issue out of Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence. The judge pointed out that a defendant’s right to remain silent after arrest goes back decades.

The defense team let Rittenhouse take the stand on Wednesday. Many people thought that was a huge mistake.

Kyle Rittenhouse is charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and recklessly endangering safety.

So much weirdness took place during this trial so far. At one point, the prosecutor began talking about the intricacies of hollow point bullets in an effort to make it appear that Rittenhouse used hollow points for evil intentions, making no sense at all.

When Rittenhouse was 17-years-old, he and a friend said they traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, from Illinois, to help protect businesses there and to give medical aid after businesses were looted and set on fire for two days. This was done by the animals that the Democrats running the city did nothing to stop.

His defense team argued repeatedly that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense and fired his rifle only because he was being chased and was faced with a gun.

The prosecution tried to make Rittenhouse out as some yokel who instigated the events that took place on the night in question. He even tried to make a point stick that the young man was the only person who shot someone during that night of unrest. That was probably because he was the only one who was being threatened with a gun.

It was when the prosecutor was questioning Rittenhouse about an incident with his gun that his attorney Mark Richards objected and warned that he was going to ask for a mistrial with prejudice over Binger’s line of questioning. That line of questioning was over a previous incident that the judge had already barred the prosecution from using.

“Rittenhouse can allegedly be heard in a video saying he wished he had his AR-15 so he could fire rounds at people he believed were shoplifting,” reported Fox News.

The judge scolded Binger telling him that he should have come to the court before he went down that line of questioning.

“You should have come and asked!” Schroder shouted angrily.

The prosecutor argued back that “the court had left the door open.”

“For me—not you!” Schroeder shouted back.

That’s when the judge chastised Binger for trying to discredit Rittenhouse for utilizing his 5th Amendment right to remain silent after the shootings.

“You are already… I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant’s—silence,” the judge roared. “That’s basic law, it’s been basic law in this country for 40 to 50 years, I have no idea why you would do something like that!” He added,  “I don’t know what you’re up to!”

The judge was beside himself over the level of misconduct by a prosecutor.

Binger told the judge that he believed his questioning was germane to what happened during the night of the shootings.

The judge wasn’t buying it and stood by his decision to not allow the prosecution to bring it up in court.

“Even if you’re correct in your assumption that you know more than I did at the time, you should have come to the court and said, ‘I want to go into this,’” Schroeder said.

“This trial has now officially gone too far for a second trial. This is THE trial. It would be unfair to the defendant to have a second trial when we are this close to a jury verdict.”




View all posts


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.



Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.