mr. binger's court. he says i'm blaming the victim. ense later, i might get accused of that more than some other people. ladies and gentlemen, mr. rosenbaum was shot because he was chasing my client and going to kill him, take his gun and carry out the threats that he made. mr. binger wants to make a big hub-a-loo about the shot in the back. remember his opening statement, "he shot him in the back." that's why i'm here. did he shoot him here, did he shoot him there? because of the way the bullet went in and where the bullet ended up in the hip, you know full well the individual -- and i asked the doctor -- is on a horizontal plane. what is that consisting of? somebody leaping, lunging at my client. we know how close mr. rosenbaum was to my client. the first he could have been when it started, four feet. we know that his hand was on the gun. mr. binger wants you to believe that that was happenstance and accident. come on, people. physical evidence does not lie. use your common sense and good judgment. he talks about mr. rosenbaum just so

mr. binger. mr. binger, the person that made it his personal goal of putting my client's head on his wall. ladies and gentlemen, that's what it did. and it means he's been cutting corners. nathan debruhn said after meeting with mr. binger, i was very uncomfortable. he tried to put words in my mouth. he had to go and hire a lawyer to protect him. first it was showing him the videos and then ask him the questions. trying to put words in his mouth. he didn't want that to happen. he wanted to tell his story of what he knew, what he did. he talked about ziminski, the photographs of all the conduct that ziminski had done that night. i'll show you some of them. the photos have a time stamp on them. he related to detective howard in september of 2020 about joseph rosenbaum yelling i just got out of jail and i'm not afraid to go back. those are his words that he heard mr. rosenbaum. it wasn't objected to by the state. there was no proof that he wasn't in a jail. they want you to believe that he was in a hospit

mr. binger. mr. er, the person who has made it his personal goal of putting my client's head on his wall. ladies and gentlemen, that's what it did. and it means he's been cutting corners. and nathan debruin said, after meeting with mr. binger, i was very uncomfortable. he tried to put words in my mouth. and he had to go and hire a lawyer to protect him. first it was show them the videos and then ask him the questions. trying to put words in his mouth. he didn't want that to happen. he wanted to be able to tell his story, what he knew, what he did. he talked about ziminski, the photographs of all the conduct that ziminski had done that night. and i'll show you some of them. the photos have a time stamp on them. and he related to detective howard in september of 2020 about joseph rosenbaum yelling, i just got out of jail, and i'm not afraid to go back. those are his words that he heard mr. rosenbaum. it was not objected to by the state. and there's been no proof that he wasn't in a jail. they want you t

mr. binger said. throwing up red herrings, false hypocritical arguments and attacks on those that mr. rittenhouse killed to try to distract you from the fact that he was not in fear of death or great bodily harm and he was not privileged to act how he did. we heard from ms. carrie ann schwartz. now that talked about jail now we can smear mr. rosenbaum more even though there was no dispute that he came from a hospital. he is carrying a hospital bag. ms. schwartz testified that she talked to the hospital about how he would be released. that he went to this hospital. she knew he was coming home from the hospital. she knew what was in the bag. he showed that picture of it back lit against the fire trying to make it seem sinister. she talked about how medical papers in there. we did this image again. mr. armstrong did impeek in the bag. the big image they see looks like rolled up medical records that you get when you are discharged from a hospital. and ms. schwartz testified he was given medications that d

mr. binger is trying to sell you people. has he shot anybody car source three? no he hasn't. mr. binger must live in fairy tale land to think that kyle could stop, put his gun down, and say hey, everything's good. leave me alone. i'm going to the police. unfortunately, that is not how the real world works. this was real world. people yelling to stop them. next picture, he saw an open space. mr. grosskreutz chased him down. he kept his gun in the small of his back. he is arming himself right here. look how far, rittenhouse is ahead of him. no threat -- almost three. it's at the far end. he hasn't shot his gun cents. if he's an active shooter looking to take as many people as possible, he is laying waste to everybody as he's running. remember, he's got 30 bullets. he's not indiscriminately shooting. here is full speed. is he pointing the gun at anyone? running down the street trying to get to those lights. where the bearcats are in law enforcement. he's not running off to the side to hide in the shadows. blow to the head first. knocking his hat off. what has kyle rittenhouse done? n

