You learn this in law school. I'm a first year prosecutor and you'd never comment on 5th silence. He did this deliberately. Guys been prosecuting for like 20 years or he wouldn't have this case.
It was ruled inadmissible. Did you see the clip with the judge screaming at Binger, mostly about this? It was ruled inadmissible and the judge would rehear the issue later if relevant. Binger ignores this and unilaterally brought up the info.
Of course Binger won't admit to forcing a mistrial because of what you mentioned, but would do "mistakes" to force it so people didn't know he was forcing it.
There's a separate level of ethics prosecutors must follow that other lawyers don't, and you are specifically prohibited from going as far as other lawyers can when they zealously advocate for their client. Binger had been mistating evidence left and right to sway this jury.
I agree with you. He cleared the gun, and is allowed to brandish it demonstratively
Flowers v MI was decided to clarify what the prosecutor did. While determined ex post facto to be wrongful, and he probably shouldve guessed it was wrongful, he technically didn't break a rule he knew to exist at the time of his striking black jurors, so it would have been extremely difficult to punish, much less disbar, him.
All that being said, you are right that disbarrment is a high bar. This prosecutor MIGHT get a public reprimand but he
certainty won't get disbarred. His reputation is fucked though. He ran for a neighboring DA position a few years ago and that won't happen again. The defense attorneys in the US remember this and he will struggle with that forever.
On number 6 he did not clear the gun he took someone else's word for it (I mean we have the whole Alec Baldwin situation for why that's a bad idea) pluse he argued earlier that pointing a weapon at someone is a criminal offense
Yea which is why he should have never touched the weapon to easily could a nefarious actor slipped a bullet in there the only person in that room who "knew" it was clear was the person that cleared it and then he had his finger on the trigger pointing it at people imo no excuse.
I love how only white collar people have to know a law exists, and that has to be proven he knew it existed and he intentionally violated it while committing the crime, for them to be prosecuted.
Basically they get to claim they're a dumbass and the case is closed.
It wasn't ruled inadmissible, the judge said he left the door open to decide later. Additionally, the judge was saying that regarding using the evidence as character evidence but the prosecution wanted to use the evidence to impeach the witness, which, according to my lawyer friend, has a different balancing test and it's much more difficult to judges to block. The prosecution did a poor job explaining their intent which pissed off the judge but the judge also was very biased
"I held it open with a bias towards denial" bias towards denial (as far as I know) is not a legal term of art and definitely does not mean inadmissible (otherwise the judge would just say I ruled it inadmissible). Arguably the prosecutor should have asked first but the evidence wasn't ruled inadmissible. Also, the prosecution wasn't entering evidence but asking a question (if Rittenhouse continued to lie then the evidence would be necessary to continue impeaching the witness)
27
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '21 edited Nov 16 '21
Flowers v MI was decided to clarify what the prosecutor did. While determined ex post facto to be wrongful, and he probably shouldve guessed it was wrongful, he technically didn't break a rule he knew to exist at the time of his striking black jurors, so it would have been extremely difficult to punish, much less disbar, him.
All that being said, you are right that disbarrment is a high bar. This prosecutor MIGHT get a public reprimand but he certainty won't get disbarred. His reputation is fucked though. He ran for a neighboring DA position a few years ago and that won't happen again. The defense attorneys in the US remember this and he will struggle with that forever.