I'M WILL KENNEALLY FOR "HERE AND
NOW."
>> THE MURDER TRIAL FOR KYLE
RITTENHOUSE STARTS NEXT WEEK.
HE'S CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE AND
ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE IN THE
SHOOTING DEATHS OF TWO PEOPLE
AND THE WOUNDING OF ANOTHER
DURING FIERY PROTESTS IN THAT
CITY LAST SUMMER FOLLOWING THE
SHOOTING OF JACOB BLAKE.
A PRETRIAL RULING THIS WEEK
SPARKED CONTROVERSY WHEN A JUDGE
RULED THAT THE ATTORNEYS COULD
NOT REFER TO THE MEN SHOT AS
VICTIMS, BUT AS RIOTERS,
LOOTERS.
WE ASKED LANNY GLINBERG,
CLINICAL PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR
OF THE UW LAW SCHOOL PROSECUTION
PROJECT.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING THEE.
>> SO WHY WOULDN'T ATTORNEYS BE
ABLE TO REFER TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
SHOT AND KILLED AS VICTIMS?
>> SO THE RULING IS UNCOMMON BUT
NOT UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS STATE.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE
JUDGE BUT I EXPECT THE CONCERN
GOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT
TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE AS A VICTIM
IS TO CONCLUDE THAT A CRIME WAS
COMMITTED AND PERHAPS INDICATE
WHO COMMITTED IT.
AND AT THIS TRIAL THE JUDGE'S
JOB IS TO ENSURE THAT
MR. RITTENHOUSE GETS A FAIR
TRIAL AS WELL AS THE STATE GETS
A FAIR TRIAL AND TO SAY THE WORD
VICTIM MIGHT SUGGEST TO A JURY
IS WHETHER A CRIME WAS
COMMITTED.
PERHAPS THE COURT IS MAKING AN
OPINION ON THAT.
SO THE JUDGE IS ORDERING THAT
THE TERM BE NOT USED, I WOULD
SAY IN THE INTEREST OF
IMPARTIALITY.
NOT UNPRECEDENTED, BUT NOT
COMMON.
>> IF CALLING SOMEONE A VICTIM
BIASES A JURY AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT WHY ISN'T CALLING THEM
LOOTERS, RIOTERS BIASED THE
OTHER WAY?
>> INDEED AND THAT'S THE CONCERN
OVER THE USE OF THOSE TERMS AS
OF THIS REPORT AND AS WAS ARGUED
IN COURT THAT DAY.
IF THE JUDGE'S POSITION IS THAT
YOU SHOULDN'T USE THE TERM
VICTIM, SO THERE'S ALREADY BEEN
PROOF OF A CRIME, WHY WOULD WE
IDENTIFY SOMEONE AS AN ARSONIST
UNLESS THERE'S BEEN PROOF THAT
THEY'VE BURNED DOWN A BUILDING?
SO AT LEAST -- AND I'M NOT
FAMILIAR EXACTLY WITH THE
JUDGE'S REASONING ON THIS, BUT
BY THAT REASONING, THE RULE
WOULD SEEM TO APPLY OR SHOULD
PERHAPS APPLY UNIVERSALLY IN A
GIVEN CASE.
>> YOU KNOW, BACK TO THE VICTIM
THING.
IF SOMEONE IS SHOT DEAD BY
GUNFIRE, I JUST FAIL TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THEY ARE NOT
VICTIMS.
>> WELL, I TEND TO AGREE WITH
YOU BY ANY REGULAR USE OF THE
TERM VICTIM.
EVEN A PERSON SHOT DEAD IN A
JUSTIFIED ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE,
THEY'RE STILL A VICTIM OF A
GUNSHOT WOUND.
I THINK WHAT THE JUDGE MAY BE
DOING IS TAKING EXTRA CARE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS NOT
BIASED BY A TERM LIKE VICTIM,
CONCLUDING OR SUGGESTING THAT
THE COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT A
CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
AGAIN, THE JUDGE'S JOB IS TO
ENSURE THAT BOTH MR. RITTENHOUSE
GETS A FAIR TRIAL AND THE STATE
GETS A FAIR TRIAL.
>> CLEARLY KYLE RITTENHOUSE IS
CLAIMING SELF-DEFENSE.
HOW HARD WILL IT BE TO CONVINCE
THE JURY IT WASN'T SELF-DEFENSE?
>> THE PROSECUTOR'S JOB IS TO
PROVE THAT MR. RITTENHOUSE'S
ACTIONS WERE UNREASONABLE.
THAT HE FACED GREAT BODILY HARM,
THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT, THE
STATE WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT IF
HE BELIEVED THAT, THAT THAT
WASN'T REASONABLE OR THAT THE
AMOUNT OF FORCE THAT HE USED WAS
UNREASONABLE IN THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND THE STATE WILL HAVE TO PROVE
THAT LIKE EVERY OTHER ELEMENT OF
THE OFFENSE, THAT HE CAUSED THE
DEATH OF THOSE THAT HE SHOT.
>> SO THE EYES OF THE NATION ARE
ON THIS CASE.
IS THAT A CONSIDERATION INSIDE
THE COURTROOM?
>> WELL, I THINK REALISTICALLY
EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM KNOWS
THAT.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CASE ABOUT
ISSUES THAT ARE HIGHLY CHARGED
AND VERY SIGNIFICANT IN OUR
SOCIETY.
STILL, THOUGH, EVERYBODY IN THE
COURTROOM WILL HAVE TO DO THEIR
JOB AND WILL BE FOCUSED.
THE JUDGE'S JOB IS TO ENSURE A
FAIR TRIAL.
THE STATE'S JOB TO PROVE EACH
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.
AND MR. RITTENHOUSE'S COUNSEL TO
DEFEND HIM FROM THE CHARGES.
>> WE LEAVE IT THERE.
LANNY GLINBERG, THANKS VERY