mr. binger said, oh, something happened to his skateboard. he took a swing at him. kyle blocked it with his arm in the enhanced photos. what does mr. huber does? runs, grabs a skateboard and runs in for more. >> he's on the ground. the most vulnerable position you can be in. what do we have? anthony huber here already picking up his skateboard. this guy with the towel wrapped around his head coming in at kyle. jump him, man. guys hit him in the head. they go forward just a little bit. you saw this individual over here is now -- kyle points his firearm at him. he backs up. kyle does not shoot. jump kick man is leading with his foot. his foot is still on the ground. what direction is kyle pointing right now? watch what happened after jump kick man kicks him in the face. he's turned around. he's looking in that direction. anthony huber coming in with a skateboard. watch what anthony huber does with the skateboard. blow to the head. coming in, kyle is trying to get up. anthony huber's hand goes onto the gun. this is the fast one. the gun is pulled away from kyle. anthony

mr. binger will address you first on behalf of the state and then mr. richards for the defense and then after that his remarks one of the attorneys for the state will be addressing you on behalf of the state and limited to rebuttal of things stated by mr. richards during his presentation. the -- we're going to break obviously. i'm not going make you sit there for five hours unless you want to. and so we'll break. i asked mr. binger while you were out of the room if he was comfortable with breaking. his argument in parts, and he indicated he was and at a time he thinks appropriate around noon we'll take our lunch break and then pick up this afternoon and after all of the arguments have been presented i'll give you about three or four more minutes of instruction and then we'll do our striking and then the rest will be up to you. >> supposing the arguments are finished at 4:00, 4:30, 5:00, and we'll be working well to get there, how many would like to begin their deliberations tonight and stay until a later hour, or how many would like to come back and sta

mr. binger? >> your honor, i think everybody in this room has a smart phone, whether it is an apple iphone or some other device. and i think we've all taken a photograph or a video at one point or another and used the pink to zoom in feature. this is a common part of everyone's everyday life. in the olden days, you had a photograph and a magnifying glass, right? that doesn't change the photograph. when you use a tag any phiing glass to look at words on a paper or a photograph, the magnifying glass doesn't change the image. it doesn't change the pixels on the paper. it doesn't change the words in the book. all it does is make them easier to see. the pinch and zoom feature on the ipad or the iphone or android phone, whatever device everyone in this room has, does that exact same thing. now f counsel has an expert who will say that this is unreliable or distorting the image or something along those lines even though this is something everyone in this room has done with countless videos and photos th

mr. binger stated, and we looked it up, previously he said to mr. rittenhouse, previously indicated that you wished to have your ar-15 to protect someone's property. clearly in violation not only of the prior ruling that you had made but the ruling that very day, that very morning. it appears to me that there are two, really, elements the court miscellaneous consider when making a determination of mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreach. the first is, it must be in the nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defendant. i would argue to you that he's clearly aware of that. you had warned him. you had told him prior to mr. rittenhouse that certainly the 90404 was offlimits. you had warned him on the infringement on his constitutional right to remain silent. he did it again. the second one requires some action by the court in terms of a finding, i think. the second one says the prosecutor's actions was designed to allow another chance to convict, that is, to provoke a mistrial in order to get another kick at the c

