a jury of his peers found kyle rittenhouse not guilty on all counts. rittenhouse collapsed in the kenosha, wisconsin courtroom as the final not guilty verdict was read. rittenhouse himself took the stand in his own defense, a risky move that approved successful for the defense. in and out conversation will turn to what's going to happen next. what affect will this case have on things like vigilanteism and self-defense arguments? not to mention what happens immediately in the city of kenosha. joining me from the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster. former federal prosecutor paul butler. nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. and former assistant district attorney in milwaukee county, julius kim. shaq, what is it like in kenosha right now?

>> katy, when that verdict was read we saw a large group of people on the courthouse steps. this was something highly anticipated especially as the jury got into day four of deliberations. but then someone came out of the courthouse, told the crowd the news, and you heard the divide that's reflected not just here in kenosha but all across the country. some people cheered, saying the second amendment prevailed. self-defense was a principle they were defending. and some people were upset by this including the uncle of jacob blake, who was the man shot by a kenosha police officer last august that led to the conditions for the kyle rittenhouse shooting that was being litigated today in the courthouse. i want to bring in reverend dr. monica cummings here, because she was on the courthouse steps as the verdict was being read. you are someone who has been praying over over the trial, over the deliberations. you've been paying close

attention to this since last august. what was your reaction to the verdict? >> my reaction was sadness, heartbreak, and unfortunately, not surprised. knowing the history of vigilante justice in this country, all the way back to times of enslavement, when people would be deputized to go out and track down enslaved persons who ran away, to lynching mobs. and this is 2021, and unfortunately, heartbreak, sadness, but i wasn't surprised. >> this community has gone through a lot since last august. i mentioned you have been with a group of leaders of the church who have been praying over deliberations. some of the concerns i've heard is this exact instance, that if there was an acquittal, the potential for violence. what are you thinking right now based on what you're feeling here? do you still fear that? >> what i can say and speak to

is that all the organizations here in kenosha have all called for peace in the streets, every last one of them. we cannot control outside agitators who come into our community, who want to create conflict and provoke folks. but all the leaders here in kenosha have called for peace in the streets. my hope is that people will leave us alone so we can heal. we've been at this now for 15 months, since jake was shot in the back. and we really haven't had the opportunity to really exhale and take a nice deep breath. and as a community, heal from this. and so my prayer is that tonight will be peaceful, tomorrow night will be peaceful. so leaders in kenosha, we can sit down and process what we've been -- what we've experienced, and then look to the future, like where do we go from here, what do we need to do to help

rebuild our community and to bring healing to the community. >> i mentioned that mix of celebrations and frustration on the courthouse steps after the verdict came. part of the frustration is the message that this acquittal sends to other. you say the fight is not over, but what message do you think is sent by this verdict? >> you mentioned the second amendment prevailed. but the first amendment is an amendment for a reason. the right to peacefully assemble. i was here, there were armed men with military style weapons in this very park, next to a school, and the police did nothing. they did absolutely nothing. and my question to them was, why would you have a military style weapon at a peaceful protest? and so my concern is my first amendment right to peacefully protest without fear, without being intimidated by armed men with military style weapons

showing up and now knowing that all they have to do is say, hey, i felt fear or i felt my life was in danger and they can shoot people. and i'm going to tell the media, you know, you could be in the crosshairs as well, with all the rhetoric about media, you being the enemy of the state and so forth and so on. your microphone could be mistaken for a weapon. >> reverend, thank you for speaking so candidly and coming from the courthouse steps. we wish the best for you in this community. thank you again. katy, i also want to read a statement from the family of mr. huber who was one of those killed in this shooting. it was a heartbreaking statement that they had to deal with. and, you know, we saw the families of the victims in this shooting inside the courtroom. you saw kyle rittenhouse, he expressed that relief, he collapsed after the verdict was read. you saw the family of the two men who were killed break down and become extremely emotional. and part of that statement that

we saw from the family of anthony huber, they are saying we are heartbroken and angry that kyle rittenhouse was acquitted in his criminal trial for the murder of our son anthony huber. there was no justice today for anthony, or for mr. rittenhouse's other victims, joseph rosenbaum and gaige grosskreutz. and they go on to say, we watched the trial closely, hoping it would bring us closure. and they say, that did not happen today. katy, again, you might hear the helicopters overhead. there are people here, both celebrating and people who are frustrated by this. of course this was a highly anticipated verdict. there are about five schools in the area, already went to virtual learning in anticipation of this. we know the national guard has been on standby outside of kenosha. the last we heard from the county sheriff is they feel they have things under control. a members of the religious

leadership told me the difference between august and now is they're better prepared, they're organized, everyone is calling for peace. as far as we see here outside the courthouse, that peace is prevailing at this point, katy. >> shaq, a very interesting interview you were just having with the reverend there. i want to get to some of the points she was making. first i want to read a little bit more from the statement from anthony huber's family. and i'm curious about this in particular. they say, make no mistake, our fight to hold those responsible for anthony's death accountable continues in full force. neither mr. rittenhouse nor the police who authorized his bloody rampage will escape justice. anthony will have his day in court. paul butler, what does the family mean by "anthony will have his day in court"? what recourse do they have now? >> there are civil recourses including lawsuits to try to compensate the damage that mr. rittenhouse caused.

