Posted on 11/09/2021 4:36:22 AM PST by Candor7
KENOSHA, Wisc. — It was a bad day for key prosecution witness Gaige Grosskreutz, the third person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during the Kenosha riots last year, during cross-examination by the defense on Monday as they got him to admit he lied several times about what happened in the aftermath of the shootings.
Grosskreutz testified he was carrying a Glock 27 handgun the night of the shootings despite the fact his concealed carry license was expired. Grosskreutz added he saw Rittenhouse running away after hearing gunshots. Grosskreutz said when he found Rittenhouse running away and asked him if he shot someone, Rittenhouse told Grosskreutz he was going to the police. Grosskreutz said he grabbed his handgun because he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
Grosskreutz claimed Rittenhouse racked the bolt back on the AR-15 while he had his hands in the air.
"I was never trying to kill the defendant," Grosskreutz said.
Upon cross-examination, defense lawyer Corey Chirafisi got Grosskreutz to admit he lied to police on several occasions:
Grosskreutz told officers shortly after the shooting that "I dropped my firearm." The defense said that was a lie because Grosskreutz chased after Rittenhouse and he had just testified he pulled out his gun while running. The defense got Grosskreutz to admit in court in the lawsuit he has filed against the city of Kenosha, he is demanding $10 million for damages, he failed to mention he was armed when he was shot by Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz said it is not true to say he chased after Rittenhouse. Chirafisi then showed Grosskreutz a picture of him grabbing his handgun while running toward Rittenhouse. Even after being shown the photo, Grosskreutz still said he was not chasing Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz initially told police he shouted to Anthony Huber to stop hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard. When pressed by Chirafisi, Grosskreutz said "with the benefit of hindsight" that is not true.
If that was not enough, Grosskreutz then agreed with Chirafisi that Rittenhouse did not shoot until after Grosskreutz put his hands down and advanced toward Rittenhouse while pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse.
If you want to follow the testimony in this trial go here: https://legalinsurrection.com/
The fellow reporting is well know for understanding/practicing the law of self-defense. Enjoy
This is exactly how the trial against St. Louis Lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey would have gone had they not copped a plea. They didn’t owe anybody that much work and trouble though when copping netted such a light verdict. Rittenhouse avoiding a murder conviction is another matter.
Actually, Kyle’s mom, Wendy R. fired Wood and Pierce because she felt they were just using Kyle to make a name for themselves and make money. She said Wood didn’t want to get Kyle out on bail. His excuse was that he thought the country was going to explode in violence after the 2020 election and that Kyle would be safer in jail.
She ditched “#fightback” and started her own fundraising website.
This is exactly what I expect - that jury will assume they have to find him guilty of SOMETHING, since two people are dead and one maimed for life.
I know it’s just an internet meme, but those two pics shouldn’t be used together — it paints Kyle in a bad light, out of character for him. At that moment in court, when it happened, it was such an important moment Kyle was almost in tears.
He had admitted he had been “attending” these “events” for the previous 75 days. He should have been asked how he afford to travel, lodge, and eat. Then the Defense should have asked him if he was paid by antifa or any other organization since he admitted at that start he went to antifa boot camp.
Yeah the one of him smiling was a couple of days earlier. He shouldn’t be smiling at all in court. Makes it look like he’s not taking things seriously.
No clear video but the FBI video shows the contact, the first shot fired at the scene from someone else as dead guy #1 was charging towards Kyle. Reasonable, by rational thinking people, assumption by Kyle to fear for his life.
Video of Grosskreutz’s testimony should foreclose any civil suit against Rittenhouse, or anyone else involved, for that matter. Actually Rittenhouse seems to have a cause of action against Grosskreutz.
It was like a Perry Mason episode. Grosskreutz all but admitted guilt on the stand, though not tearfully, just peevishly and childishly.
There is video, but it was from a distance.
There is also a very close eye witness, Richie McGinnis, a video director with the Daily Caller.
“Actually, Kyle’s mom, Wendy R. fired Wood and Pierce”
(Cartman) Welllllll… Kyle’s mom’s a… /Cartman
Sorry. I couldn’t help it.
Bkmk
Rite house will be convicted. The Commies have it all figured out. The kid will do time. Appeals will go on for years. It’s time people. Grab your starches and pitchforks because this broken system of ours cannot go on any longer!
Grosskreutz responded, "Correct."
thank you for posting this pic. this asshat couldn’t drop his gun after he was shot due to the nerve/muscle damage. He should be tried for attempted murder and perjury.
This Grosskreutz idiot was arrested for DUI less than 2 months after he attacked Rittenhouse, with a BAC of .212 and he was being defiant to cops in the police body cam footage of that arrest. He kept denying cops his ID and claiming his rights he didn’t have to identify himself. I posted the YT video on an earlier thread a couple of days ago. This guy and the people he calls friends are all compulsive liars. This guy also has a huge rap sheet as did the other attackers Rittenhouse took care of.
"facts that prove innocence?" Sometimes there are only evidence (which the jury and judge may or may not see) and differing opinions whether that evidence is a "fact." Maybe that is one reason that rule of law is nonsensical?
Also, the prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence exists only after a verdict?
I’m not sure that is true because self defense isn’t a charge and you cannot prove a negative. But the murder charges and the assault charges MUST be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As you said, that ain’t happening here.
“knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offesne of which the defendant was convicted” is the typical language in the rules of professional conduct.
Exculpatory evidence comes in more than one form. The prosecutor has no obligation to notice evidence of an affirmative defense. Affirmative defense is by nature exculpatory.
The way the professional conduct rules work is that a prosecuor can totally ignore self defense - this is not an ethical violation. It’s the way the rules are writtten. That’s the part that I see as nonsense - it is ethical to bring a case even when the evidence of self defense is perfect - because the prosecutor is free to ignore self defense. Affirmative defense is not the prosecutor’s place. Affirnmative defense must be brought by defendant.
I don’t know how often prosecutors abuse this rule, but when they do it is an ethically safe harbor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.