mr. binger. before we started today. the court said in mr. binger's presence there was nothing to have me change any of my rulings. there were occasions during this trial where they opened the door. the one time when they are going into mr. rosenbaum's prior -- reason he doesn't like guns. i whispered in mr. krause's ear because of prior convictions please stop and he did. if you go into something excluded in the pretrial order you better ask the court and get permission. >> this is ridiculous. >> it was excluded in the first place because it was propensity evidence. that's what 9040 is designed to prevent. his attitude is he wants to shoot people. i admitted that in other trials when it was appropriate. i didn't in this case. what i heard in this trial. mr. richard pointed out correctly i said i heard nothing in the trial to change any of my rulings. >> that was before the testimony. >> don't get brazen with me! you knew very well that an attorney can't go into these areas when the judge ruled without asking outside of the presence of the jur

mr. binger stated and we looked it up. previously he said to mr. rittenhouse, previously indicated that you wished to have your ar-15 to protect someone's property. clearly in violation not only of the prior ruling that you had made, but the rules that very day. that very morning. it appears to be that there are two really elements the court wants to consider when making a determination on a mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreach and the first one is the prosecutor's actions must be intentional in the esense of a culpable state of mind and a nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defense. i would argue to you that that's clearly where i'm at. you had warned him. you had told him prior to mr. rittenhouse testifying that things, certainly the 90404 was off limits. you had warned him on his right to remain silent. he did it again. the second one i think requires some action by the court in terms of a finding. the second one says the prosecutor's actions was designed to allow another chance to convict. that is t

mr. binger didn't mention these because they're fifth, sixth or seventh strongest evidence that mr. raised his gun, but the defense is seizing on them and inaccurately said it took him 20 hours of work to do. he worked on that drone video for 20 hours. he made us multiple shorter videos of it. these images were the last part of that work. and that image does show mr. rittenhouse holding a gun. it is blurry. does it show every detail? no. we thought it important to show a still shot besides these videos. the second one again is very blurry, but it's of the shooting. and you see mr. rittenhouse blurry. you see the puff of smoke and you see mr. rosenbaum blurry still very much upright. and that is why those pictures are giffin. it was the tail end of all the work that mr. armstrong did on this video. the defense seems very scared of these pictures because it helps to prove their client lied on the stand and it shows that he pro provoked the attack. i would like to show you i believe this is the full drone video? exhibit 73 . in this one, it is difficult to see the raising of the gun be

mr. binger, first of all, this was the subject of emotion.ell aware of that most of the court left the door open. >> for me, not for you. amy: in the prosecution tried to show video evidence of rittenhouse fatally shooting his first victim, the judge appeared to support the defense's attempt to stop him using a "pinch and zoom" function, claiming it could insert additional pixels. >> this is high risk, to me, if you insert more data into an area of space -- you are wagging her head no. tell me where i am wrong. >> there is no proof i'm doing that, your honor. >> i said you have the burden of proof, the proponent of the exhibit, and you need to tell me it is reliable. >> the exhibits are in evidence. >> that i know. amy: the judge would not allow the pinch and zoom function of the ipad and an expert testified the pixels were not being added. meanwhile, the judge's cellphone went off while the court was in session and played a ringtone for the song "god bless the usa" by lee greenwood, which is the opening song played at donald trump's rallies.

mr. binger, and i'm behind him. he accused mr. rittenhouse of looking at his attorney, does he want him to look at the ceiling? >> i'll continue, your honor. >> go ahead. >> you at this very moment announced yourself as friendly because you were worried that the people on the other side of that street would see you as hostile, fair? >> i can't tell you how i think they would see me but i told them i was friendly. >> i was asking you what you thought when you said this. you said you announced yourself as friendly because you thought to yourself at that very moment, i'm walking into a group that is hostile to me, isn't that true? >> it looks hostile, they were throwing rocks at the armored police cars. >> and you felt it was necessary to tell them friendly friendly friendly so they wouldn't do anything to you, fair? >> yes. >> let's konts the video. >> there's a person that comes up to you carrying a skate board, do you see that? >> i do. >> and he's got fire extinguisher slung over his shoulder? >> yes. >> and he says something abo