in terms of our criminal resource, it's game over. the not guilty verdict means that the jurors believed that mr. rittenhouse's use of force was justified, that he reasonably believed that he faced a deadly threat from each of the three people he shot. the verdict also means that the jurors found that mr. rittenhouse was not the aggressor. he did not provoke any of this. but katy, in the eyes of the law, mr. rittenhouse was a victim. >> i know there's no double jeopardy in this country, paul, but is it possible for this case to go federal? could a federal prosecutor pick this up? >> it's possible. but typically we see those in civil rights cases, and this isn't a civil rights case. the truth is this is a tough case for prosecutors because some of the state's own witnesses testified in favor --

or their testimony advanced the government's case. one witness testified that the first person who rittenhouse shot, a man named rosenbaum, tried to grab rittenhouse's gun. another witness said mr. rittenhouse shot a second person who was attacking him with a skateboard and a third person who he shot was pointing a gun at him. this will be a difficult case whether the prosecution is state or federal. >> julius, you are in wisconsin. you understand how wisconsin juries work, how the courtrooms work out there, and the reaction. in looking at what the reverend was just telling shaquille brewster there, the concern she had for protests in the future and the safety of peaceful protesters if somebody comes with a gun and says they do feel threatened, the precedent that she believes this case sets, what is your opinion on that? what's your expectation on that going forward? >> it's definitely something to be concerned about at this point

in time, because people tend to think in broad terms, they tend to paint in broad brushes. if the message that people get out of this is that it's a good idea to come in the middle of civil unrest or protests with a long gun, that's not the right message, and that shouldn't be the message that came out of this trial. this case was very fact-specific. the bottom line is, is that kyle rittenhouse and other people came down to the kenosha area with long guns, with ar-15s, thinking they were helping people. and their help was really not that wanted by the rest of the community. i understand that they said they were trying to protect this car lot. but this car lot already had all the cars in it destroyed. and you could see as the testimony was coming in how ironically their presence was making things worse for the situation. so i think there is a real concern here that people are going to get the wrong message, that they can come down to these protests with long guns and it's a good idea because the law will

protect them. i think that's a mistake, because this case was very fact-specific in terms of why kyle rittenhouse was ultimately acquitted in this case. there were a lot of witness problems for the state in this case as well. this was a tough case for the state to make, because we had what we call bad facts, in terms of the state's case, how kyle rittenhouse was attacked, he was chased, and was approached by someone who had a handgun in his hands. all of us can see and not be terribly surprised by the verdicts now in front of us. but i am concerned that the wrong message has been sent to other people in the community. >> you know, on that point, did it surprise you that the verdict the jury came to was not guilty on every single count, julius? >> it didn't. i'm not sure, in talking to people, that i ever heard someone say they were absolutely certain what happened here. there was a lot of gray in this case. even the drone video where kyle

rittenhouse supposedly pointed his gun at the zaminskys, provoking the attack by joseph rosenbaum, it was fuzzy, it wasn't clear. this isn't an even playing field where it's 50/50. this is a situation where the state has the burden of proof. they have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. when i put that in layman's terms, i would say it's maybe 95% convinced. the question is was the jury 95% convinced that kyle rittenhouse provoked the attack by joseph rosenbaum? well, i'm not sure all of us can say that that video that there was so much talk about, and how hard it was to zoom in, that it was so clear to everyone. so it doesn't surprise me that this jury came back with a not guilty verdict because if they're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdicts must go in the defendant's favor. >> shaq, i hear you have some more color from inside the courtroom, what the jury did as the verdict was being read.

>> yeah, of course, because we didn't see their reaction, we didn't see what they were doing as the verdicts were being read, and how that verdict was handed over to the judge. this is from the latest pool report, the last pool report we expect to get from inside that courtroom. it says the jury forewoman in a jean jacket, wearing a face mask, handed the verdicts to a court official who passed them to the judge for review. some jurors looked fatigued in the jury box as the verdicts were read, some with their hands on their chins or rubbing their eyes. others appeared ill at ease, shifting in their chairs or fold their arms across their chests. remember, that jury was away for four days, going through and deliberating. they spent a lot of time, they asked for video evidence at one point. last night we know at least one juror asked to bring back those jury instructions that went on for about 36 pages. so they had a lot of material to go through. we know from when we showed the

trial, how graphic some of those images and some of those videos were. this was definitely, it appears from this pool report, and the appearance of the jury as they reached their verdict, this was definitely an emotionally trying event for them as they ultimately acquitted kyle rittenhouse. >> a high stress event for them, given the national attention around it, and the tension that this country is currently feeling. danny, let's talk about the burden here, because the burden in wisconsin for the prosecution was extremely high. what did they have to do? >> this is the way it is in several jurisdiction although it varies from state to state. the prosecution not only had to prove each and every element of each crime, but in wisconsin, once the defendant raises some element of self-defense, the prosecution still has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove self-defense. they can do that in several ways. they can prove the attack isn't imminent. they can prove that the

