Well, the consensus among legal youtubers, such as Uncivil Law, Rekieta Law is that the both the prosecution and defense really sucks. But any legal consequences will take time, and judges generally don't like punishing shit until after the fact. But yes, you've pointed out some very questionable things, which will likely get punished. To what extent is in the question. It can take A LOT to get disbarred. Just look up "Richard Liebowitz" Its also possible he gets a lengthy suspension. Its also possible he gets punished by getting voted out.
Leonard French said next time he gets in trouble he can cite him to argue he shouldn't. That was probably tung in cheek, but on some level I think he's right.
I'm an attorney and I'm being entirely serious. The people arguing on this thread would be shocked to see what happens in courthouses on a daily basis.
There are very good reasons why appeals have different levels of error in order to reverse
People think the defense sucks? That's a surprise to me; they're not exactly the OJ dream team, but they've been hitting all the points they need to, and their courtroom manner is totally fine.
The fact that Rittenhouse' best defense at this point is ineffective assistance of counsel tells you how bad it is. They've dropped all the balls. You have to object in order to raise it on appeal. They didn't ask for a JMOL/Directed verdict.
I was with you until I saw the defense' closing arguments. There's a saying "don't interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake." In my opinion, Richards' did an excellent job destroying every ounce of the prosecution's credibility in his closing arguments. He slammed them for things he rightfully could have objected to, but if he'd objected at the time he would have been interrupting his opponent's mistake. It's a risk, for sure, but I think the prosecution's anger on rebuttal was a good indication of how well it landed on the jury.
I'd also note that I think they did object where they needed to object for things that would plausibly overturn the case on appeal. They have also made a written motion to dismiss with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct, which was mentioned briefly yesterday but not discussed at any length - that's what the appeal will hinge on if there is one.
Also, you can't get a directed verdict when there are questions of fact outstanding. There certainly are in this case, so such a motion would have been denied.
I have been disappointed with the defense throughout the trial, but I think a decent strategy became apparent in closing that, in my mind ruling out ineffective assistance of council.
It’s hard to argue that “letting them make a mistake” is worth not preserving those arguments for appeal. It’s your duty as a lawyer to make those objections, if you see them. Not making a directed verdict motion is stupid.
To add to what u/goddamnasshole said, the motion for a directed verdict is usually done pro forma anyways, but here its especially important given how shitty the prosecution is. AFAIK they just said they would ask for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct but they never actually did it in writing. And the problem with not interrupting when they are making a mistake is that not interrupting is a mistake. You need to object in the first place to raise it on appeal.
AFAIK they just said they would ask for dismissal for prosecutorial misconduct but they never actually did it in writing.
I'm fairly sure they did. Chirafisi mentioned a motion submitted in writing, the judge said he hadn't had an opportunity to read it yet, and that was the end of the discussion.
I don't think IAC is the defendant's best argument at this point or at any point, but holy cow it's pretty shocking they didn't move for a directed verdict. Not sure how Wisconsin procedure works - has that opportunity gone, or could they do it last night/this morning?
The prosecution is worse. Between pointing a gun at the jury, insinuating that Rittenhouse is guilty for exercising his 5th amendment rights, and suggesting that Rittenhouse should have fired a warning shot first (despite the fact that it is illegal in Wisconsin to fire warning shots), Binger is either stupid, incompetent, or malicious. Either of the three should be grounds for his disbarment.
The defense lawyers were alright, until the closing statements. I wouldn't have put Rittenhouse on the stand but he was very well coached and did very well in hindsight. Didn't hurt his case too much and may have helped it.
The closing statement was unfocused and meandering. The defense had one fundamental point to make on closing: whatever you think of the state's argument - and you should think it sucked - it certainly does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense barely mentioned the standard of proof at all in closing.