mr. binger, we will address the first on behalf of the state. then mr. richards for the defense and then after his remarks, one of the attorneys for the state will be addressing you on behalf of the state in rebuttal and, limited rebuttal of the interest during the presentation. we are going to break obviously, i'm not going to make us there for five hours, unless you want to. so we will break. i asked mr. binger while you are out of the room if he was comfortable breaking his argument into parts and he indicated he was. so at this time he thinks it's appropriate that around noon, we will take our lunch break. and then, pick up this afternoon and, after all of the arguments have been presented, i will give you three or four more minutes of instruction and then we will do our striking with the tumbler over there and then it will be all yours. let me ask you -- which one do you want? okay. we will take a boat right now. supposing the case arguments are finished at four, 4:30 or 5:00, and we will be working well to get there, how many would like to begin th

mr. binger and we heard from mark richards outside the courthouse. your thoughts on the reactions that we've seen from the two attorneys, the prosecutor and the defendant. >> martha, i salute them for striking the right tone. a lot of things that mr. binger has done that we talked about the last few weeks in a critical way. this is a message that sends exactly the right note. they respect the verdict and they ask people to express themselves in a civilized manner, which is exactly the right tone. you heard from the defense lawyer who, he wasn't in a celebratory frame of mind obviously. there's relief, and i hope that kyle rittenhouse takes his lawyers very good advice, which is, you know, don't be too notorious. go be a kid. go live your life. resist the urge to turn this in to a spotlight. because one of the things i think you see here is there's a big juxtaposition between the drama that goes in to the trial and what we all expect to get out of it. and then the sort of lack of catharsis at the end. in point of fact here, there's a very narrow legal

mr. binger said, he brought a gun to a fist fight. he was too cowardly to use his own fist to fight his way out. he had to start shooting. >> tucker: really? too cowardly. a 17-year-old should've gotten in a fist fight with a 36-year-old violent. right. -- violent pedophile! right! speaking of cavalry, where are the police who were paid to stop this stuff and keep mob violence from happening in the first place, where is the governor who is under -- talk about cavalry. blaming a 17-year-old who shows up because the city his dad lives in is on fire and he wants to do something he been there in the first place. watch how the prosecutor characterizes the pedophile's action the night he was shot. >> so what does he do that night? let me tell you all the awful things joseph rose and vomited. he kicked over a port of that -- he kicked a port-a-pottie that no one was in it. he swung a chain. he let a garbage dumpster on fire. and there's this empty flatbed trailer and they lit it on fire. and he said some bad words, he said the n-word. >> tuc

mr. binger and i'm behind him. he accused mr. rittenhouse of looking at his attorney. does he want him to look at the ceiling? >> i'll continue, your honor. you, at this very moment announced yourself as friendly because you were worried that the people on the other side of that street would see you as hostile. fair? >> i can't tell you how i think they would see me. i just told them i was friendly. >> i want to make sure you understand my question. i was asking you what you thought when you said this. you said you announced yourself as friendly because you thought to yourself at that very moment because i'm walking into a group that is hostile to me. isn't that true? >> they were throwing rocks at the squad car -- not the squad cars. the armored police cars. >> and you felt it was necessary to tell them friendly, friendly, friendly so they wouldn't do anything to you, fair? >> yes. >> let's continue the video. >> there's a person that comes up to you carrying a skateboard. do you see that? >> i do. >> he's got some fire extinguishers slung over his shoulder. he said s

mr. binger makes a big thing out of kyle rittenhouse is the only person who shot somebody that evening. that evening. >> so boat sides highlighting when they belief the evidence will show. the prosecution very textbook, presenting a linear case in its opening arguments and the defense showing pictures. >> let's bring in our legal analyst laura coats and one thing that has stood out from the opening statement is we'll directly hear from rittenhouse in this trial. he'll testify in his own defense, what do you make of that? >> it should come as no price. he had a very big yund gel of support. there was a bit of a flashpoint of protecting this defendant. he was allowed to back by police officers to turn himself in later on. it game at an infliction point. supposed looters and arsonists and the discussion of the type of weapon and i suspect he'll try to capitalize on his previous popularity. he better be prepared to come with a very strong defense about self-defense. not allowed simply by trying to protect somebody else's property to engage in lethal force. it's a notion of kill or be killed

