Powered by Topple

Former Fed prosecutor: ’99 out of 100’ prosecutors wouldn’t have brought Rittenhouse to trial

Powered by Topple

CHECK OUT WeThePeople.store and WeThePeople.wine for holiday gifts and awesome snarky swag!

(Source: Fox News)

A former federal prosecutor joined “Fox & Friends First” on Thursday morning to discuss the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, saying “99 out of 100” prosecutors would not have brought the case to trial.

“Fox & Friends First” host Todd Piro asked former Utah U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman if, as a prosecutor, based on the facts as known, he would have brought the case to trial.

“I would not. I think you’re going to see, you know, 99 out of 100 would not have brought this case. You have too many facts that were consistent with the self-defense that they’ve outlined, and the evidence, and the videos, and in the testimony has been nothing but consistent,” Tolman explained.

The former prosecutor described where the prosecution went wrong.

“Either they didn’t have enough investigation or they didn’t care about what those facts were and decided to plow forward, regardless,” Tolman said.

Earlier in the segment, Piro acknowledged that the defense’s strategy clearly worked, but inquired about their “gutsy” move to put Rittenhouse on the stand in the first place.

“There were some shocking things in this trial so far and one of them certainly is that they put him on the stand. I think they boxed themselves in early on though,” Tolman noted, adding that the defense team told the jury that they would hear from Rittenhouse.

‘The trial went very well for them,” the former prosecutor shared, despite the fact that they might have second-guessed that promise to the jury at the beginning of the trial.

Piro moved on to ask Tolman about the line of improper questioning from the prosecutor that’s garnered media attention.

“What’s your take on this? Was this a backdoor attempt at getting a mistrial without prejudice which would allow them to try this whole thing all over again, basically get a do-over, or something else?” the Fox News host inquired.

“You know, it was very hard to watch for many of us that have been in the courtroom, and we’ve tried cases, and certainly it gets tough while you’re in there, and you don’t always say what you wish you would have said in a case, but this was right out of the gate, Todd, and I was shocked to hear it,” the former prosecutor stated.

“He started to reference the fact that, you know, that Kyle Rittenhouse had not made any statements prior to getting on the stand. That was a direct implication of his right to remain silent in front of the jury. Everybody knows, it’s ‘Law 101,’ you do that, you’re at risk of a mistrial,” Tolman detailed.

“I was surprised the judge didn’t grant it right then and there,” the former prosecutor added, speaking about the mistrial.

Piro said that the judge still has the move in his back pocket if the situation doesn’t resolve itself with the jury, as the judge perhaps thinks it should.

Judge Bruce Schroeder, who is presiding over the Rittenhouse case, gave prosecutor Thomas Binger a brutal courtroom scolding on Wednesday following an improper line of questioning, that included the implication on the defendant’s right to remain silent.

“Don’t get brazen with me,” the judge said. “You know very well that an attorney can’t go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking, outside the presence of the jury, to do so.”

Kay Apfel

Comments

Latest Articles