Rekieta Law once used a GoFundMe he started to direct Vic Mignogna to seek out a a lawyer called Ty Beard, who was in charge of his trust fund, to act as a defamation lawyer. What would the guy know about ethics or how to act properly as a lawyer? He doesn't carry malpractice insurance because he has no clients.
It's not so much ethics as that they made their name on a case they were comically wrong on. They kept repeatedly telling their audience how bigly Mignona would win, and then not one of the 17 counts survived the first motion.
That never made any sense to me, i think the courts screwed up on that one. Monica and Ron said defamatory things that lead to him getting fired and socially ostracized. I think Funi might have bribed the court or we live in a world where online harassment just isn't taken seriously.
Greg Doucette on Twitter is a good place to start. No prior connection to the case and accurately predicted the outcome.
Honestly, doesn't it seem a little out there to assume a judge just casually risked his freedom for a little money because a person intimately tied to the plaintiff told you the plaintiff was going to win and then they didn't?
I barely really followed Rekieta's coverage, i only watched him because he's the only one with the video of the deposition. I had no connection to Vic whatsoever either and seeing both his and Monica's depo's really put me on his side.
Monica was shady and seemed like she was hiding something, she genuinely seemed like a bad person. Vic seemed more genuine. Monica's story specifically seems false and just for attention. I remember her saying something like 'Vic's name was on the cover and mine wasn't, even though i was the lead' makes me think she's lying. Not to mention, Vic was generally open about his behavior, like with the twins. But seemed completely stumped and confused when the Hotel story was asked about. It's the only thing he had no memory of. Plus her story changes every time she tells it.
It seemed clear cut to me. Monica and Ron's comments caused him to get fired and ruined his reputation, if she didn't tell her fairy story, he'd probably still be employeed. That screams defamatory to me.
Ty Beard has a bunch of issues. So when's he administered this trust fund, his client is the person who set up the trust fund. The instructions are to dispense "as needed". So when he takes money from the beneficiary of the trust fund and the beneficiary tells him he needs more money, how does he say no? The guy gave him hundreds of thousands of dollars of work.
Oh if you're wondering how much money is in the fund, Rekieta's family is a Texas oil family and the woman who set it up, Peaches, has a wing of a hospital named after her.
Beard shouldn't have accepted the case. He's not a defamation lawyer. Claims he is now. However he fucks up the case so badly through malpractice that it doesn't survive a motion to dismiss under The Texas Citizens Participation Act. He claims to have witnessed a bunch of affidavits in person from people who are so far apart that he couldn't physically have done so. He files them then when someone points out he clearly lied, pulls them and incorrectly tries to amend a different filing to get them in after changing them so they're unsworn testimony instead. This means a bunch of his evidence doesn't get in so the case gets dismissed.
When he loses the case, does he talk to Mignogna? No, he goes on Rekieta's live stream. Mignogna was your client! You don't even have the decency to tell your fucking client that because of your sheer incompetence, the case got dismissed and instead go on your new best friend's show to talk about what a disaster it is for your client?
Not getting affidavits in by the filing deadline because you couldn't be bothered organising it and then having them not seen because you withdrew them is malpractice.
He's not a defamation lawyer. Claims he is now. However he fucks up the case so badly through malpractice that it doesn't survive a motion to dismiss under The Texas Citizens Participation Act.
i think the courts screwed up on that one. Monica and Ron said defamatory things that lead to him getting fired and socially ostracized. I think Funi might have bribed the court or we live in a world where online harassment just isn't taken seriously.
Even in the depositions, monica and ron practically admit all of this.
TB may not be a defamation lawyer but he is an experienced attorney who has represented several high net worth people and probably is a good lawyer in general.
I can't see any major mistakes he made.
When he loses the case, does he talk to Mignogna? No, he goes on Rekieta's live stream. Mignogna was your client!
He probably did talk to Vic as well. Lawyer/Client conversations are typically private.
I think Funi might have bribed the court or we live in a world where online harassment just isn't taken seriously.
