@sidekick "can't they?" ... can't they what?

@b6hydra

@freemo

> I corrected someone's assumption that *the prosecution can successfully appeal* if he's found not guilty.

@b6hydra

@sidekick ahh ok @b6hydra

@sidekick
What you're talking about is a mistrial, not an appeal. A mistrial can generally occur in two ways. First, there's a hung jury, which is still a possibility here. The second is significant misconduct or errors that make the possibility of a fair trial impossible. It is possible for a mistrial to be declared after the fact but it's rare. Typically if either side thought the process was unfair they make make their motions at that time, rather than gamble on the jury.
@freemo

@sidekick
The prosecution can appeal individual decision made by the judge while the trial is ongoing, however the time for that has passed.
@freemo

@b6hydra

guilty verdicts can be appealed after a trial and persued in a higher court. I do not think an innocent verdict can be however due to double jeopardy rules.

@sidekick

@freemo @b6hydra It looks like the circumstances in which the state can appeal are specified in Wisconsin Code 974.05.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/974/05

@sidekick

Is there a particular part of the statues you feel are relevant here?

@b6hydra

@freemo
I'm not seeing anything special that would allow the prosecution to appeal the verdict. They can appeal judgments as well as the sentence, but cannot retry someone on a whim. The statute specifically says

> if the appeal would not be prohibited by constitutional protections against double jeopardy
@sidekick

@b6hydra

There is nothing i can see that would allow the prosecution to appeal an innocent verdict either. There **is** however some very clear cases where the defense could appeal a guilty verdict (and even the judge already admitted this is possible)

@sidekick

@b6hydra

Right. But they can say, "Your Honor, the trial judge made such egregious errors of law when <instructing the jurors>/<ruling on evidence admissibility>/<empaneling the jury>/... that the defendant stood negligible chance of conviction and was never in real jeopardy to begin with. The public interest in justice demands that your Honor order a retrial in which the errors are corrected."

@freemo

My guess is that the likeliest basis the prosecution would choose is (1)(d)2, maybe (1)(a).

@sidekick

I think you are missing the important part.. a defendant can appeal a guilty verdict but the prosecution can **never** appeal a innocent verdict.

So no the prosecution can not say that at all to make an appeal, only the defense could.

@b6hydra

@freemo @b6hydra the entirety of 974.05 is about the state (i.e. prosecution) appealing, not the defendant.

@sidekick

Yes it is, a state isnt always the prosecution, it can also be the defense. A state can appeal when it is the defense and found guilty. It can not appeal when it is the prosecution and the verdict is innocent.

Again appeals can only be against a guilty verdict, never against an innocent one. This is true regardless of what side the state is in the hearing.

@b6hydra

@sidekick

Your error is basically in the assumption that state is synonymous with prosecution.. it is not. If I sue the state I am the prosecution, state is the defendant.

@b6hydra

@freemo nope, that's a civil suit - you'd be the plaintiff and the state would be the respondent. The references in 974.05 to postconviction relief, arrest warrants, and confessions make it pretty clear this is about criminal law, where the state is the prosecution (I'm not aware of any circumstance in which the state would be a defendant in its own criminal system. Maybe in Federal court, but then state law wouldn't govern the proceedings anyway).

@b6hydra

@sidekick

This is a direct quote from the wisconsin DOJ clearly stating that the state can not appeal a not guilty verdict (which is unconstitutional in every state btw):

Appeals by the state after certain circuit court judgments (such as not guilty) are
limited by the United States Constitution. The 5th Amendment's “double jeopardy”
clause protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Therefore, if the defendant is acquitted, the state cannot appeal.

Source: https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/ocvs/navigating/Victim%20Rights%20and%20Criminal%20Appeals.pdf

@b6hydra

@sidekick
To address your question about jury instruction, yes that could be reason for a mistrial. If the prosecution makes that claim the judge can reject it. Then the prosecution can appeal that individual decision on that individual matter. It sounds like they already made a similar claim before and the judge didn't do anything with it, just put it in his drawer to rot, which means there's no decision to appeal.
@freemo

@b6hydra

a mistrial with prejudice was made as a motion on this trial. 1) the judge did not reject or accept the notion but said he would hold it for consideration 2) when a mistrail with prejudice is confirmed then there can not be a retrial or an appeal, the defendant gets off.

@sidekick

@icedquinn

Yea i heard that too.

