This is what day number three uh. Do you remember how long it took to uh deliberate for o.j simpson? No guess what do you think it was? Was it a long time short time? Let me think back to that time. I mean this trial went on forever eight months, maybe it wasnt that long i mean the trial seemed to go on forever, but maybe it wasnt that long they were the jury deliberated for four hours for wow really hours. Eight months four hour deliberation: this is going on three days now there has been a call for a mistrial now, and i because i was wrapped up in the special yesterday. I i dont really understand whats going on its about revolving around a a video, but we thought we would get uh nikrikata back on hes the host of the podcast for catala, and you can find that on youtube. He has been watching this uh along with his panel the whole time um. Can you can you bring me up to speed nick what whats going on yeah glenn uh? First, thanks for having me back on really appreciate it um. What whats been going on is ill categorize it this way what i would consider a miscarriage of justice by the state attorneys in uh in kenosha, wisconsin, attorneys, binger and krause have been frankly uh. It appears violating kyle rittenhouses constitutional rights from from jump, um and and the particular motions for mistrial there.

There are actually two outstanding motions for mistrial. One of them is with prejudice and thats based on these constitutional violations. The other one is for a motion for mistrial. Without prejudice that was raised orally by corey sheriffici yesterday, and they both kind of revolve around this drone footage. The drone footage was a surprise, a piece of surprise evidence that was introduced on friday after the trial had started so wed already been going. For you know four or five days, they get this piece of drone footage and it has become the linchpin of the case for the state saying that kyle rittenhouse raised his gun at joshua zaminski and that that constitutes provocation which would defeat or impair his self defense Claim so the problem is this footage which came in and uh? Now we have allegations – and they appear to be true – that the state provided a lower resolution copy of this drone footage to the defense when they did their discovery. Disclosures and so the defense is operating on less information in preparing their case and they only got the full res version. After uh, the the introduction of evidence was done and they were arguing over jury instructions, okay, so so hold on just a second. So the jury saw this in 4k and the defense never had seen it in 4k and what go ahead? Oh sorry, technically they saw it in 844 p resolution uh and the defense had a 212 p resolution copy.

So uh. You know, like the resolution of a 1998 cell phone screen, so wait a minute. So what did they not see in that copy? With such low resolution? Uh the what they which you cant, see from the low res or the high res copy, in my opinion, is kyle rittenhouse, raising his gun um, but the the the state says from the high res copy, which they then had the forensic crime lab, enhance, uh and Enlarge images from they say you can see. Kyle rittenhouse raise his gun, which would be that provocation uh, which would lead to the defeat of the self defense claim. But when the defense, if you look at it uh at you know one i think its 1 16. The resolution is what were talking about here. You cant see anything but tiny, little blobs and its important to realize that where kyle rittenhouse is in the video on the defenses video hes, probably only 10 or 11 pixels high, i mean its its a tiny fraction of the screen because hes very far away from Where the drone is at the time they allege, he raised his gun. Okay, so the judge is allowing the drone footage to be reviewed by the jury uh in the jury, room um. They they had to come down to the courtroom. For that. For that specific piece, the rest of the footage uh, they have been allowed to uh that theyve requested. So far, they have been allowed to review in the jury room on on a sanitized laptop uh that that only has basically a media player and the uh.

The files that theyre looking to review, but the the drone footage they cleared out the courtroom they shut down, all the technology that was in there. They had bayless check all of the uh all of the benches and make sure no one like left a phone recording or whatever and the jury came in and everybody, but the jury and one bailiff were were cleared out so that they could review that footage. On a large screen tv, why did they have to go down just because of the large screen tv, its technically wisconsin law? And this is the interesting thing theres a large argument over whether or not the jury could have the video, the unfettered access to the videos. Yesterday there was also a previous argument in which the state said that allowing them unfettered access to videos, the state agreed – would be reversible error, but then they changed their tune because they they really want this. This drone video to be reviewed now the judge does not agree with that law and hes inclined to uh, allow them to have unfettered access, but hes been playing pretty careful in this case uh, and so i guess thats why he allowed the the drone footage to Be reviewed, but only in the courtroom, whereas the other footage is not and then theres a theres, a legal dispute over where that is the case law isnt fully clear, but they had agreed a couple days before now: theyre changing their tune.

