NewYou can listen to LBL articles now!
Following the Rittenhouse ruling, statistics on both sides of the case continue to threaten new records and investigations.
The case is likely to move into a new phase of litigation, especially civil litigation. However, advocates for both sides may overstate Rittenhouse 2.0. These lawsuits can come with risks and substantial costs. This is why Voltaire once lamented that “I was never destroyed but twice: once when I lost the suit and once I won.”
The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict makes sense if you ignore biased trial coverage on MSNBC, LOVEBYLIFE
Here’s how things can go:
Rittenhouse as future defendant
Federal action by the Department of Justice
After the verdict, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called for the Justice Department to investigate.A miscarriage of justice.“Others have called for a federal civil rights case against Rittenhouse.
The Department of Justice does not have an office for trial of “miscarriages of justice” due to wrongful jury decisions.
Rittenhouse was acquitted on state charges by a state jury. Furthermore, while some have called for lowering self-defense protections, referees have applied the law as found in current books. It does not allow us to ignore the law to find our own criminal justice rules.
At the Kenosha trial, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts
The Rittenhouse jury faithfully applied Wisconsin law and came to a well-established verdict of acquittal. Investigating jury decisions because you disagree with their decisions is a dangerous precedent.
There is also no clear basis for civil rights hearings. Rittenhouse has hit white and three white men. He has not been charged with hate crime. Moreover, they are not members of law enforcement or government agency, so they have not deprived anyone of their civil rights under federal law.
Rittenhouse will face lawsuits from the families of the deceased or from Guyj Grosskrutz, who survived being shot in the arm. It includes wrongful death proceedings, such as a lawsuit against OJ Simpson after he was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. However, he was found guilty in a tarts lawsuit brought by the Goldman family and ordered to pay $ 33.5 million. The damage then went up to $ 58 million.
The danger of such tarts actions is that they continue under low quality evidence. Instead of placing the standard “beyond reasonable doubt” in the prosecution, plaintiffs are required to prove responsibility by “substantiating the evidence.” However, this is not a promise of guilt.
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Team’s Famous Jury Consultant Past Clients OJ Simpson, Kobe Bryant
All three attacked or threatened Rittenhouse before using his weapon. The common law not only protects self-defense but also protects against wrongful self-defense, where a person may mistakenly (but reasonably) feel that he has been assaulted.
When attacked, Rittenhouse is empowered under common law to use force. While Wisconsin does not have a “stand your ground” law, The Common law has always recognized such right And there was no need to repel a person before using force.
There is a high chance of both sides accepting the evidence in civil cases. That could further complicate the recovery of any of these plaintiffs.
Finally, Wisconsin is a “modified comparative negligence” state. Accordingly, any plaintiff (or his estate) is restricted if he has a 51 percent or greater wrongdoing.
Rittenhouse as a future plaintiff
Rittenhouse does not have the right to wrongful arrest or prosecution given the reasonable disagreement of casualties in the case and the need to use lethal force.
Question about whether Biden Ducks will stop Kyle Rittenhouse from calling him a white supremacist
However, many commentators have suggested that defamation lawsuits have been filed against President Joe Biden, and many in the media have called him a “white man”, a “domestic terrorist” and a “murderer.”
There is no question that Rittenhouse is subject to false and harmful claims in the media. In fact, many who are watching the trial are amazed by the sharp disconnect between what they see on the case in the media and what they present in court.
However, such defamation cases are notoriously difficult to win, and the prevailing likelihood of these characteristics of prejudice or crime is against Rittenhouse.
Given the notoriety of the case and his public defense, Rittenhouse is likely to be considered a limited public figure or public figure.
The Supreme Court held that the status of a public person applies when someone is “pressed”[s] Into a vortex called itself [the] Public problem [and] Get involved[s] The focus of the public in an effort to influence its outcome. ”
Limited-purpose public person status applies if someone voluntarily “draws.”[s] Paying attention to himself or allowing him to be part of a controversy “allows for public debate to be a fulcrum.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 US 157, 168 (1979).
If the court finds such a condition, they can be found in New York Times v. Are subject to high quality proof under Sullivan. It is precisely the environment in which the opinion is written and the type of plaintiff that he intended to prevent the opinion from being accurate.
The Supreme Court has ruled that tort law cannot be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or free media. The court now sought to create a “breathing space” for the media by expressing the criteria that apply to public officials and public figures.
Moreover, courts are more protective of “opinion” statements. When people call Rittenhouse a murderer, he is allowed to reach a different conclusion from the jury or to characterize his actions as racist based on the underlying protests. It does not mean that they are right or fair. There is no evidence that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. The courts, however, offer a broader opportunity for freedom of speech in such public disputes.
Many refer to the case of Nicholas Sandman, a former high school student who has been widely and unfairly accused of abusing Native Americans at a life event at Lincoln Memorial.
Click here to get the Opinion Newsletter
Reporters falsely accused him of wearing a MAGA hat and calling it racist and starting a clash.
He sued and settled with some media outlets. However, the courts rejected their claims on the grounds that they were labeled racist. He prevailed over claims that he “blocked” the activist at the incident site.
In Sandman’s case there may be more specific falsehoods but the characteristics of his motivations or beliefs are very challenging to litigate.
Finally, there is the possibility of litigation over who will receive the $ 2 million bond posted on Kyle Rittenhouse. Now after he is acquitted, the bond usually goes to the defendant. However, her former lawyer Lynn Wood and her firm, the Fightback Foundation, have claimed the money.
In a letter sent to Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder, Kenosha lawyer Xavier Solis wrote that the money should be returned to Fightback:
“The money has been transferred from the Fightback Foundation to the trust account of the Pierce Bainbridge Law Firm and paid by attorney John Pierce on behalf of the Fightback Foundation and as an agent.
Accordingly, $ 2 million will be returned to the Fightback Foundation, if such money is released in accordance with Wisconsin law, and in accordance with court rulings, the money will be returned to the person or entity who posted the cash bail. “
This presents a novel question. The court accepted the money on behalf of Rittenhouse. The family claims their mother collects fairly in bail money. If Rittenhouse expressly acknowledges that this is a loan that must be returned to the Foundation, this may result in a contract dispute. If not, the court can return the money to Rittenhouse and the lawyer can sue the family for deferring the arrears.
It is clear that the Rittenhouse case (as in the Simpson and Sandman cases) continues for years. In fact, Sandman is still awaiting trial for some of his libel claims.
This is why Thomas Edison once criticized the “lawsuit as a suicide of the time.”
This column is adapted from a post on the author’s blog: Jonathan Turley / Res Ipsa Loquiter – The thing speaks for itself.