defendant used more force than necessary. but late in the game, the prosecution scored a major victory that had some people like me thinking they could pull this out, that's when they got the provocation instruction. if the prosecution can prove that kyle rittenhouse provoked the confrontations. the prosecution would argue that he did not reacquire the right to use self-defense. but the challenge here, again, was that burden. it always rested with the prosecution. now, a lot of folks, i heard a lot of folks say, look, even today, kyle rittenhouse went there with a long gun, he was walking around. a lot of folks found that provoking. i agree. and i also agree kyle rittenhouse probably shouldn't have been -- not probably. should not have been walking around in kenosha that night

with a long gun. but that is legally irrelevant to what provocation is. provocation is a very specific definition under wisconsin law. and you may think -- you can believe two things at the same time. you can believe kyle rittenhouse walking around with a gun was provoking to other people but conclude that it was not legal provocation. >> so the prosecution, at one point, when they were pressing kyle rittenhouse during the cross-examination, they said to him, yes, you felt your life was threatened, you say you felt your life was threatened, but when you're pointing a gun at somebody else, isn't that person feeling that their life is being threatened right now? it seems from watching it, such a complicated issue to try and parse out. who was feeling more threatened in the moment, and who has the right to act on the basis of self-defense? >> katy, you just honed in on the central and actually a very

simple issue in this case. the case in its entirety came down to a split second, answering a question for the jury. do you believe or do you not believe that in that grainy pixelated photograph, that kyle rittenhouse may have pointed his firearm at someone else, or do you believe it, not even on the photograph, just based on whatever evidence the prosecution introduced? if your answer is, eh, i'm not sure, then that's not beyond a reasonable doubt. i suspect, although we'll never know, probably, that if the jury seized on that issue, that was the provocation issue. if they were addressing the provocation issue and came to that moment and said he might have been, but i don't know for sure, then that is a not guilty. that is an acquittal because the burden rests always with the prosecution, never with the defendant. >> julius, i want to get your take on that as well. >> okay. >> julius, are you still there? >> i am, i'm still here. >> can i get your take on that question as well? >> well, i agree that the burden

of proof lies with the state. and that was the biggest issue in this particular situation. you know, i wish danny was making the closing arguments, quite honestly, in this case because he really spelled out this issue of provocation for everyone very, very well. the bottom line is that the jury can believe 80%, maybe even 90%, that kyle rittenhouse provoked the situation, the attack on him, yet still be found not guilty because the state has the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that's what happened here, is ultimately the jurors may have reluctantly voted not guilty because there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. >> paul, what are your thoughts? >> trials are poor instruments for social change or social transformation. at the same time, verdicts do mean something. this case happened during the

back lives matter protest over the police shooting of an african-american man. there were a number of counterprotesters. the scene was violent at times, and chaotic. as the prosecutor said in his closing argument, the only person who killed anyone was kyle rittenhouse. we know that armed civilians are now part of the american political landscape. what some may take from this verdict is that vigilante justice prevailed. and that's a serious public safety concern. >> i want to go back to that moment in time in the summer, when all of this stuff was bubbling over, and just draw a really fine line between the protests that we would see during the day, the largely peaceful protests that we would see during the day, where thousands of people, sometimes more, were marching for equality and for black rights, for not being treated differently by police officers, not being

treated like you are a criminal if you have a certain skin color. and then what happened at night in some of these protests, at night when different people came into the picture, different provocateurs came into the picture, that the people that were not out there during the day peacefully protesting. shaq, i know you were there for so many of these protests. can you just help me draw the line here, so we are very clear about who was out there that night, in comparison, in contrast to who was out during the day? >> yeah, the great point you make, katy, because it's a pattern that you see that existed not just here in kenosha. it existed in minneapolis, it existed in louisville, kentucky. whenever you have these situations, yes, there are the protesters that come out during the daylight. they're usually led by members of the clergy sometimes, they're the more organized groups that come out and they have the

organized protests with their signs, you have them exercising that first amendment right. usually you see the crowd shift over the course of the evening. as it goes into the evening hours, into the night, sometimes the crowd gets younger. sometimes you have people coming out dressed differently. sometimes in all back. sometimes you see the military rifles come out. and it just leads to that clash, it leads to that mix of potentially dangerous, in this case it was dangerous, potentially dangerous mix of people. that night specifically that we're talking about that was litigated with the trial of kyle rittenhouse, was one where you had the daytime protests. they turned to evening clashes with police. it was here in this actual park in front of the courthouse, there was actual fencing that was up. and behind the fence were members of the national guard and police in riot gear. there were clashes happening in this park, and police ended up

clearing the park. and they went up and protesters kind of scattered about. you had people go off, who went home, they said, that's enough, after the tear gas and flashbangs. they did scatter to different areas. that's what you saw in the involve the shooting, where it was a crowded group of people, but you had a significant amount of people still lingering in some cases, some people who say they were there protecting businesses. it led to that clash that eventually became deadly. you always have that transition of people, where it goes from the large groups of people during the day, and it shifts to some evening confrontations with the police. and once things kind of get out of control, once things go on side streets and in other areas, it leads to those more risky confrontations. and in this case it resulted in the lives of two people. >> i want to talk about the judge, julius. i've got two questions on the judge. number one, he dropped a couple of the counts, a couple of the

charges before it went to the jury. he dropped dangerous possession by a person under 18 and he dropped failure to comply with a percentage order from state or local government. how is it that a judge in a wisconsin courtroom is able to do that? >> he did it because -- quite honestly, i think he was right in making those judgment calls. but after the state's case is presented, the defense can make a motion asking that the case be dismissed, saying no reasonable jury based upon what they've heard so far can come to a guilty verdict. with regard to the curfew violation, the state neglected to put in the time of the curfew, apparently, and it never made it in the record. it happens sometimes in trials. it was what amounted to a citation, municipal citation. so it wasn't that big of a charge to have been dismissed. but later on, the judge did do something that was a little unusual, that is he dismissed the possession of a dangerous weapon by a child count, midstream, at the jury instruction phase.

