“Former Rittenhouse lawyer predicts ‘full acquittal,’ blasts ‘misconduct’ by prosecution.” foxnews

Eastern District of Virginia

John Pierce, the former lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse, said he expects a full acquittal in the Kenosha, Wisconsin case after the defense requested a mistrial. Pierce said on “Fox & Friends First” he doesn’t anticipate any potential guilty verdict surviving the mistrial motion and believes the only other outcome could be a hung jury. 


“JOHN PIERCE: This judge is terrific, Judge Schroeder. He might be the best judge I’ve ever seen. He is no-nonsense. He sticks to the facts of the law. He was obviously outraged at some of the instances of prosecutorial misconduct. Everyone saw that. One that we haven’t touched on yet, which is just as bad as the Brady violation with the HD drone footage, is that the prosecutors attempted to use the fact that Kyle had exercised his constitutional right to remain silent before the trial. 

And that is just trial advocacy 101 for prosecution. You cannot do that. So I really believe there’s going to be a full acquittal. If not, I think there’ll be a mistrial, hopefully with prejudice or potentially without prejudice. Or a hung jury is the only other outcome I see here.

Comment: In my experience as a consultant for the courts and expert witness it is actually a fairly common thing for prosecutors to withhold exculpatory information from the defense on discovery. This is a crime but they do it anyway and then are very chummy with the defense lawyers in the lunch room while the poor bastard defendant is sitting nearby.

On several occasions I trapped prosecutors into asking how I knew a particular thing. This happened both in chambers and in open court. It was easy to do. To do that you simply have to demonstrate knowledge of something they have not given to the defense in discovery. This can be a guess, but it works well with people of such enormous ego. The prosecutors are nothing like as clever as they think. On such occasions their outrage was directed to the whole defense team. On one occasion actually said in a federal judge’s chambers. “How do you know that? We did not give them (the defense) that. You are a famous spy. You have recruited one of us.”

Need I say more? pl


This entry was posted in government, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to “Former Rittenhouse lawyer predicts ‘full acquittal,’ blasts ‘misconduct’ by prosecution.” foxnews

  1. BillWade says:

    Laughing here, one of Florida’s reps, Matt Gaetz, is going to offer Rittenhouse a Congressional apprenticeship. It’s a good idea really, Rittenhouse would have some security that way and he’s definitely going to be hunted down if acquitted.

  2. Babeltuap says:

    I think we get a win. Long over due. Last victory was Duke Lacrosse but they still owe us for Casey Anthony and OJ.

  3. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Apologies for this O/T comment, but as it references another egregious abuse of trust by a governmental body, perhaps it is not so “off-thread” after all.

    The FDA, when authorizing Pfizer’s vaccine [sic] promised transparency to those wishing to have access to the data the FDA had when making this serious determination. Well, they have reneged upon that promise, and in spectacular fashion. After stonewalling requests for that selfsame data, and even after a subsequent lawsuit filed when the stonewalling became apparent, it now develops that the FDA has petitioned a federal judge to permit them to delay release of this promised access until, wait for it, 2076.


    I guess that this must be some sort of addenda to the indemnification against legal liability already granted to Pfizer, but in this case to cover the FDA’s ass. Promise them everything, but give them bupkis…

    Another abuse of trust. They just keep piling up, don’t they?

    • Samantha says:

      Abuse of trust piling up????? This past week Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appeared on the Tucker Carlson podcast, Tucker Carlson Today. It is a podcast that is definitely worth finding and watching. Kennedy is accused of being an anti-vaxxer, but he denies that. He certainly is against NIH and FDA upper tier personnel and doctors profiting from public policy decisions they make concerning vaccines and drugs. According to Kennedy, government public health officials like Fauci make money from their salaries and off holding patents on vaccines and drugs. They are not objective representatives of the public only concerned with good honest public health policy. Kennedy has a new book, The Real Anthony Fauci, which explores this theme further.

  4. plantman says:

    This is a bit off topic, but is related to the Rittenhouse case and what could happen afterwards.

    Colonel, is there an appropriate response to the violence that might follow the final verdict??

    I don’t know if you have ever had to deal with a situation like this, but many of us don’t want to see another month of rioting and looting like we saw last year.

    How would a person with your experience communicate to the demonstrators that rioting will not be allowed this time around?

    Is there a way to stop this disaster before it gets started??

    • Pat Lang says:


      If there are riots, they must be suppressed as an example to others.

    • Fred says:

      Comcast’s MSNBC in it non-doxing doxing journalism efforts (breaking news today) sure seem to want to incite one. As you saw with the Kenosha riots though, once the the three ex-cons got shot, two fatally, the riots all magically stopped.

      • LondonBob says:

        Comcast bought Sky here in Britain, been an absolute disaster since, overt politicisation from the news through to even sport coverage, makes me miss Rupert Murdoch.

  5. TV says:

    The longer the jury takes, the worse it looks for Rittenhouse.
    Jury intimidation may very well be in play here.

  6. scott s. says:

    Weather in Wisconsin in November is generally not conducive to rioting (Milwaukee native).

