What was your take on the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wis., last week?
What news sources did you rely on to form that opinion? Did you follow the case on social media, network news, newspaper accounts, or cable news talk shows? Did you form your opinion while watching Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC? While spending time at home, I took advantage of some free time to expose myself to all of those news sources.
But the one source that influenced my opinion more than anything else was actually watching the live coverage of the trial in the courtroom before Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder.
During my 32 years as a broadcast journalist in Nebraska and Colorado, I’ve had the opportunity to sit through hundreds of hours of court proceedings from routine advisements, preliminary hearings, jury trials, and sentencings. I’m certainly no legal expert, but I feel far more qualified to react to what I witnessed in the live court proceedings from Kenosha, Wis., than the opinions that spewed from the mouths of Don Lemon, Joy Reid, and Whoopi Goldberg.
Don Lemon on CNN, in particular, took issue with Judge Schroder’s handling of the case suggesting that the judge is a racist and clearly biased in favor of Rittenhouse and the defense. Lemon remarked, “This guy may be legally right about things, but certainly his demeanor, the way he speaks to the prosecution, the way he looks at Kyle Rittenhouse like he’s his grandson, I mean come on America.”
Lemon got one thing right when he acknowledged that the judge may have been legally right about things. Isn’t that what the American justice system is all about?
I was personally impressed with Judge Schroeder’s handling of the trial. It was clearly apparent that he intended to follow the constitutional principles set forth by the founding fathers that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He also was particularly careful to guard the integrity of the jury and what evidence they would see and hear to decide the case.
When the prosecution began a line of questioning related to Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence, a right guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment, Schroeder reacted, “The problem is, this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence. You’re right on the borderline, and you may be over, but it better stop.” Many people were taken back by the dressing down the judge gave prosecutor Thomas Binger. I have to say I’ve witnessed more intense confrontations between a judge and an attorney in court.
Lemon and the other talking heads in the liberal media took exception to Judge Schroeder’s tone with the prosecution.
But the judge made sure that the jury was ushered out of the courtroom before he chastised the prosecution over his line of questioning. I was taken aback by a remark made by prosecutor Binger when he told the judge, “May I finish please, I’d like to make a record without being interrupted if that’s OK?” I’ve sat in court proceedings where a statement like that to the judge could have triggered a threat of the attorney being found in contempt of court.
I thought one of the legal analysts who was interviewed after the trial summed things up best. He pointed out that the media, Black Lives Matter, gun rights activists, and many others have been trying to use the Rittenhouse trial to write their own narrative as to what impact the jury’s verdict will have on America moving forward. We may try to write our own narrative about what this means regarding gun rights, protestors in the streets, rioting, racism, and defending property rights.
The Kenosha trial was not about social narratives. For seven women and five men on the Rittenhouse jury, it was only about determining guilt. It was incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to defend himself. The jury’s decision focused solely on the evidence introduced during the course of the two-week trial, the events of Aug. 25, 2020, and the actions and reactions by Kyle Rittenhouse.
Just as I despise the liberal media voices labeling Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist, a racist, and a vigilante, I also despise attorneys and politicians on the right now trying to use Kyle Rittenhouse to further their own personal agendas and for fundraising.
I was glad to hear defense attorney Mark Richards remark that he works for clients, not causes. Rittenhouse himself echoed those same sentiments in his Fox News interview when he said, “This is something I wish would never have happened. People are using me for a cause that I don’t think it should ever have been a cause.”
Rittenhouse is only 18 years old and says he is studying at Arizona State to become a nurse. He also holds firm to his belief that his life was on the line that night. In the Fox News interview, Rittenhouse said, “It wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse on trial, it was the right to self-defense in the state of Wisconsin that was on trial. If I was convicted, no one would ever be privileged to defend their life against attackers in Wisconsin.” He went on to say, “Apparently, (for) many people on the left, it is criminal to protect your community. The jury reached the right verdict. Self-defense is not a wrong choice.”
Ed Norden is a former Fremont County Commissioner.