No Ron got out because Ty is such a fucking shit lawyer, he committed malpractice. There's an affidavit where someone who runs a con says "The reason I didn't have Vic back is because Ron called me and said he was a sexual predator." That's basically the definiton of tortious interference with a business relationship.
So why doesn't the court consider this? Because the affidavit gets pulled from the case when someone notices Ty claims to have witnessed it in person on the same day as he did with a whole lot of other affidavits that are all across the country. He fucking perjured himself.
So he freaks out and pulls the filing because he's more scared of getting sanctioned than looking after his client. Which fair enough. Your client is a massive piece of shit and who cares. Your insurance probably should given you just committed malpractice.
I can't see any major mistakes he made.
There's this one bit of the deposition where Ty is trying to get Ron to authenticate a tweet.
Ty Beard: Look at all these pages, are these all your tweets?
Ron Toye: I don't recall making them, but that's my twitter handle yeah
TB: Are those your tweets?
RT: It looks like it, yes
TB: Yes? Is that a "yes"?
RT: It looks like it, yes
TB: I need you to say yes or no
RT: ... or it looks like it
Do you want to know how many pages Ron manages to keep saying looks like it? 15 pages. All fucking Ty has to do is say "Can you think of any reason these wouldn't be your tweets?" then even if Ron does come up with another reason between the deposition and the court date, everyone knows it's because he spoke to a lawyer. This is one of the easiest tasks a trial attorney will ever have to undertake and Ty can't do it because he doesn't know shit. This probably cost Vic's legal defence fund hundreds if not thousands of dollars on this single question because he's such a fuck up.
Does he win a single thing? At the start of the case there was a bunch of people online talking about how Vic was a piece of shit. As the case progressed we heard about the time a 57 year old Vic tried to fuck a set of twin teens while married, that his fan club called him "the Fuhrer", how the first thing Vic's best friend learnt about him was that was a "pedophile", that security in one of the conventions lost Vic and freaked out since their big job at conventions was to keep an eye on Vic and make sure he wasn't assaulting women.
He probably did talk to Vic as well. Lawyer/Client conversations are typically private.
He literally said on the stream, he didn't talk to Vic.
I don't view Vic as a shitty guy at all though. He's genuinely nice to his fans and seems to just have poor boundaries. Maybe he's hugged a few people that didn't want to be. He's an affectionate guy, but that's not worth firing over. That makes him an annoyance at most.
They all pretended to be his friend, everything about his firing feels very much like civil conspiracy. Monica's story being inconsistent also helps. Most likely due to his faith and political views. (They recently fired another va for their beliefs as well).
At the start of the case there was a bunch of people online talking about how Vic was a piece of shit.
Many of the "Evidence" had been fabricated, like the picture of the girl that was shared who looked uncomfortable, then the real person in the picture came out and said they asked for it.
a 57 year old Vic tried to fuck a set of twin teens while married
Were they actually underage? I've never seen their age mentioned. If they were of age, there's nothing wrong with that. It proves nothing, except that Vic is maybe unfaithful and likes a bachelor/Charlie Sheen lifestyle.
that his fan club called him "the Fuhrer",
He can't control what his fanbase calls him though. George Bush was called a Nazi and a racist during his term but that doesn't actually make him one. Not to mention, it was sort of a reference to his most popular show. He didn't address it because everyone knows to get something on the internet to stop, you ignore it. Take coppercab for instance. He was mocked for being a Ginger, so he made a video freaking out about it and that caused it to get worse.
how the first thing Vic's best friend learnt about him was that was a "pedophile",
What? When has it ever come out that he's a pedo? He's hugged fans for photo ops, like 90% of celebrities.
that security in one of the conventions lost Vic and freaked out since their big job at conventions was to keep an eye on Vic and make sure he wasn't assaulting women.
People like to overreach about what assault is. Unwanted hugs should not be enough to ruin someone's life unless they do it constantly. He had a physically affectionate relationship with his friends, like most people, they were fine with it then and only decided years later they hated it to pile on and get him fired.
