The Associated Press has been paying close attention to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and they can’t help but be struck by something:
What makes a fair trial? As Kyle Rittenhouse's trial unfolds, some observers have been struck by the judge's apparent deference to the defendant.https://t.co/Zul1lNMaO6
— The Associated Press (@AP) November 17, 2021
Amy Forliti, Gene Johnson, and Todd Richmond write:
If nothing else, the discussion about the judge’s conduct has underlined the importance of how the judicial system is perceived — especially in a high-profile case where the outcome can exacerbate societal tensions around issues like race, guns, protests, vigilantism, and law and order.
“Our hope is that the court system and our judges, while human, will uphold this role of a neutral arbiter so that everybody gets a fair trial — the defendant and the people — and that we can arrive at a decision that we can all agree on was legitimate,” said Mary D. Fan, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at the University of Washington Law School.
“When people have doubts about that impartiality,” Fan said, “it undermines our trust in the justice of the verdict.”
What about when media are fueling doubts about that impartiality? What then?
More:
It’s primarily the defendant, not prosecutors, whose rights are protected under the law, and judges must guard them carefully. Schroeder has done so appropriately in some instances, legal experts said, such as when he scolded prosecutor Thomas Binger for asking Rittenhouse why he had not discussed the shootings before taking the witness stand. Defendants have a right to remain silent.
Is that wrong? Should the judge not do that?
“Observers” https://t.co/me0t4kJDOW
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) November 17, 2021
Public observers brainwashed by the media including The AP are shocked to learn actual laws and witness a judge upholding them 🙄
— RDub 🇺🇸 (@RBoxer74) November 17, 2021
If the AP is genuinely surprised that Judge Bruce Schroeder is treating Kyle Rittenhouse like a defendant in a murder trial, well, AP, we’ve got some news for you.
Really? That’s your stupid take? GTFO https://t.co/yhKe4pDM0q
— 𝐿𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓇𝒶𝓁𝓁𝓎𝒴𝑜𝓊𝓇𝑀𝑜𝓂🇮🇱 (@FallerForIt) November 17, 2021
Corporate media coverage of this trial has been a disaster from start to finish https://t.co/e7KnDqGdRx
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 17, 2021
Tell me you don’t understand “presumption of innocence” at trial without telling me you don’t understand. https://t.co/kjO6ddx7g7
— Tim Murtaugh (@TimMurtaugh) November 17, 2021
I’m struck by the AP’s ignorance about “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” https://t.co/sor1id6hEi
— Max (@MaxNordau) November 17, 2021
JUDGES 👏 ARE 👏 USUALLY 👏 PROSECUTORS 👏 IN 👏 ROBES 👏 WHICH 👏 HARMS 👏 ALL 👏DEFENDANTS 👏 AND 👏 IS 👏 NOT 👏 JUST 👏 https://t.co/6SgXfocNNa
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) November 17, 2021
The Founders wanted to make it profoundly difficult to convict someone. The tragedy here is not that the Rittenhouse judge is too "pro-defendant." The tragedy is that so many judges are not. https://t.co/tk5Vu88tVm
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) November 17, 2021
Our entire legal system defers overwhelmingly to the defendant, you idiots https://t.co/Pp1QGxgC3F
— Heimish Conservative (@HeimishCon) November 17, 2021
"Apparent deference to the defendant"?????????????????????????????
FFS, this is what's WRONG with the MSM.
Do better.
— Peter Ray 🇺🇦 (@WPeterRay) November 17, 2021
Some observers are stunned by the fundaments of English common law.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) November 17, 2021
We’re doomed. https://t.co/16ofK2uEiX
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) November 17, 2021
Unless we put a stop to it.
The Corporate Press and national politicians are in a race to the bottom, but we don’t have to join them there. https://t.co/VBG4zMzz1B
— John Sterling (@sterlinginks) November 17, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member