this was an issue that the defense had briefed and argued about for months before the trial, saying that there was an exception in the statute that applied where a 17-year-old could in fact possess a long gun, as long as it wasn't a short shotgun but could possess a long gun on the streets. it was briefed, it was argued, the judge ultimately denied the defense's motion to dismiss the count but then suddenly decides the argument has merit and decides to dismiss the count. he changed his decision midstream here. but it was a misdemeanor count, it was really the least of kyle rittenhouse's problems. from a legal standpoint he was justified in doing it, a lot of people in the legal community can see why he dismissed those counts. >> the judge had some high tension clashes with the prosecution at a few key moments during this case. >> judge schroeder is the oldest

serving judge in the state of wisconsin. he does things his own way. we can't get caught up in the quirks of a judge as a person and we have to look at their legal decisionmaking. people were surprised at the way judge schroeder did things. he likes to give anecdotes and tell stories. he has a sharp legal mind. he has this tendency of thinking aloud as he's making decisions. but you can see that he's been giving both sides an opportunity to argue their points and his decisions have been thoughtful. and they've been legal. and a lot of people may have disagreed with the judge, the way that he's made some of the decisions. but they were all within his prerogative. i think this case was a good glimpse into the courts of not only wisconsin but across america. people can see that, you know, there are different judges. judges from a diverse background, people that are older, younger. and that's good that we have a

diverse judiciary. but judge schroeder i think personally try to do his best here. i can't say i agreed with all the decisions he made in this case. whether the decisions he made were good for appeal, it doesn't make a difference anymore because mr. rittenhouse was acquitted. >> let us bring in university of alabama law professor and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. joyce, you and i have been talking about this case now for a few days. i want to get your sense of what could have gone on behind the scenes. what could have gone on that we did not see? i know there were cameras in the courtroom, but there were moments that were not televised. what could have happened that might have influenced this case? >> well, the devil is always in the detail in these cases. particularly with jury verdicts where trials happen under a microscope, it's awfully easy for us to dissect them afterwards. the people who know everything that happened are the people in the courtroom, the jury. and even with access through

television, the jury saw every moment of evidence. they saw the looks on witness's faces. they tested their credibility. they had access to all of the evidence in ways that we frankly don't have as members of the public. so one of the things we need to remind ourselves, when a verdict like this happens, that many people are dissatisfied with, is that it appears that the jury did its best. this wasn't a fast verdict that was handled in a cavalier fashion. this is a jury that appeared to work through the evidence and the law, reaching the results that they did. as so many, i've been fascinated by the views of the other analysts. people have been so good about pointing out about how difficult wisconsin law has been in this regard. paul butler has done an excellent job of laying out for us how tough the prosecution's case was, not because of the judge, although he made it more difficult, not because the

prosecution made bad choices, although i don't agree with all their choices, but because the evidence they had to deal with was in many ways imperfect. when the witnesses acknowledge facts that are consistent with self-defense, it's hard for the prosecution to recover from a setback like that. we have every reason to believe the jury listened to the evidence and followed the law. the real problem is, what happens after this women do we see this become a cause for the second amendment? do people feel like they're emboldened in a setting like this to go out and carry guns and perhaps be more aggressive with them? this country is long overdue for a comprehensive conversation about how we handle the second amendment and guns and whether we're making ourselves less safe when we engage in this sort of rhetoric in conversation. >> we've been -- people have been trying to have that conversation in various settings, it has not been successful, at least in congress.

the supreme court is going to bring up the second amendment, they'll have an opinion on it. joyce, self-defense, the argument that kyle rittenhouse made of self-defense, are we going to see that argument strengthened in courts across the country in similar scenarios? >> so the first thing i would say, katy, is that self-defense law is different in all of the states. each state has its own unique laws. wisconsin's law is a little bit of an outlier in this regard. but there are consistent themes. for instance, if you've provoked the incident, you can't typically get the benefit of self-defense. so here the jury obviously concluded that rittenhouse did not provoke this incident in any way. the threat to you has to be imminent. it has to be a threat in that moment. it can't be a theoretical threat down the road. and you also can't claim self-defense if you use more force than is necessary to