So will the case? Do you think be dismissed is this? Is this headed for a mistrial? It glenn, it really should be, and one of the frustrations ive had – and this is a personal opinion, um and and several of the members on my panel have have uh carried this same opinion, but i dont i dont speak for everybody, of course, but i i Feel, like the defense is not pushing hard enough on this issue. Weve seen a level of passivity uh from the defense on this, where it seems like the judge is ready to grant a mistrial either with or without prejudice. It kind of depends on the arguments that follow, but he it almost feels like hes waiting for the defense to just push it. You know push over the edge uh the question: they keep raising the question and then the state will kind of filibuster and talk and talk and talk and and if, if any of your listeners out there want a really fascinating uh approach to bs, you can go. Listen to the uh assistant district attorney krauss give his explanation for how they sent a compressed video uh and they kept the full video yesterday it was. It was phenomenal uh. It reminded me of the scene in chicago, given the razzle dazzle, wow um. It feels like the judge is just waiting for the defense to stand up and advocate for their client, saying no judge. This needs to happen.

Our client has been prejudiced and this is irreparable, at least in this case, but we would say forever. Why do you say why do you think theyre not doing this? I dont know uh. My best guess, and my most deferential guess is that they have taken an approach that mark richards laid out uh the other day that said, judge weve had nothing to hide. Weve disclosed everything and – and they have they have not been objecting to the introduction of evidence. Uh theyve been allowing everything to come out. In fact they put kyle on the stand, um, which was uh. You know a controversial decision in a criminal defense case, so they they have taken. The approach of we have nothing to hide and theyve made compelling arguments to the jury about that, but i i feel like its part of their grand strategy to kind of let this play out. I think they think the judge really wants this to be decided by the jury um. I think he does um. What is it that theyre asking for? Besides this footage, do you have any indication i mean my gut? Tells me uh that theres just a couple of holdouts that will just not will not compromise and theyre like nope guilty uh and because it seems like such an open and shut case. What theyve been asking for? What does it tell you um? Well, the i. I think i agree with you, i think thats.

What it would tells me as well is the it seems like there are largely people who who would say not guilty and a couple. A couple holdouts and weve had some unconfirmed sort of reports coming in um about uh, about two to three people who have raised concerns and, and it seems like uh there may be those people just just hanging on and thats your right as a juror. To do. No one can force you to vote one way or another, but with those holdouts the the question is: are they requesting the videos, as like a delay, tactic uh to try and convince somebody else or reinforce their their position, that theyre not going to change, or is It the big group of people trying to convince a small group, and we dont really know at first – they didnt ask specifically for the drone footage. But then you know later that day they did, and this is the problem with the drone footage and why i think the judge needs to resolve this via mistrial is because even the doubt that they had and the delay that they had in providing that drone footage. It makes the jury ask questions well, why do they need to talk about it right? This is in evidence. We watched it. Why do they need to talk about this drone footage to me? The entire thing needs to be either mistrial without prejudice and redone or mistrial and and canceled forever, which is what i would prefer.

What do you? What do you mean that they would ask? Why did they have to talk about this? What what questions would that bring up? Well, so the jury sends a request to the court to review a particular piece of evidence and when they there was a significant delay between that request happening and the uh. You know the judge had to have a conversation with the attorneys about whether or not uh. This drone footage was going to be shown to the jury and and so to me. If i ask a question early in the day and i get a response quickly or if i ask a question later in the day – and it takes me, you know two hours to get a response, whats the difference. What has happened? Why am i going down to a courtroom for this video but im stuck? I see other videos brought to me in the deliberation. What do you think that who does that play towards the defense or the prosecution that that i cant know just because the you know i dont know the actual minds of the jury, but it it just says to me: no matter where they are a juror is Going to ask extra questions about this evidence and with the drone footage, i think the evidence in the drone footage itself is prejudicial in the way its in the way it was brought to the court in the way it was argued in front of the court um.

They, you know, theyre going to be looking at this footage more and more and theres that idea that if you keep seeing the same thing, looking for something youll eventually find it nick roccata from uh riketa law, you can find that on slash raketa law. Thank you so much nick. I appreciate it. I really appreciate it glenn. Thank you. God bless you well talk soon.