we appreciate your time. a long trial for all of you. i want to bring in two attorneys who provided the most detailed analysis of the rittenhouse trial. andrew who specializes in self-defense law and robert kyle rittenhouse s former attorney. the prosecutor s misconduct in in case was egregious. imagined if it worked. no doubt about it. they contaminated the jury pool to begin with. the only chance was to get a rogue run away jury. then they corrupted the criminal trial process. they have libeled kyle for over a year and obstructed justice and engaged in misconduct.
Since June 28, 2004
February 17, 2021 My Bewildering Brain Toils in Vain : Traumatic Brain Injury, the Criminal Trial Process, and the Case of Lisa Montgomery
The title of this post is the title of this new paper available via SSRN and authored by Alison Lynch, Michael L. Perlin and Heather Cucolo. Here is its abstract:
Individuals with traumatic brain injuries (TBI) have a greater risk of becoming justice-involved due to the role that many TBIs play in impulse control and judgment. Attorneys assigned to represent this cohort may not have encountered individuals with TBI before, and may not be familiar with behavioral manifestations that could be relevant as a defense or as mitigation in individual cases. In this regard, TBI is grossly misunderstood.
marshal to come bring you. that s my whole point here. this isn t a trial. but that s the point. it s not that it s a criminal trial. but in an investigation, though, if there was a legitimate investigation, these are political operatives basically answering questions, asking questions rather. a grand jury is not a trial. and you get subpoenaed to those. you get subpoenaed to come to the office. what i take issue with is cherry-picking portions of the criminal trial process that will suit the narrative for either party as opposed to expanding it to if you re going to have a microcosm of a criminal trial you ve got to bring in other aspects including the idea of having the presumption of innocence and also witnesses to corroborate or undermine. okay. stand by. there s a method to my madness. we re going to go to the historian last to try to make some sense of this. april, do you think democrats dropped the ball in their questioning today when they
reasons to shield oneself from the mission of finding the truth. and i think people are frustrated because today in many ways did not move the needle from what you originally read in her statement or his original unequivocal denial. and why? intention. let me ask you this. if someone is on trial, an eyewitness or whatever and they subpoenaed me, i said i don t want to go to court, i ll just give a statement. and i didn t go. what happened? i m in jail. i d send the federal marshal to come bring you. that s my whole point here. this isn t a trial. but that s the point. it s not that it s a criminal trial. but in an investigation, though, if there was a legitimate investigation, these are political operatives basically answering questions, asking questions rather. a grand jury is not a trial. and you get subpoenaed to those. you get subpoenaed to come to the office. what i take issue with is cherry-picking portions of the criminal trial process that will
hands. that s what discussion is going to be about. tom, you think the knife really matters? everything starts from the arrest for the knife. that s one of the key issues. secondly if those officers are later charged with reckless endangerment if they made a legal arrest and didn t do all of that we do know that he died in custody. for a civil trying there s in question. he s in police custody and died from injury while he was in police custody. it may not be to probecause surgeons tried to save his life and tampered with the crime scene by trying to work on his neck. what do we expect from the arraignment and moving forward? i think the arraignment is going to be pro forma. we re not going to see any fireworks, anything like that. and so that s just going to be really the beginning of the criminal trial process.