(Big League Politics) – The Rittenhouse case and ongoing trial have captured a large portion of America’s excess mental energies ever since that fateful day in Kenosha. While many believe the mere fact that the unfortunate events that transpired in Kenosha constitute definitive proof that the country is already circling the drain, many have nonetheless watched the trial closely on either side of the aisle, with all the roller coaster of emotions that inevitably follow such assiduous observation of an emotionally charged case such as this. This emotional roller coaster has once again taken a sharp bend with the latest bombshell coming from the defense.
According to Breitbart News, the lawyers representing Kyle Rittenhouse, who was seventeen at the time of the incident, have made a renewed request to Judge Bruce Schroeder to declare a mistrial with prejudice. The main motivator behind this request appears to be an argument that the prosecution deliberately withheld video footage “at the center of their case” which will almost certainly make for even more courtroom drama since jury deliberations began Tuesday morning.
According to the Daily Mail, the prosecution showed high-definition video footage captured by a drone during closing arguments. This action is what is being used by the defense to declare a mistrial by prejudice because the defense was thus far given a significantly lower quality video of the same incident. As a comparison, the video clip provided to the defense team was 3.6 MB whereas the video clip shown by the prosecution during closing arguments was 11.2 MB.
SCOOP: @HumanEvents has obtained both versions of the Kyle Rittenhouse drone video
The low quality version provided to the defense
And the HD version withheld by prosecutors
Here is the low quality version: pic.twitter.com/FmkRWsgS2Y
— Handbrake Poso (@JackPosobiec) November 17, 2021
“During the jury instructions conference, the defense played their version of the video for the court to review,” the motion states. “The state indicated their version was much clearer and had their tech person come into court to have the court review their clearer video. The video is the same, the resolution of that video, however, was not.”
“The video footage has been at the center of this case,” it continued. “The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.”
The deliberate withholding of the higher quality video footage, which can potentially identify individuals by zooming in a way that the initial lower quality video would not be able to appear to be the main argument by the defense that this action was “clearly intentional” and “prejudicial,” hence the request for a mistrial with prejudice.
“The failure to provide the same quality footage in this particular case is intentional and clearly prejudices the defendant,” the motion also said.
As America descends further into Third World chaos and corruption, many are concerned that the integrity and objectivity of public prosecutors may be severely compromised, thereby significantly eroding the American people’s trust in their institutions even further.