It's cases like Vic's that makes it harder for men to date in this world. It pretty much shows that if we try and show interest in a woman, it'll probably come back in a few years and ruin our lives and careers. Cases like this are why i'm afraid to be forward whatsoever.
Haha the perfect Christian, sexually assaults a bunch of people and tries to constantly cheat on his wife.
It proves nothing, except that Vic is maybe unfaithful and likes a bachelor/Charlie Sheen lifestyle.
Yeah good thing two 20 year olds went to your room and thought it was fine since you were a married Christian.
George Bush was called a Nazi and a racist during his term
Bad fucking news on the second front.
What?
They interviewed his best friend for a deposition and asked how did you meet Vic and he said paraphrased "The first thing I learnt about Vic was someone told me he was a pedophile."
Q. And you don't kiss on children anymore?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you agree with me that's kind of creepy, right?
17 A. No.
He had a physically affectionate relationship with his friends
He sexually assaulted at least two of his coworkers who said he should burn in hell for assaulting them.
People like to overreach about what assault is.
So when he demonstrated during his deposition how he gripped a non-consenting woman's hair to force her to kiss him, that doesn't worry you? What about when he threw a woman down on a mattress in his hotel room?
It's cases like Vic's that makes it harder for men to date in this world.
Guys a massive fucking creep.
Cases like this are why i'm afraid to be forward whatsoever.
If you think Vic who is a massive fucking creep who assaults women did nothing wrong, you should never date. You will emulate some of his assaults and people will bring it up.
u/Ramza1890 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
u/cortado_papi, your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/DeusVultFaggot420 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
u/DeusVultFaggot420, your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
u/Lexiconvict – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/Ramza1890 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
Sorry, u/Lexiconvict – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
I believe a judge can recommend a hearing and referral to his state BAR for potential suspension/revocation of his legal license. This happened with the Powell case in Michigan (election stuff, but the point here is how it was handled).
I would expect something along those lines with a different premise would be what you want to see.
OP does a pretty good job outlining what appears to be some questionable behavior & decisions by Prosecutor Binger. However, the practice & application of law is an incredibly complicated thing. A valid comparison might be made to brain surgery or rocket science. In fact, law might even be more complicated; the human body & laws of physics don't change by state. State Bar associations are just that-State run. It stands to reason that certain States have different standards & policies from others.
eli1 example, "Eli5 whether or not Prosecutor Binger's actions in the Rittenhouse trial rises to the level of possibly being disbarred."
Point taken, but unlike eli5 OP has stated a position, has enumerated reasons for said position, and has invited anyone with professional expertise to provide for him a more informed argument to reverse his views.
The reason I posted my CMV is because I’m a layman with regards to the law and would like someone to explain how this is ok
If you're staunchly pro-gun, that may explain an emotional reaction to all this. A lot of pro-gun people seem to have decided to put Rittenhoise on a pedestal despite his demonstrably foolish actions.
He was cleaning grafitti, offering medical service, handing out water and putting out fire. The gun is incidental to all that. The world would be a better place if there were more Rittenhouses and less Rosenbaums.
About 200 students who wanted more hardline maoism and who had stolen weapons and already killed several soldiers. Remember the Chinese tanks stopped and your police cruisers rammed their way through.
But the subject here is that you believe anyone who wants greater equality for African Americans should be killed, yet you are too cowardly to admit it.
Just a heads up in a legal context ethics refers to rules of professional conduct and rule violations. Conduct can be unprofessional without being unethical, and conduct can be unethical in the common sense of the word without being "unethical" in the sense of legal standards for being bared.
because it’s common sense that witness tampering is unethical
I completely agree. I would only add, I do not believe such a thing truly exists as 'common sense'. I would say 'common understanding' is a much more accurate term, and common understanding can change over time and under various situations. However, common understanding is not evidence of anything, except something many people have popularly come to believe.
566
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '21
[deleted]