mr. binger? so no one with a conceal carry permit is allowed to defend himself?t's the point of having a gun if you can't save your own life with it? well, that's exactly what they're telling you. they're telling you don't have that right. you have no right to resist. that's the whole point of this whole proceeding so the next time blm sweeps into your town, your neighborhood, your house to burn and lot and brandish weapons, you better not try to protect yourself or your family, try to protect yourself or your family and we'll charge with you murder and while we're at t we'll have the national media call you out. >> in the court of public opinion, they're really arguing that white men, especially white men with a gun, are allowed and have the space to defend and protect a country and social order that keeps them at the top and the country they stole from envisionist folks and built with black people's labor. the media is participating and perpetuating this charade. as far as i can tell, the only reason why any of this is allowed is because of the whiteness of it

mr. binger did a great job and i think he, it was rigged against him from the beginning. >> what do you -- >> and the judge made a fool of him and the jurors saw that. and that the ambulance chaser, what's his name? richards? he knew he had free reign of the courtroom because of that judge. he got everything he wanted. anytime he cried, the judge did what he said. it was rigged. >> john huber, is there anything you want to reveal about what your next step is to see if you can get justice for your son, anthony? >> all i'm saying is the fight's not over. the fight's not over. there's big issues here at hand that people have been sweeping under the rug for years like racism in the police in kenosha. and they've been sweeping it under the rug for years and the people are tired of it. people are tired of this stuff. you know? and we're going to fight until there's justice. >> i think so many can feel your frustration. john huber, thank you so much for your time and for really pouring out your heart at what is continuing to be a very difficult time for you and your family. >> thank you. >>> all

mr. binger is asking a problem with that. let's see where he is or what he's -- actually, i don't like the way i said that either. uh. >> how about this. any count -- in any count where there are multiple verdicts submitted to you, if at any point in your deliberations you are unanimous as to both the elements -- the presence or absence of the elements of the crime and the presence or absence of the right of self-defense, you need go no further. >> the reason i was shaking my head, your honor, is because let's take anthony hubris count three, for example, if the jury is unanimous that he is guilty of first-degree intentional homicide they go no further. >> right. >> if they are unanimous that he's not guilty of first-degree intentional homicide then they are instructed to consider second-degree intentional homicide. >> only if they are not satisfied that it was done in self-defense. for example, if they -- if in your example they discussed it and said, well, sure, the elements of intent murder are there and then they go aroun

mr. binger stayed composed. he is probably used to this. one thing to take away from this admonishment, although in criminal trials, mistrial requests are frequent, mistrial requests where the judge kind of acknowledges that he believes that the prosecutor acted in bad faith is rare, and that can be really bad for the prosecution because if the defense is able to show, one, that the prosecution acted in bad faith for willful misconduct and prejudices the defendant, that mistrial will be granted with prejudice, and the prosecution will be precluded from retrying kyle rittenhouse. that means he'll walk free without even being heard on whether or not he was guilty or innocent. >> okay then. back this up for us, charles. it's the judge. it's the judge who is clearly very unhappy with the prosecution. the judge is the one who decides if it's a mistrial, and if it is, that's when rittenhouse walks? >> that would be correct. if, after the defense's motion for a mistrial the judge were to decide there has been so much prejudice caused by the bad fa