confront the situation that you're in. this i thought the prosecution might have had some success with, arguing that rittenhouse went overboard when he used a firearm, for instance to confront someone who presented with a skateboard. that didn't turn out to be influential with this jury. and even if it had, it could have provided rittenhouse with what's called imperfect self-defense, which would have been some form of reduction in the charges he would have faced. i think taking this case and trying to suggest that it might mean something across the country, i'm less worried about what happens in courthouses during trials and more concerned about individuals who might feel emboldened to act more aggressively with their guns in public settings. i think that's the real risk we face after a verdict like this. >> rittenhouse taking the stand. a lot of lawyers would say that's a pretty risky move by the defense, to put him on the

stand. he broke down, he seemed to be having a panic attack while he was testifying. it was successful here, danny. would you put a defendant on the stand like that? >> oh, katy, it would be so easy for me now that there's been an acquittal to say this was a brilliant move to put your client on the stand. but stepping back and thinking about it the way i did before he took the stand, if we're just playing the vegas odds, you don't normally put your client on the stand. self-defense might be a narrow exception, because you sometimes only have one person in the universe who can explain what was going on in his head when he felt that he was being attacked, and that is the defendant. but we've seen plenty of high profile cases in which the defense rests without calling the client, without calling the defendant in a self-defense case, because the risks are often too high. is it easy to say this gambit paid off now? yes, absolutely. could they have rested just based on the video evidence?

i think they could have. but the defense i believe made a tactical decision, they felt that kyle rittenhouse testifying for this jury would humanize him, they would see him for a child more than a killer adult, and they would sympathize with him. that must have been their strategy, because, you know, if you're just playing the odds, generally you don't put your client up there. >> we just saw it happen again, though, in georgia, with travis mcmichael taking the stand in the case of the killing of ahmaud arbery, also a risky move, unclear if it will have the same effect down there as this had up in wisconsin. i also want to ask the jury and its deliberations. it took four days. i understand in wisconsin you have to have everybody agreeing on each count for it to hold. what do you make of it taking as long as it did? >> four days is long. i know a lot of folks are saying four days, it's not a big deal. even if you look at the highest profile cases, four days is even long for them. so yes, the defense had to be

very concerned if they were hoping for a quick acquittal. i don't think the prosecution planned on a quick guilty verdict but i think the defense was hoping they would come back relatively quickly. we may never know what went on in there. my suspicion is there may have been one or two holdouts. normally those one or two holdouts are for acquittal. i think possibly the one or two holdouts here might have been for guilty. and those days were spent with the other jurors, for lack of a better word, haranguing them into big unanimous. they have to argue it out to get to unanimous. >> shaq reported that a couple of the jurors appeared to be uneasy. of course it's going to be up to the jurors to decide if they want to speak to the press about their decisionmaking. those requests are in, the judge said we'll have the requests, we'll give them to you, you can decide whether to talk to the press, you do not have to. we'll find out if we hear from a jury member, not necessarily

likely, but we will see. i want to bring in ilana odoms, executive director of the aclu of louisiana. welcome and thank you for being with us. let's talk about the evidence that wasn't included in court. >> thank you. and i really do appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. while i do think this was a very difficult case with regard to self-defense, i want to talk about what the jury was not presented with. i think that there are some very key issues with regard to the evidence that was presented -- >> ilana, i'm so sorry to interrupt, i'll come right back to you, the defense attorney is speaking out and we want to listen in. >> and we think we did that. >> reporter: you said you were at times both doubtful and confident. was the length of the deliberations instilling more confidence? >> no, doubt. i never predict how long a jury is going to be out. but it was the longest jury

deliberations i've ever been a part of. i've had 18-hour, 17-hour, one was a federal, one was a state case. it was torture. and this might sound like a small thing, but the judge wanted us to be within ten minutes. obviously my office isn't within ten minutes, so we had to sit in that room on the third floor, it was hell. >> reporter: the decision to put kyle on the stand, was that a close call for you? >> you want the truth? i had to put him on. it wasn't a close call. at certain points we wondered whether we would put him on. we did -- we had a mock jury, and we did two different juries, one with him testifying, one without him testifying. it was substantially better when he testified. i mean, to a marked degree. and that sealed it. but in wisconsin if you don't put a client on the stand,

you're going to lose. >> reporter: what do you see as the crucial moment in the trial? >> there were a lot. i mean, i think -- i think it's at the beginning, but when attorney binger gave his opening statement and said those things, that kyle chased rosenbaum i don't know where that came from, to this day. it was ridiculous. that gave me something to really show and argue to a jury, that this isn't fair, it's not a game, and i think that was huge. cory, my co-counsel, and i stress the word co-counsel, he was not a second chair, he was incredible. we fought over who got to cross-examine gaige grosskreutz. he won. and he did a better job than i would have. >> reporter: this case has gotten caught up in issues of racial justice, the second amendment, self-defense. what does kyle and his team want

this verdict to be remembered for? >> you know, when i took this case, i was hired by the two first lawyers, i'm not going to use their names. they wanted to use kyle for a cause. and something that i think was inappropriate. and i don't represent causes. i represent clients. and the only thing that ended up mattering to me was whether he was found not guilty or not. >> reporter: was that what kyle wants as well? >> i believe that's what he wanted. i told him when i first met him, when he was in custody, that if he was looking for somebody to go off on a crusade, i wasn't his lawyer. >> reporter: martin, throughout the week you've said, when i caught you between court -- >> i never talked to you. [ laughter ] >> reporter: that you were nervous, that you didn't know what was going on in that jury room. looking back on all that time,

