Guest Commentary | Rittenhouse: Sometimes, big cases expose bad law - Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette
The frenzy over the shootings and killings by Kyle Rittenhouse in summer 2020 in Kenosha, Wis., has only intensified after his acquittal by a Wisconsin jury.
A recent News-Gazette column, in part, blamed the media for fanning the flames with coverage that included inaccurate factual predictions of the evidence that was to be presented at trial.
Having been involved in the defense of many controversial cases over a career, I know that the facts do count, but so does the law. The recent column unfortunately missed the law point.
I think that understanding Wisconsin criminal law on the justified use of deadly force will help readers understand that the Rittenhouse verdict was far from an aberration, as many critics have opined.
In general, the law provides that a person is justified in using deadly force only to the extent he is responding in a reasonable way to force that threatens death or great bodily harm. In simpler language, the force used must meet the threatened force.
However, when the jury receives instructions from the presiding judge in a criminal case, this statement of law and the prosecution’s burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) can make all the difference.
In Wisconsin, to convict Rittenhouse of first-degree (intentional) murder, the prosecution had to prove a negative proposition to the jury, by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant did not actually believe that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
Given Rittenhouse’s tearful testimony about the undisputed threats he saw and felt, it is understandable that the jury felt this issue was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
One must contrast Wisconsin law with Illinois law in a first-degree-murder case where the defendant claims the deadly force he used was justified.
In Illinois, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he believed deadly force was needed and that his belief was reasonable. The “burden of proof” nuance is compelling in showing that Illinois and Wisconsin law differ substantially.
Most of all, however, outside observers must remember that jurors decide cases on the facts presented in court and on the law that the judge gives them. Cases are not decided on media reports or politicians’ spin.
Based on the law and facts, the Rittenhouse verdict was not a surprise. That does not mean he could not face civil liability (just like O.J. Simpson), or that as a society, we need to accept vigilante actions. But big cases sometimes mean that bad law needs to change. Illinois changed its criminal law on justified use of force. Perhaps Wisconsin should do the same.
source: https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/guest-commentary-rittenhouse-sometimes-big-cases-expose-bad-law/article_1d357dfd-6463-53a5-b2b8-a9c9bff8d613.html
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.