  7. Deap says:

    I predict nothing. I served on a jury once. Juries are alchemy; not justice.

    • Babeltuap says:

      The judge can override the jury if he chooses. It’s not a real jury system. If they choose poorly they will be scoffed away.

    • TV says:

      Being judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      I’ve been called for jury four times (one a federal case). I never get selected. The lawyers talk to me and then I get sent home. Too bad. I consider it my civic duty and a potentially interesting experience. I’m always a little confounded. The people selected as jurors always appeared to me to be the biggest dullards from all walks of life.

      My wife was selected for a murder trial and, as she described it, it was a horrible experience. A high school football star – the defendant – had been recruited by the University of Arizona. Before he started the Fall season, as a freshman, he went out to buy some cocaine. The deal went bad. The dealers got into a dispute with the defendant. The defendant ran out of the apartment being chased by a guy with a big knife. He ran down some stairs to his car. He could have driven away at that point (apparently). Instead he reached under the seat and grabbed a pistol. He then shot and killed the guy with the knife. The defendant claimed self-defense. The problem for the defense was that the guy with the knife was 50 feet away and the defendant easily could have been in his car with doors closed and locked driving away. The problem for the prosecution was that they wanted murder in the first degree and they presented no evidence that the homicide was premeditated. It appeared to be a spur of the moment event. That’s how my wife saw it. She thought manslaughter was more appropriate. Murder 2 at the worst.

      The jury wanted to just convict on murder 1 and go home and be done with it. They cited the fact that the defendant had hollow point bullets in his pistol. To everyone except my wife that indicated that he intended to kill someone. Lots of stupid stuff like that was debated. My wife held out and the other jurors really hassled her. One said something about throwing her out of the window so they could have some common sense rule the day and get it over with. In the end, there was a conviction on murder 2. My wife told the judge and defense (I think) what had happened in the jurors’ room. There was some talk of a mistrial with my wife testifying as to why, but it never came about. She doesn’t ever want to be on a jury again.

      • BillWade says:

        I had two weeks of jury duty in New Hampshire. I was selected for 3 different cases during that period. If you want to be on a jury you have to appear to be not interested in much of anything to be selected. Then, if you have an ounce of a brain or a tiny bit of leadership skill, you can dominate your fellow jurors with ease. In one of the cases the verdict to convict was easily reached except for one old coot. I finally figured out that he wanted to drag it on into the afternoon so he could get another $14 out of the county (if we had finished up in the AM we would be allowed to go home for the day). I convinced the other jurors of what he was doing and the old coot threw in the towel.

        Another case involved a car accident wherein a plumber was being sued for the 2nd time (first time didn’t work). He clearly was not at all at fault and it was also clear that the woman suing him was at fault. She was ferrying her All-Star HS baseball pitcher son to school. They were claiming that this plumber ruined the kid’s future MLB contract. It was a pretty funny trial, the plumber’s lawyer looked like Chris Farley and he was pretty damn good at clearing his client. But, the stupidity didn’t stop there. After we decided in the plumber’s favor unanimously, one of the jurors said, “let’s give the kid some money anyway”.

        The third one I was in was very upsetting, it would take forever to spell it out here. Basically, I got to see a cop testify and a dogged defense lawyer battle it out with him for hours. The lawyer outlasted the most obnoxious, spiteful, bullying cop I had ever could have possibly run into. I made a mental note to never drive in his small town, he would beat and put his own mother into jail if he could.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          My father was a lawyer.I used to sit in on his trials when I was a kid and on breaks from school. He practiced every known kind of law in the local and federal courts. He had a reputation for being extremely devious, perhaps even maniacally so.

          I watched one case wherein he convinced a jury that his client should be acquitted of a drunk driving charge because, I surmise, of illegal arrest procedure.

          The client was pulled over and found to be totally wasted out of his mind. The client consented to a field sobriety test and a blood test (this was before MADD). The testimony and the evidence confirmed that the client drunk as a skunk. The defense (my father) stipulated to the extreme level of intoxication. The argument in defense was that no one that impaired can enter into a legally binding agreement(sobriety tests). All kinds of case law concerning impaired parties and contracts/agreements was cited.

          Even as a 12 or 13 year old,I thought this approach had no chance of working. To my surprise, the jury bought it. They found a drunk not guilty drunk driving because he was too drunk to know what he was doing.

          The old man used to say that you can never figure a jury.

      • JerseyJeffersonian says:

        A little slice of life. Makes one really question the value of liberal “democracy”, doesn’t it?

        Kakistocracy; rule by the worst.

  8. jim ticehurst says:

    Responses to Riots..???? and …Criminal Looting…?and.Fires and Violence ??? Pumper Trucks….Spray them Down..Like Europe does…Put Thier Fires Out…Use Ice Chilled Water..Arrest All The Ones Breaking Laws…Let Examples Be Made…With a STRONG Response…Law and Order…

  9. JK/AR says:

    Not guilty on all counts.

  10. Deap says:

    Verdict announced: acquitted on all counts.
    Keep calm and carry on, Kenosha.

Comments are closed.