27 hours this afternoon, can you kind of walk me through [ inaudible ]? >> i mean, i expected we kind of picked amongst ourselves, our wives, our friends, my associates in the building, and i had tuesday at 4:30. so i was way wrong. nobody had it going past thursday. and there was talk today whether they were going to deliberate on saturday. i've never seen a jury -- and i don't mean this as a slight to them, but they didn't have a lot of questions. we had no information that they ever fought. they were just working through the issues. and, you know, so it didn't -- it was the time that made me nervous. there wasn't any information coming out. >> reporter: they submitted five questions over that whole time, they never asked to watch videos beyond those five questions. was that concerning or puzzling for you? >> you know, i was afraid of a

compromise. i know it's reported that we asked for lesser includeds. we objected to all lesser includeds. kyle was questioned on lesser includeds because he has to be, but that wasn't our wish, that wasn't kyle's wish. we as time went on were afraid there would be some horse trading in the jury room. and that's what really concerned us. >> reporter: [ inaudible ]. >> no. >> reporter: how would you characterize it? >> i was a prosecutor. cory was a prosecutor. and i never went after somebody like they did. and when they put on the condiri brothers knowing that they were lying, that is a problem. this isn't -- as i said in my closing argument, i'm not going to -- it's not a game.

and you're playing with a 18-year-old kid's life. and they were willing to put those guys on. detective howard and detective anteranium had both interviewed them and in their police reports, said we know they're lying. i can't ask that question on the witness stand of the detectives, because one witness can't comment on another. so they put them on, they knew they were lying. and that's garbage. and i'm thankful we're never going to have to litigate the issue regarding the drone video. they say we stipulated to it. we agreed to let it in because we saw the quality the jury was given and we couldn't see anything. then they were saying, well, his first lawyer had it, because it was on tucker carlson. john pierce never had that video. we've talked to fox news. we've talked to tucker carlson's

show. the video that was on tucker carlson's show started right when rosenbaum threw the bag. it did not start with the part that they showed at the beginning. it's a huge difference. that's what they built their whole case on, with that garbage photo. and, you know, maybe -- you don't expect anything in a trial, ever. and that program that they used and the expert from the crime lab specifically says on the company's blog, artificial intelligence enhancements are not to be used for forensic evidence. and they did it. that would have been the subject of our motion. we didn't have to do it. [ inaudible question ] you know, i don't know that it says -- i mean, there's -- i personally don't like people

carrying ar-15s around. you know, there was so much anger and so much fear in kenosha on august 25th that people did arm themselves. you know, we knew from the beginning that -- that statute, i know everybody thought i was crazy, if you read the statute correctly, he was legal in having that firearm. obviously once the evidence came in, the judge threw the charge. they threw the curfew. and those were things that the state wanted to, you know, kind of hang their hat on. so they could argue he couldn't be there, he couldn't own the gun. >> reporter: what was the first thing that kyle rittenhouse [ inaudible ]? >> thank you. >> reporter: the surviving victim, gaige grosskreutz, said in an interview in recent days that watching kyle testify looked like a kid who got caught doing something wrong, paraphrasing.

what does kyle want the families of the victims know about how this all played out? because he repeatedly talked about how he had no choice but clearly -- >> if mr. grosskreutz and some of the other people had let kyle go to the police, there would have been only one individual dead. they referred to him, and i talked about it, as an active shooter. anyone can look up the definition of an active shooter from the fbi, law enforcement. he didn't meet it. but the way those words are so charged, that's what they used. they wanted to paint him as that. you know, i wish nobody died. i wish i never met kyle rittenhouse. and i don't mean that because he was a bad client. i just mean because then this wouldn't have happened. >> reporter: whether or not he feels he had to do it, is he remorseful, does he feel bad for those families? >> i think he does. we've talked about it. there's been so much talk about whether the tears were genuine.

all i can say is, when we prepared kyle and we worked on his testimony, there were things we couldn't talk about in my office because it got too emotional and he couldn't handle it. he's in counseling for ptsd. so he doesn't sleep at night. remorse i think manifests itself some other ways. i don't think he can ever walk out here and say that, because of the situation. but i know kyle rittenhouse and i know what he feels. >> reporter: along those lines, where does he go from here? >> he has to get on with his life the best he can. i think eventually some anonymity will come back to it. i don't think he'll continue to

live in this area. i think it's too dangerous. he's had 24-hour security since this happened. we're thankful that the judge protected his address. everybody in this case, and when i say that, i mean prosecution, defense, to me it's scary how many death threats we've had. i was answering my phone on the way back from court in kenosha, my office isn't that far. after the third death threat, i quit answering the phone. >> reporter: mark, what do you say to people who still think he had no business being [ inaudible ]? >> he had as much business being there as any of the demonstrators or the rioters. that's all i can say. i mean, there's going to be people who will never agree with that statement. but, you know, if we all would just mind our own business a little bit, i think we would all be better off. and it's a hard lesson to learn.

