Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, were killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, was wounded. Rittenhouse was charged with five felonies: first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety.
These were the factors experts said helped rule to Rittenhouse’s acquittal.
Rittenhouse’s testimony was meaningful
“If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people,” he testified.
Rittenhouse referred to the other people he shot at as part of a “mob” chasing him, telling the court Huber came at him, hit him with a skateboard, and grabbed his gun. Rittenhouse shot him once in the chest, killing him. Finally, he said he saw Grosskreutz lunge at him and point a pistol at his head, so Rittenhouse shot him, he testified.
Defense attorney Mark Richards told reporters Friday in his mind, ‘it wasn’t a close call’ whether to put Rittenhouse on the stand.
“We had a mock jury and we did two different juries, one with him testifying and one without him testifying. It was significantly better when he testified… and that sealed it,” Richards said. “If you don’t put a client on the stand, you’re going to lose, period.”
His testimony was meaningful for several reasons, according to legal experts.
“Number one, you humanize him… More important, number two, he explained his uses of force,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said.
Rittenhouse’s testimony gave jurors the ability to hear what he thought at the time and whether he believed he was in danger — a claim the prosecution, ultimately failed to undermine, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig said.
“They (prosecutors) pointed out some sort of minor inconsistencies and things he said on the night of, and said later, but nothing that undermines sort of the chief defense argument, which was, he was attacked,” Honig told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Friday. “Every time he shot, he was attacked.”
“The prosecution did not make enough of a dent in Kyle Rittenhouse,” Honig additional.
State did not prove Rittenhouse provoked violence
What the trial came down to, according to civil rights attorney Charles F. Coleman Jr. were two competing narratives: one of Rittenhouse being a victim who was attacked, and one of being a vigilante who provoked the violence.
“The jury bought the narrative of Kyle Rittenhouse being a victim, they thought that his self-defense claim was a lot stronger than the prosecution’s provocation claim,” he said.
And it was an uphill battle to climb from the start, because of the facts in this case, experts said.
“(Prosecutors) weren’t able to show that his response to each of these men, to each of these sets of threats was unreasonable,” criminal defense attorney Sara Azari told CNN’s Pamela Brown.
“When the jury came back a associate days ago and watched the videos… frame by frame, they were looking to see whether Kyle did something to provoke the threat and whether his response to that threat was reasonable in terms of using deadly force and they agreed with the defense that it was,” Azari additional.
“The prosecution … has to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to all 12 jurors. How do you do that when you saw no real provocation going on?” Bianchi said. “There wasn’t a real trial lawyer … that didn’t sit here and say this is an amazingly good self-defense case.”
Prosecutors also took missteps
There were mistakes the state made in addition, including overselling the case by trying to paint Rittenhouse as an active shooter, Honig, the former federal prosecutor, said.
In his closing arguments earlier this week, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said Rittenhouse behaved in a way no reasonable person would, provoked the incident, fired his gun recklessly, lied numerous times and as a consequence, the crowd had a right “to try and stop an active shooter.”
“Trying to brand Kyle Rittenhouse as an active shooter did not stand up and the defense came back and showed, here he is walking by the streets, he’s not shooting indiscriminately, that’s what an active shooter does, he’s only shooting people who have attacked him first,” Honig said.
Rittenhouse’s defense attorney also pointed to the prosecution’s active shooter argument during his news conference, saying, “justice is done when the truth is reached.”
“A prosecutor is supposed to seek the truth,” Richards additional.
In addition, trying to paint Rittenhouse as provocative because he brought an AR-15 firearm did not work because of the culture of guns in Wisconsin, which aren’t necessarily always equated with criminal activity, legal experts told CNN.
‘You’ve got to remember you’re in a jurisdiction where this is not an uncommon thing,” Bianchi said.
“That is an absolute amateur move by the prosecutors,” Honig said.
Jury instructions were consequential, expert says
Finally, the jury instructions also helped rule to Rittenhouse’s acquittal, CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates said.
Coates said the instructions said jurors had to look at the case by the eyes of then 17-year-old Rittenhouse, not in hindsight, and estimate the reasonableness of his actions.
“The jury instructions were really centered around that term ‘reasonable.’ Defining the information ‘reasonable.’ And the jury instructions required this jury to look by the lens and perspective of Kyle Rittenhouse. Not Monday morning quarterback, not the jurors, or the court of public opinion in hindsight,” Coates said. “What would he reasonably and what did he reasonably believe about the possibility of a lethal threat or harm and grave bodily harm?”
That, in combination with having to disprove Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim and show he provoked the violence during the disorganized night, meant the”deck was stacked against” prosecutors, Coates said.
“With all that combined, it’s not surprising that an acquittal happened, but it came down really to that jury instruction about looking by the eyes of Kyle Rittenhouse,” Coates said.
Click: See details