Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on Unsplash
Today, a jury voted to acquit Kyle Rittenhouse of all charges in the deaths of two protesters in Kenosha. They deliberated for three days but given comments and actions by Judge Bruce Schroeder prior to deliberation, the ground was laid for an acquittal before the trial even began.
It started when Schroeder made an unprecedented decision to refuse to allow the prosecution to refer to the dead men as victims. This was a startling move, given that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, who were fatally gunned down in the streets of Kenosha, can’t logically be called anything else. The judge might just as well have told the jury they deserved to die.
Schroeder had no trouble allowing the defense to refer to Rosenbaum and Huber as “looters” or “arsonists” though. When called upon to explain this obvious double standard, the Judge said: "Let the evidence show what the evidence shows, and if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that."
The thing is, Rosenbaum and Huber weren’t on trial. There would be no fair and impartial look at evidence to determine their innocence or guilt. The trial was about whether Rittenhouse murdered them—so I guess Judge Schroeder, who made these calls before any evidence was presented, believes looters and arsonists deserve to be killed in the street, without a trial or a jury verdict.
From the moment this trial began, Judge Schroeder behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally. During the first live-streamed moments of the highly anticipated trial, Schroeder was playing Jeopardy! with potential jurors. Two men were dead, another injured, and the judge thought Jeopardy! was an appropriate way to set the stage for the trial.
Schroeder also made a comment about his Asian meal (his focus on lunch was noted by several) saying he hoped it “isn’t on one of those boats in Long Beach harbor.” According to one attorney, Chris Zachar, that wasn’t the only time Schroeder put his foot in his mouth. “It’s the old-school judge who shoots from the hip and doesn’t really think about how this is going to be perceived.” Given the gravity of the case, not really thinking about how his behavior might be perceived seems problematic, at best.
The bias Schroeder brought to the trial was also evident when his cellphone rang, playing “God Bless the U.S.A.” He also allowed video evidence showing police giving Rittenhouse a bottle of water and thanking him for being there. Since when is it okay for police to encourage vigilante justice? The defense argued that the video could be shown at trial because it went to Rittenhouse’s state of mind, but surely it also promoted the idea that the defendant’s presence in Kenosha was a good thing. Even though two dead guys later, it clearly wasn’t. Yet between the Judge’s comments, his behavior, and his inadvertent slips of the tongue, there was no question as to what side he was on.
Despite dismissing one juror for joking about Jacob Blake, the man whose death led to the Kenosha protests, every other action on his part was glaringly favorable to Rittenhouse. He may have cautioned the jury not to consider his opinion, but when he started the process by playing a game with them, he created an environment in which impartiality would be difficult if not impossible to maintain. So, when he made the statement during jury instructions “I’m not gonna mess around with a case of this magnitude,” it was difficult to take him at his word. He was messing around from day one.
The highlight was when he chose to let Rittenhouse select jurors out of a tumbler. According to Judge Schroeder, “It was so he (Rittenhouse) would feel in control.” Has any other judge ever behaved in a manner solely designed to allow the defendant to “feel in control”?
Schroeder defended himself by saying he’s done it for years, but at least one attorney who has tried a case before Judge Schroeder in the past said that was not the case. The clerk, not his client, was the one to pick the jurors.
Finally, as if he’d not already done enough to make his sympathies with Rittenhouse clear, just moments before deliberations began, Schroeder threw out the one charge most likely to stick, a misdemeanor charge for being a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
Whether you believe the men who were killed that day were threatening Rittenhouse or not, there is no question that Rittenhouse was a minor at the time, and he did bring a deadly weapon to the scene. Had he not done so, these two men would be alive today.
The rationale behind this last decision is clear but troubling. According to Wisconsin state law, there is an exception to the prohibition on the possession of dangerous weapons by minors. As long as they’re not short-barreled, it’s okay.
Rittenhouse’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, so he was in the clear.
The law in question was designed to prevent children from possessing pistols and had been amended several times to include short-barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars, and nunchakus--yet the long barrel rifle was not mentioned because it was thought to be a hunting gun. And indeed, it is. When Rittenhouse grabbed his rifle and showed up in Kenosha, he was acting as a vigilante, hunting men who he perceived were a threat.
The end result can best be summed up in the statement made by the family of victim Anthony Huber, “It sends the message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street.”
Or as Kariann Swart, Joseph Rosenbaum’s fiancé said, “In this case, the victim’s lives don’t matter.”