I lack any technical expertise or experience with Handbrake software, but apparently, a core purpose is to generate low-definition versions of high-definition videos. Interestingly, a photo purportedly of ADA Kraus’ laptop screen being projected onto the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom shows the presence of an imaging software named Handbrake.
The judge was unconvinced by these excuses and suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred. The prosecution has a Constitutional obligation to provide the defense with the evidence to be used against the defendant in court and failed to substantively meet this obligation by providing the defense with only a low-resolution version of this video, rather than the high-resolution version actually used as evidence before the jury.Īssistant DA Kraus had a laundry list of excuses for why the defense ended up with only a lower-resolution, smaller file size, different file name version of this critical drone video, including blaming everybody but himself–indeed, both this colleague ADA Binger and lead Detective Howard were blamed by Kraus, as well (of course) as the defense itself. Without the video, then, there is no act of provocation, and the prosecution would then have the unlikely-to-win task of attacking Kyle’s claims of self-defense directly.
The act of provocation–specifically, the claim that he pointed his rifle at others, provoking Josep Rosenbaum to chase him across the Car Source parking lot–is supported by no other evidence but for this video. The drone video is particularly important because it is the only evidence offered by the State to support their argument that Kyle Rittenhouse has no privilege of self-defense in this case because he provoked the attacks upon himself, and therefore the State need merely prove provocation, rather than have to disprove self-defense itself. With no way to know that the high-resolution version existed, the defense now tells the court that they would have shaped their legal arguments, and prepared their client to testify, different than they did with only the low-resolution version in their possession. This newest request for a mistrial is based primarily on the undisputed fact that the prosecution had provided a copy of drone video to the defense that was 1/16th the resolution of the version that would be actually shown to the jury during the trial.
0 kommentar(er)