@b6hydra

@freemo @b6hydra the tribal lines are basically (my analysis):

- kyle went to another state to be a hero, shot people including jews because he's a nazi and a murderer and nobody is allowed to have a gun unless you're a victim and he should have just been beaten up
- kyle was invited to defend property at risk, helped clean up gang signs and did medic'ing, got in to a fight, tried to run and ended up having to shoot people

* yes social media tried to argue he was an anti-semite just because one of the 'victims' had some jewish dna, this argument was folded and didn't make it to court IIRC and the ADL screened his accounts and disavowed any claims of antisemitism

* closing rebuttal literally had a prosecutor say "people get beat up sometimes" clearly arguing the state expected kyle to submit to assault or try to melee someone twice his age

@icedquinn

more or less accurate I'd say, short of a little snark :)

@b6hydra

@freemo @b6hydra iced is inseparable from sarcasm

@b6hydra @freemo they tried and tried to staple "THE GUN ACROSS STATE LINES" propaganda but that collapsed in court, they tried to say the gun possession itself was still illegal but that collapsed in court and they dropped the charge, the prosecution was schooled yesterday for improperly suppressing a witness, they are really hoping to cling to an interframe they synthesized* that proves he pointed a gun at someone first.

the interframe as i call it is they ran one of those optical flow enhancers to compute a frame between frames and then argued that for this single 1/48th of a second he pointed his gun at someone (despite the image suggesting the gun changed arms, he was supposedly pointing the gun with the wrong handedness according to 1/48th of a second a computer imagined between two grainy photos) then the prosecution argued that "guns do not have handedness."

i often plan on threatening people for imperceptible amounts of time while holding the gun so it will eject brass in my face

@icedquinn

again more or less accurate as I understand it. So agreed here.

@b6hydra

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo Yeah they asked for the specific pages for self-defense instructions only too.

@thendrix

indeed. But it should be no surprise that the core issue here is "was this self-defense".. i mean did we really need the jury to ask for those papers to glean that?

@icedquinn @b6hydra

@freemo @thendrix @b6hydra the state is heavily banking on a wisconsin interpretation of self defense.

it's desperate but they literally argued that it's "not" self defense because he could have gone in to melee instead lol

@icedquinn

LOL yea thats kinda the only way i could see the prosecution getting a win, arguing that a gun is somehow excessive force when a mob is trying to murder you.... lets hope thats not where it winds up.

@b6hydra @thendrix

@freemo @b6hydra @thendrix i'm not sure why the violent inclinations of the victims doesn't seem to get picked up by anyone. they were actively engaging in property destruction, dumpster fires, prior convictions, etc.

always funny how police walk on stuff like this by just saying "i got skerd" and a civilian does it and it's like well he didn't have state training in how to be scared, so he shouldn't have been!

@icedquinn

The reason is simple. Kyle took a picture with some proud boys and made the OK sign. Therefore that means he is loved by conservatives, hated by liberals. The facts of the case became irrelevant at that moment.

@b6hydra @thendrix

@freemo @b6hydra @thendrix i'm not gonna lie i'm happy some terrorists got shot instead of bailed out by kamala. much schadenfreude.

@icedquinn

I can feel twitter trying to ban you from beyond the grave at the mention of this comment....

@b6hydra @thendrix

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra @thendrix
Hey bros

@Jojothegoodperson

Hello there fellow bro

@icedquinn @b6hydra @thendrix

I may have danced around that fire but I didn’t start it —Pinstar, when competing company R&D lab burns down in a sim game

@freemo@qoto.org @b6hydra @thendrix

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo

> Two jurors holding decision up, outright citing backlash, per US Marshal in Kenosha - Jack P

@thendrix @b6hydra @freemo why am i not surprised.

there were already two [claims] of external pressure against witnesses.

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo

> More: Worried about media leaking their names, what will happen to their families, jobs, etc - Jack P

They're never going to be sated... giving in is always the losing option.

@thendrix @b6hydra @freemo are we going in to the timeline where being a jury in a trial is grounds for the witness protection program

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo The courts are already on their last legs. Not even the feds bother with their rulings already. People didn't understand when I said the courts are on trail here...

@thendrix @b6hydra @freemo
jackp just reached rekieta and barnes.
> there are hard protestors outside the court house

so they've got the riots on idle if he's not guilcup

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo

> @GeorgePapa19 Breaking: jurors are being threatened

Yeah, it's starting might go for mistrial.

@icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo They'll loot and riot either way...

@thendrix @b6hydra @freemo lol rackets stream already on hard cope for mistrial

@icedquinn @thendrix @b6hydra @freemo who is jack p. It is posobeic is it? That guy is a retard and id becareful to take anything he says serious

@Boomerman @icedquinn @b6hydra @freemo I don't write polish.

@Boomerman @b6hydra @freemo @icedquinn Yeah, I'd take his word over MSM. He's got a much more stellar track record.

@thendrix @b6hydra @freemo @icedquinn lmao posobeic is a retard and anything he says should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Hes a total faggot and possibly a fed.

@freemo @icedquinn @b6hydra I don't think people should read too much into it myself, but that's the reported facts.