>> reporter: couldn't that be said about kyle? >> it could be. he was asked to be there. he wanted to help the community. and, you know, that's the narrative that the state went with, he shouldn't have been there. he was asked to be there by nick and dominic and the condiri brothers wanted security. i'm not trying to blame anyone. i wish he had never been separated from ryan balch, and we wouldn't be here. >> reporter: does he regret coming here to kenosha? >> i don't believe he does. i mean, you know, if he had to do it all over again and you said the same thing is going to happen and your life is going to be put in a living hell for a year and you're not going to know if you're going to be a free man, he would say, i wouldn't go. but we can't undo time. >> reporter: the president was just asked about the verdict, he said i stand by [ inaudible ]. your response?

>> and i'm not laughing at president biden. what i'm laughing at is, a friend of mine who is a lawyer said, he goes, and him and i had done a big case together, seven, eight years ago, and he said, did you think this rittenhouse is going to be bigger than that case? i said, you know, i do. and he said, why do you say that? i said, i've never had a case and i don't think i ever will, where within two days or three days of one another the president and the presidential candidate comment on it and both of them had such different beliefs. president biden said some things that i think are so incorrect and untrue, he's not a white supremacist. i'm glad he at least respects the jury verdict. if the government had any information regarding his cellphone for anything that he had been to any of those websites or been online doing that kind of stuff, it would have been introduced in

evidence. it wasn't. we were the individuals who released his cellphone, which couldn't be cracked by the fbi, because we had nothing to hide. >> reporter: can you reiterate or go over his reaction immediately after -- >> no, i'm not doing reruns. >> reporter: any civil actions? >> what's that? >> reporter: do you plan to represent him in civil actions? >> i'm a criminal defense attorney, i don't do civil stuff. >> reporter: you're a veteran criminal defense attorney. talk about, what's the one thing you learned, if you had to say the biggest takeaway from the case, what you learned? >> every case is different, and every case has surprises. you know, i learned i could wait 24 hours for a verdict. >> reporter: what happened to the $2 million bond? >> i suspect there will be a fight over that. john pierce is the person who posted the bond. all of that money was raised on behalf of kyle.

lin wood and fight back say they're entitled to it. i'm using round numbers but there was half a million dollars i think that came directly from wendy rittenhouse from money she had raised. so there's going to be a fight over that. and i'm just thankful that there will be a fight over that, because if he had lost, it wouldn't have mattered. >> reporter: kyle had aspirations of being a first responder. >> he wants to be a nurse. >> reporter: what do you think the time of the jury deliberation says? >> i have to be more patient. >> reporter: what is a pivotal moment that you think created this outcome? >> getting rid of the first two lawyers. and, you know, that might be a smart alecy comment but i mean that. i got my best friend cory to

join, who i trust. and to be able to work with somebody who you don't have to check their work, you don't worry about what they're going to be doing, you give them a project and it's done as good or better as you would do yourself. it's the prosecutor's performance in this case. what would you say being up there with them every day? >> you know -- you must have got here a little bit late. i have known tom binger for a long time. i knew him when he was a civil lawyer. i'm disappointed with some of the things he did. and i have said why. >> such as what? >> putting on the brothers when you know they're lying. changing your prosecution, going with provocation after you say that my client chased him down and shot him in the back. calling him an active shooter when he's not. you know, justice is done when the truth is reached. and i don't know that it's set up to do that.

but a prosecutor is supposed to seek the truth. it's not about winning. and this case became about winning. and that's probably why it got so personal. >> how about the judge? what do you say about how the judge handled the case? >> you know, i've never seen much made of so little. and that's not to pick on you guys or anything like that, but, i've tried case as a prosecutor a hundred years ago in front of judge schrader. i've tried cases as a defense lawyer. and him and i butted heads as a defense lawyer. judge schrader gives you a fair trial as a defendant. you don't want him to sentence your client, okay? but in this case, we were looking for a fair trial, and if we had lost, we knew what was going to happen. it wouldn't have mattered whether it was that judge or some other judge, he's getting life in prison. i would rather have a fair

trial, i thought he gave us a fair trial. you know, everybody got a little crazy about tumbler. who cares? that has nothing to do with this. i've seen the tumbler used before. i've seen clerks pull things out and suspicious things happen. kyle pulled it out. and i'll be real honest, we had every juror scored on a sheet and we were devastated when those three of the six jurors were separated from the panel, because we thought they were three of our strongest jurors. and kyle pulled their names. so i think it's a good system. you know, i've got a trial in front of them, a big case, and maybe in that one, i'll think he's unfair, but he's a fair judge. >> he also said something about like in the future, he plans on rethinking the possibility of

live coverage to this extent. given what you guys have gone through, he mentioned that you guys have gone through a lot. there were threats made to you. what do you think that that should be going forward, setting a precedent about? >> i don't know about that. you know, i think -- i think that -- i've never done a case that was televised gavel-to-gavel. i've had cases that have gotten media coverage. i was kind of -- i knew this case was big. i had no idea it was going to be this big. i've gotten calls from people i haven't seen in 25 years. it's just bizarre. and i -- i'll never be able to figure out exactly what it is that caused the interest that it did. i don't think that it made the attorneys act different, i don't think it made the judge act different. and i suspect when everything cools down, if there was another big case in front of judge

