Legal question about judge’s final words in the trial – IOTW Report

Legal question about judge’s final words in the trial

Hello BFH!

When reading news accounts of the end of the Rittenhouse trial, I saw the quotation “charges against the defendant on all counts are dismissed with prejudice, and he is released from the obligation of his bond” several times.  I assumed this was just standard wording for the record for an acquittal in order to acknowledge the prohibition on double jeopardy.

Then I happened to watch a video of Judge Schroeder’s final words ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ_IJFs1KBE&t=372s ) and noted that there was a part left out of all the written accounts that I read:
All right, the motion of the defendant is granted, uh, charges against the defendant on all counts are dismissed with prejudice, and he is released from the obligation of his bond. Anything else?

Now, I wonder if this is something quite different from what I had assumed was oral boilerplate.  Do we have amongst iOTW commenters any lawyers with criminal trial experience? 

Warmest regards,
Uncle Al

30 Comments on Legal question about judge’s final words in the trial

  1. Weird, Uncle al. Barky had to do over his first swearing in because Judge Roberts effed up. I hope Judge Schroedte’s omission is not a foot in the door for the Feds to double-jeopardize Kyle, but I heard that fat toad Nadler yesterday, ranting about trying Kyle on federal charges, and there’s plenty of precedent for the Feds doing whatever the hell they want, so nothing is off the table anymore.

    15
  2. No wonder the sting is so sharp at IOTW. We’ve got a lot of Scorpios up in here. My BD is tomorrow. Happy Birthday, all my fine scorpions.

    FWIW, i think horoscopes are hogwash, but hey, I’m a child of the 60s and 70s.

    8
  3. @Old Racist White Woman — Ah. That explains it, then. I was cautiously hoping the judge was ruling on the motion to declare a mistrial with prejudice that the defense asked for based on prosecutorial misconduct and that Binger & Co. would have to answer for their sleazy actions. Oh, well.

    4
  4. I still can’t get over Count #3.
    Kyle vs “unnamed man”
    How is that even a thing?
    They knew the motherfucker!
    The defense didn’t get to face their accuser.
    And don’t tell me it was the state on his behalf.
    He wasn’t dead like two of them.
    Horse shit!

    15
  5. “No wonder the sting is so sharp at IOTW. We’ve got a lot of Scorpios up in here. My BD is tomorrow. Happy Birthday, all my fine scorpions.”

    Happy Birthday Thirdtwin, as well as the other scorpios. Had to laugh, mine was two weekends ago.

    2
  6. I think it’s a bit of housekeeping that the Judge had to do to finish up this POS indictment; if there was a motion to dismiss with prejudice that the defenant made at the end of the State’s case that decision was reserved on by the judge then the statement could be directed as a decision on the motion. If it’s for the dismissal motion based on the video in dispute (two versions), then it’s addressing that motio whose decision was reserved on.
    If it’s SOP in Wisconsin, then a unanimous verdict of acquittal might require the court impose a decision in recording that verdict. In any event, the words “With Prejudice” are the most important ones.

    4
  7. might have something to do w/ the Defense motion to ‘mistrial, with prejudice’

    maybe the Judge is granting the motion on top of the Acquittal so Rittenhouse cannot be charged w/ some other silliness from this incident, and/or it may be boilerplate to release him from his bond.

    2
  8. The judge appears to be a going “by the book”. He expertly preserves the law.
    He seems to be upholding Wisconsin state statues as they apply to the case, as well as protecting Kyle’s individual rights. Therefore, creating a precedent(?) cleverly applied by this judge to restrict this case to a state matter, resulting in limiting or eliminating possible federal charges.
    – Just a thought.

    1
  9. @Thirdtwin

    I have to think its hogwash too…but sometimes I wonder.

    I know people whose sign is Aries, which emphasizes the head-these people seem to exist from neck up, characterized by quick movements of the head. Taurus people seem to have strong and prominent shoulders. Scorpio rules the sex organs and scorpios seem to be sex addicts or at least sex-oriented. Libras always want to see both sides of the story and are mostly weak fence-sitters.

    OTOH, I am an Aquarian and supposed to be a person who gives stuff away to the needy for free. Like water. Screw that, they can find their own water.

  10. Another Scorpio here, mine was last week.

    “Scorpio rules the sex organs and scorpios seem to be sex addicts or at least sex-oriented.”

    I made the transition from little head to big head thinking fairly early in life. Richard Cooper’s credo to live by is ,”Chase excellence, not women”, I was way ahead of him.

    2
  11. @Rich

    As the sex urge diminishes, we (men especially, but maybe women too) gain in freedom.

    Chasing women too much when young is like spending too much time at billiards – a sign of a wasted youth.

  12. Happy Birthday! Thirdtwin, Glenn Hogg, Chuckie, Ed357, SixGuns, Rich Taylor, fellow iotwreport readers on the “Scorpio” spectrum.
    My birthday is tomorrow, this Sunday.

    However, I no longer depend on astrological traits. Even though the traits can be somewhat accurate, they are limited in respresenting a person’s, God given individual complexities.

    Shakespeare figured it out;
    “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    William Shakespeare, Hamlet

    2

Comments are closed.