The prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case has proven itself nothing short of a total disaster and a complete humiliation for the state of Wisconsin.
According to Fox News, the prosecution’s reputation took yet another major blow after one of Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys claimed that prosecutors nearly violated the “golden rule” of law during the course of the trial, which many believe was an act of sheer desperation as the state’s case against the teenager has all but fallen apart over the past two weeks.
In the court of law, the “golden rule” is that a prosecutor is never allowed to make a statement of emotional nature to the jury. An example of such a statement would be: “Put yourself in the victim’s shoes.”
A “total violation”
It was Tampa-based criminal defense attorney Ajay Pallegar who observed the prosecution nearly breaking the rule in its final closing arguments, telling Fox News that such a violation is rookie in nature, to say the least.
“That’s a golden rule violation because, basically, you lose the objectivity with the actual facts of the case, and the jurors make things more personal than they really should be,” Pellegar said.
He added: “That, by default, is a total violation and the first thing you learn in law school. That’s a mistrial.”
The moment in question, Pellegar noted, came during the prosecution’s cross-examination, when Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked Rittenhouse why it was only now that the teenager was speaking about the shootings in which he was involved, and not directly after they occurred.
In other words, Binger asked why Rittenhouse why he chose to remain silent, which not only raised eyebrows in the legal community as a lawyer is not allowed to ask such a question, but it also drew an intense, immediate rebuke from Judge Bruce Schroeder.
Pellegar noted that while the “golden rule” wasn’t technically violated because Binger didn’t make such a statement directly to the jury, it was close enough to make many wonder why a seasoned trial prosecutor would make such an unconventional mistake.
“In this case, it seems like the prosecutor was trying to introduce character evidence,” Pellegar explained.
He added: “What happened when Mr. Rittenhouse sat down was: He started talking, and the prosecutor was questioning him on post-arrest admissions and things he did not say or did not communicate to law enforcement, which is a violation of his constitutional rights.”
As of this writing, the jury in the Rittenhouse trial has entered day two of deliberations, and many expect they could arrive at a verdict as soon as the end of the day.