As I pointed out earlier today, CNN’s Chris Cuomo on his Friday night show “Cuomo Prime Time” seems to really have a point in favor of the Wisconsin law that allowed a jury to find Kyle Rittenhouse “not guilty.” self-defense. In a CNN opinion piece, Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor, law professor and CNN legal analyst, wrote that “After the Rittenhouse verdict, it was time to challenge the law,” referring to state open carry laws.
Many of Rodgers’ articles are what you might expect from a left-leaning publication. For example, in one paragraph he claims that Judge Bruce Schroeder “didn’t make it simple for prosecutors” and “appeared to some to betray a pro-Rittenhouse bias,” one example of which is that “wait, he”encouraged Kudos to the defense witness for being a veteran.”
Rodgers doesn’t mention it was Veterans Day, but an article from the New York Times linked to, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs confirms this was the case. Something tells me this is in commemoration of Veterans Day and not bias on the part of the defense witness, especially since Bogel-Burroughs also emphasizes that the witness was the only veteran in the room.
Much of Rodgers’ article explains and laments why the case was so difficult for the prosecution. Ultimately, it turns out that the “law” he refers to is open. He uses the Rittenhouse trial as an excuse to let everyone know what he thinks about gun laws:
Those of us who don’t want to worry about whether people like Kyle Rittenhouse will continue to brandish weapons at public gatherings, thus significantly increasing the danger of violence, should direct our energy towards changing Wisconsin open carry laws.
The public mood after an episode that is perceived as unjust – and there are plenty of people angry that Rittenhouse went free in self-defense when he put himself in that position in the first place – could spark change. For example, in Georgia, after the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, the legislature repealed Art citizen’s arrest law on which Arbery’s alleged killer and his co-defendants base their defense (though the defendants in Arbery’s murder are still able to corroborate it).
If public concern about Rittenhouse’s conduct and outcomes leads to a reexamination of Wisconsin’s gun laws, that will be one positive thing to come out of this tragic episode.
Although Rodgers specifically takes issue with open carry laws here, he also addresses self-defense law:
Trying to balance Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim against the backdrop of two dueling narratives was not an easy task for the jury. It can reasonably be argued that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks on him by openly carrying a weapon in a threatening manner and that he had the opportunity to retreat or otherwise avoid the use of deadly force, even if he defended himself. If the jury found any of these things to be true, they would lose self-defense claim. However, there is also evidence – including critical video recordings of the events in question and Rittenhouse’s own testimony – that at key moments just before pulling the trigger, Rittenhouse acted in response to an imminent threat to his personal safety, because he believed he was in danger.
The laws and applicable legal standards have also created a difficult path for prosecutors trying to obtain a conviction here. Our criminal justice system generally favors the accused because we are guided by the fundamental belief that it is better to free the guilty than to convict the innocent. Thus, in criminal cases, prosecutors bear the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Like many other states, Wisconsin law is favorable to murder defendants claiming he acted in self-defense. When a defendant raises the issue of self-defense, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
This last hyperlink takes readers to a Washington Post article by Fordham Law Professor John Pfaff in a much more useful article:Rittenhouse did not have to prove he acted in self-defense“
As Pfaff emphasizes:
That the burden of proof rests with the state rather than the newborn man wielding the gun may seem surprising to many, but the approach taken by Wisconsin is a mainstream one. Virginia may be the last state to require a defendant to prove he acted in self-defense, after Ohio reformed will pass its law in 2019. State defense statutes often vary widely in their wording – and the differences can make the difference between finding a defendant innocent or guilty – but almost all have in mind shifting the burden of proof to a common prosecution.
Perhaps Rodgers should forward this article to her CNN colleague and law school alum, Chris Cuomo.
Regarding guns in Wisconsin, another CNN article:Here’s what legal experts say helped acquit Kyle Rittenhouse”, mentions the gun culture in Kenosha:
Additionally, attempts to portray Rittenhouse as provocative because he brought an AR-15 firearm fell tiny because of Wisconsin’s gun culture, which is not necessarily always equated with criminal activity, legal experts told CNN.
“You have to remember that you are in a jurisdiction where this is not unusual,” he added. [criminal defense attorney Bob] – said Bianchi.
And as it turns out, Wisconsin is going in a different direction on guns than Rodgers would prefer. As Henry Redman reported for the Wisconsin Examiner last month, Republicans in the state legislature have advanced Senate Bill 619, which would allow legal gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
