The Rittenhouse prosecutors mumped up their case and have like almost no chance of a conviction. I don't know what if any lesser included offenses they've charged, but the argument has all been about homicide. It seems to me that at the very least there's a gun crime he's guilty of, but I don't know if that was charged. Regardless, this guy is not going to see substantial jail time.
I'm going to try really hard not to derail this whole thread and keep this brief, but i'm really curious about some procedural stuff from yesterday. State tried to enter into evidence an image that had been blown up to enhance, which uses a
logarithm algorithm which adds
pickles pixels to fill in the image. Defense immediately objects questioning the credulity of the image, because they grilled the technician who used the software to enhance the image about how the software works and he didn't know b/c he didn't design the software, so therefore how can we believe this image isn't gobbledegook?
Ok so my procedural question here...the defense also submitted into evidence several exhibits that had undergone the same or similar type of enhancement, but at the time the prosecution did not object or question the methods by which they were enhanced. Since the trial is still ongoing, can the prosecution not make the argument of "well if the defense has a problem with using these techniques then the exhibits they have entered into evidence need to also be stricken?" Is it valid for the judge to be like "Well hey you didn't object at the time, so, tough crap"? Seems like if the trial is still being litigated then that should be fair play. Seems like juries are instructed to disgregard previously seen evidence or testimony all the time?
