There was no evidence to suggest that the shootings were not self-defense. The whole thing was captured on video and was eye-witnessed. The state had no viable case for unlawful murder, and had no realistic prospect of the jury coming to a unanimous conviction. 🤷♂️
If it was so cut and dry, why did it take the jury 4 days to come to that conclusion?
According to the juror, who was one of the holdouts, the three dissenters had agreed to each prepare a presentation as to why the shooting of Rosenbaum was unlawful. That juror reconsidered after examining the evidence and the law again overnight and persuaded the other two the next morning.
'Just say yes so we can all go home'
The point was, at four unanimous not guilty verdicts decided quickly and one at 9-3 in favor of acquittal until the flip, the chances of any conviction were always unrealistic. There is a good reason DA Mike Gravely passed on prosecuting it, as did his deputy Carli McNeill and prosecutor Jason Zapf.
So not an open and shut case with no case for the prosecution then? Do you also feel that OJ was innocent?
There has never been such an open and shut case. It’s all on video. It doesn’t matter whether you approve or disapprove of Kyle’s decision to be at the riot. Regardless; he has a right to NOT be murdered by felons in the street. Nothing else matters besides that right.
Three jurors who were leaning towards guilty on the first shooting, according to Rittenhouse's attorney who spoke to a juror immediately after the verdicts came in. The other four not guilty verdicts came to them quite quickly, but there were three holdouts on Count 1 right up until the last day.