schrader, he'd let the cameras in. >> mark, will kyle say anything to the crowds about -- we don't know that there'll be trouble, but there were people gathering when we left. anything that he might say could make things go better? >> i don't. the people who are going to end up causing trouble, they don't want to hear from kyle rittenhouse. that's -- you know, what, remain calm? you know -- >> what do you think the wider implications of this verdict are? >> you know, i don't think it's -- i don't think it's that kind of case. i mean, when -- when you want to talk about implications and precedent and things like that, is it ever going to happen again? you know, is there ever going to be just a total unrest in kenosha or some other city, and that's going to happen? you know, i just don't see that -- it was a case about self-defense. the right to protect one's self

from, you know, mr. rosenbaum. don't want to speak ill of the dead, but he wasn't a nice person and everyone knows why. and a lot of that didn't come in in front of the jury. so, i don't know that there's any broader implications. i don't want to make it bigger than it is. >> a couple of politicians in wisconsin used the word vigilante to refer to your verdict. how do you react to that? >> maybe they should have watched the trial. >> i know kyle rittenhouse said thank you to you, you said that after the verdict was read. can you share anymore about general reaction from him or his family in that moment? >> you know, it's one of those things that anything that's said at this time is kind of meaningless. we have to take it in, reflect on it, and, you know, what's he thanking me for? i don't mean that it's

insincere, but it takes a while to process what happened today. i haven't processed it. i don't think -- i can't answer that question. if i had to guess, and it would be guess, i don't think they'll stay in wisconsin. >> what's next for you? >> i've got a trial in a week. i'm going to take a couple of days off and go to the badger game tomorrow. which i've missed -- i've missed a couple of badger games because of this trial and i'm very much -- we were afraid we weren't going to get to go, because they were having them deliberate on saturday and i want to see them beat nebraska. >> do you have any sense that they agreed to those verdicts much earlier, but maybe just took a little bit extra time to release the impression they really thought through it? it was ant quick, sudden decision? >> i don't believe that. that's -- i don't believe that. i mean, there was the questions, and i think -- i said this to some people yesterday, when they asked to call off at 4:00, you

could see the tenseness in those people, the jurors, at least i could or i sensed it, who were entering that room. and, you know, if they wanted to quit early, because i think they were tense. and if there was some early verdict and they were playing all of us for fools, they're great actors and actresses. i don't think that was the case. [ inaudible question ] >> i believe so. you know, i have clients from 30 years ago i still talk to. i get -- one of my oldest favorite clients, he moved out of racine, moved to minneapolis. he texted me congratulations. i talk to him once a month. i try to stay in touch with client who is want to stay in touch with me. i like to see them do well and i hope that kyle does. >> do you think they'll keep a low profile? >> i hope so. >> what do you think the amount of time that the jury took to do this says about how they handled it? >> they took it very seriously.

as i said, it's the longest jury i've ever had out. wow. can i go home? >> go home. >> anything else we haven't asked you? >> mark, do you think he'll ever talk. >> that was mark richards, the defense attorney for kyle rittenhouse, taking quite a long list of questions there. julius, i was struck by something that he said relatively early on, when asked about why he put kyle rittenhouse on the stand. he said he had to put him on, it wasn't a close call and they did a couple of mock juris and found that the jury results were markedly better when rittenhouse m testified. that surprised me. i didn't realize that defense attorneys would do something like that. >> it doesn't happen in every case, but i suspect that kyle rittenhouse's defense team had some resources that maybe normal clients don't usually have access to. but it was a good move. if you have the resources and you can do something like that,

great. more power to 'em. it made sense to me that having kyle rittenhouse testify was no no-brainer to them, because we all saw his visceral aexs to the questions. and self-defense cases are the types of cases where a defendant really has to take the stand in my opinion to really explain to a jury what was going on through his or her head or mind at the time that they acted out. and there's no one in a better position to do that than the defendant, him or herself. so i think that it was a combination of the fact that having kyle rittenhouse take the stand to explain what he did was necessary because the jury wants to hear from him, but also, because just from a visceral standpoint, the way he presented himself was going to be helpful to the defense. we've all seen that kyle rittenhouse looks boyish, he looks young, lots has been said about that. i also suspect that many knew that kyle rittenhouse would probably break down on the stand once pushed a little bit, and that all happened. and i think that of course it was a risk. but i think in the end, the risk paid off for the defense.

>> really interesting. and just quickly, tom binger, the prosecutor released a statement, i won't read the whole thing, but he did say, while we are disappointed with the verdict, it must be respected. julious kim, alana -- i'm so sorry, i wasn't able to get back to you alana odoms. we will get you on the next case that we end up covering. that'll do it for me today. hallie jackson picks up our breaking news coverage right now. >> so we roll on with this rolling coverage here. not guilty on all counts for kyle rittenhouse, as you know. just hearing now from his defense attorney for the last 25 minutes or so. the jury finding kyle rittenhouse should be acquitted on all charges for shooting and killing two people and seriously hurting somebody else during that racial justice demonstrations in kenosha, wisconsin, last year. the defense had said rittenhouse was acting in self-defense and the jury has agreed. we're live in kenosha with the latest along with analysis from our team of legal