by WorldTribune Staff, November 9, 2021
Amid reports of efforts to intimidate jurors, a rioter who was shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin last summer admitted on the witness stand that he first pulled a gun on Rittenhouse.
During cross-examination in the Rittenhouse murder trial on Monday, defense attorney Corey Chirafisi noted that Gaige Grosskreutz had lied to police about being armed.
The Racine Journal Times summarized the exchange:
Chirafisi brings up statement Grosskreutz made to police on Aug. 26, saying at some point during Aug. 25 his Glock fell off his waist. Grosskreutz said he didn’t remember making that statement, but confirms it via written statement.
Chirafisi says “That’s a lie, no?” regarding the statement the gun fell. Grosskreutz says what he wrote was not a lie. “I told multiple officers that I dropped my firearm,” the statement reads, according to Chirafisi.
“You were chasing Mr. Rittenhouse with your gun, right?” Chirafisi asks. Grosskreutz says “I wasn’t chasing the defendant.”
“You omitted the fact (to police) that you ran up on him and had a Glock pistol in your hand?” Chirafisi asks, which Grosskreutz confirms, but notes that he just got out of surgery and “was on pain meds,” and the “traumatic experience I had just gone through.” Grosskreutz says that the omission was not “purposeful.”
Chirafisi then brings up that Grosskreutz had a “thoughtful process” to not share his occupation (out of concerns for safety) and make other statements accurately, but then he somehow didn’t mention having a gun.
Grosskreutz said he was advised by his lawyer to not answer questions from police about the shooting itself.
The defense attorney then showed Grosskreutz a still image from a video of the shooting, at the moment when his arm was shot — as he held a pistol in his hand, aimed at Rittenhouse.
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun — now your hand’s down — pointed at him, that — that he fired, correct?” Chirafisi asked.
Grosskreutz responded: “Correct.”
Some observers said the defense should immediately move for a directed verdict — essentially, asking the judge to acquit Rittenhouse on the spot, on the grounds of self-defense.
If anyone is surprised at how the Rittenhouse trial is going, they weren’t paying attention. Even the initial complaint (thread summarizing below) made it obvious that the prosecution was going to struggle making their case for some of the charges they filed. https://t.co/KiTezF8mp1
— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 8, 2021
Meanwhile, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder revealed on Tuesday that someone filmed jurors in the Rittenhouse case when they were picked up by the bus in the morning. Schroeder said deputies forced the person to delete the video on the scene.
“At pickup, there was someone there and video recording the jury, which officers approached the person and required [them]…to delete the video and return the phone to him. I’ve instructed that if it happens again, they are to take the phone and bring it here,” Schroeder said. “Something like that should not have occurred, I’m frankly, quite surprised it did.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey noted that “at least one person openly bragged about trying to publicly identify jurors in the trial. People in the courtroom have taken their pictures surreptitiously, Cortez Rice claimed in a video over the weekend, with the clear implication that they would be doxxed if they failed to deliver ‘justice’ on Rice’s terms.”
George Floyd’s nephew, Cortez Rice, makes a claim that he knows people taking photos of jurors during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. His goal is to dox jurors if they do not convict. pic.twitter.com/uwLuV2ftfV
— John Curtis (@Johnmcurtis) November 7, 2021
Morrissey added: “Normally, this might prompt a mistrial motion from the defense, which clearly is the target for this tactic. Given how the prosecution’s case has gone, however, Rittenhouse’s attorneys might want to wait on such a motion until after making one for a directed verdict of acquittal first. A mistrial would almost certainly force another trial, perhaps in a different venue, even while most of us are now wondering why this case was brought at all.”