mr. binger's transmission of last night which unfortunately was not -- other than the initial minute or two, was there actual video or was it black screen? >> it's a 20-some-minute compilation video with the defendant's voice. >> well, let me try opening it here because at home it was -- i was able to hear the audio, but the video was all black. so i don't know what the significance of that is until i look at it. hopefully it will be here. and i guess that's it. all right. anything else? >> no, your honor. >> we received a phone call from someone who supposedly spoke to a juror, spoke to someone who spoke to a juror. i don't think it's anything -- just to be transparent and getting these communications and giving them to the court. >> appreciate it. and we've gotten inundated as you would expect with a case with this degree of publicity. some wild things are said. as long as you folks are aware of them and can deal with it or ask me to deal with it to the extent i'm able, we'll do it. i would hate to be someone dealing with some of this stuff. all right. anything else? >> i just want to ver

mr. binger's presence there's been nothing to have me change any of my rulings. there have been numerous occasions during this trial where they've opened the door. the one time where they're going into mr. rosenbaum's prior -- the reason he doesn't like guns. and i said something. it's because of the prior convictions, please stop and he did. he knows if you're going to go into something that's been excluded in a pretrial order you better ask the court, you better get permission. this is ridiculous. >> it wasn't excluded, your honor. >> you know why it was excluded in the first place because it was propensity evidence. that is exactly what 90404 is designed to prevent. you're talking about his attitude. his attitude is he wants to shoot people. now, i've admitted that kind of evidence in other trials when it's been appropriate. i didn't admit it in this case because to me what i've heard in this trial -- and by the way, mr. richards absolutely correctly points out that just hours ago i said i heard nothing in this trial to change any of my rulings. so why -- >> th

mr. binger has a problem with that, let's see what he -- actually, i don't like the way i said that, either. how about this. in any count where there are multiple verdicts submitted to you, if at any point in your deliberations you are unanimous as to both the elements, presence or absence of the elements of the crime and that the presence or absence of the right of self-defense, you need to go no further. >> the reason i was shaking my head your honor is because, let's take anthony huber's accounts, for example. if the jury is unanimous that he is guilty first-degree intentional homicide, they go no further. if they are unanimous that he's not guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, than they are instructed to consider second-degree intentional homicide. >> only if they are not satisfied that it was done in self-defense. if in your example they discuss it and say, the elements are there, then it's on the table and they say it's in self-defense then guilty. and actually if they all say, we don't think of self-defense then it's not guilty. and with the jury is being told is if we can't

mr. binger showed you a picture, or a video of the green laser thing. any idea who did that?ing else. >> you say you are a journalist and a reporter? >> yes. >> earlier you've identified yourself as a professional commentator. >> all of the above. >> is it your practice as a journalist to interject your personal opinion to the stories that you are reporting on? >> no. >> but you did that here. >> where? >> on august 25th, a few minutes after they shootings, you posted on twitter your opinion as to whether the defendant in your mind was right or wrong in doing what he did, correct? >> no, i said apparently at the beginning of that statement. >> what effect did not have? >> it means apparently. that doesn't mean that this is 100% my opinion. >> you had already jumped to a conclusion, an apparent conclusion that that moment, right? >> that's what apparently means. >> that's not what journalists do. >> you may step down. >> >> for honor, one more point -- i believe my associate has emailed the updated report to your clerk and once that is done, i think we are done. i do wish that

mr. binger, senate did. it happened in milliseconds.the defense, this does not start on an even keel. the prosecution has the burden of proof. they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt once rittenhouse has put his self-defense and play, they have to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. it's not good enough if you're a juror and think that i think that the prosecution stories is better than rittenhouse's. i don't think that, but even if you did, that's not enough to convict. they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not legitimately act in self-defense. >> john: will find out what the prosecution and defense has to say soon. we are about 6 minutes behind schedule but i'm sure will be back soon. standby. thank you. >> sandra: will be watching for that resume. thank you for your analysis. we are getting a heads up that the white house briefing could be starting shortly's we are monitoring that as well. heather hansen is a trial attorney and we will bring you in here as we await the trial to resume her. your th