Powered by Topple

AP gobsmacked because Judge Schroeder is treating Rittenhouse as if he’s innocent until proven guilty

Powered by Topple

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

The Associated Press is shocked by Judge Bruce Schroeder’s apparent deference to Kyle Rittenhouse during his murder trial and has doubts about his impartiality even though his actions embody the legal precept that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

“What makes a fair trial? As Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial unfolds, some observers have been struck by the judge’s apparent deference to the defendant,” the AP cluelessly tweeted.

Their piece on the Rittenhouse trial was seen by many to literally drip with bias and disgust for the judge: “At one point, the 18-year-old murder defendant stood behind the seated, black-robed judge and peered over him to review evidence. At another, on Veterans Day, the judge led the jury and others in the courtroom in applause for veterans just as a defense witness who had served in the Army was about to testify.”

“And as the case neared its conclusion, the judge permitted the defendant to draw numbers from a raffle drum to determine which jurors would serve as alternates — creating the appearance, however small, that the defendant was helping to administer his own trial,” the authors, Amy Forliti, Gene Johnson, and Todd Richmond at the AP wrote.

“As Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial has played out in the Kenosha courtroom of Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder, moments of apparent deference to the defendant have struck many observers as curiously different from how murder proceedings often unfold,” they asserted.

The left-leaning media outlet went on and on about what they perceived as the judge’s lack of impartiality when, in fact, the judge is following the letter of the law.

“If nothing else, the discussion about the judge’s conduct has underlined the importance of how the judicial system is perceived — especially in a high-profile case where the outcome can exacerbate societal tensions around issues like race, guns, protests, vigilantism, and law and order,” the authors wrote.

“Our hope is that the court system and our judges, while human, will uphold this role of a neutral arbiter so that everybody gets a fair trial — the defendant and the people — and that we can arrive at a decision that we can all agree on was legitimate,” said Mary D. Fan, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at the University of Washington Law School, according to the AP.

“When people have doubts about that impartiality,” Fan posited, seemingly taking issue with a fair and unbiased trial, “it undermines our trust in the justice of the verdict.”

Trying to give the impression of being unbiased while being blatantly the opposite, the Associated Press praised the judge while continuing to raise doubts about his impartiality: “It’s primarily the defendant, not prosecutors, whose rights are protected under the law, and judges must guard them carefully. Schroeder has done so appropriately in some instances, legal experts said, such as when he scolded prosecutor Thomas Binger for asking Rittenhouse why he had not discussed the shootings before taking the witness stand. Defendants have a right to remain silent.”

“But judges should not be so solicitous of a defendant that it raises questions about the fairness of the trial. Balancing that can be tricky, especially where a jurist’s decisions are under such national scrutiny. Siding too closely with a defendant could lead to a wrongful acquittal or inflame societal tensions, while an obvious alignment with prosecutors could lead to a tainted — and ultimately overturned — conviction,” the AP warned.

Many took note of the AP’s problem with the judge’s alleged  “deference” to the defendant and chimed in on it:

Comments

Latest Articles