The Rittenhouse case has been a disaster for the prosecution so far

 Andrew McCarthy:

Rittenhouse Prosecutors Seek to Criminalize Constitutional Self-Defense

...

Exercising poor judgment is not a crime. Neither, for that matter, is being a young white police supporter whose presence at an anti-police riot is irksome to young white radicals. Being armed with a rifle at the scene could be a crime, but it probably isn’t in Rittenhouse’s case.

Naturally, the overzealous prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with misdemeanor gun possession. Openly carrying a rifle, as he was doing, is generally legal in Wisconsin — where a friend, who was also armed and seeking to protect property, gave Rittenhouse the gun to protect himself that night. The prosecutors counter that, having not yet attained the age of 18 at the time, Rittenhouse’s possession was unlawful — a misdemeanor. But the controlling statute, a densely worded muddle that prohibits most gun possession by minors, appears to exempt long guns. The law is so vague, in any event, that a conviction based on it is apt to be constitutionally unstable.

Responsible prosecutors don’t charge offenses based on statutes they cannot explain, and the prosecutors can’t explain the pertinent exemptions. Moreover, to the limited extent that Rittenhouse’s appearance should have any bearing on the case — and criminal charges focus on the operation of the accused’s mind, not spectators’ perception of the accused — his open carrying of a long gun was neither more nor less provocative than the perfectly lawful open-carrying by those on the streets who were over 18. Indeed, it was more benign than the illegal concealed-carrying of a handgun by the state’s star witnesses, over which — surprise! — the prosecutors have not filed charges.

So why is the state so insistent on stacking a minor, selective, incomprehensibly vague misdemeanor gun-possession charge on a defendant who is facing so much potential imprisonment on murder and attempted-murder charges that he’d have to live three or four lifetimes to serve the sentence prosecutors are hoping for?

Because the prosecutors know they have no case. They need the misdemeanor to distort reality such that they’ll be able to hoodwink the jury . . . if the judge is sufficiently cowed to let them get away with it by letting the misdemeanor count stand.

Rittenhouse was not an aggressor. He was attacked by each of the men at whom he shot. Self-defense is a natural right and a complete legal defense. Rittenhouse is its textbook example of these defenses, as Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca has repeatedly explained in his extensive coverage of this trial. So clearly innocent is this defendant that his being forced to stand trial at all, in a justice system where the accused is presumed innocent even when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, should frighten us.

This was obvious even before the trial. It is even more obvious now, with prosecutors having rested their weak case on Tuesday.

In a nutshell, the proof has so far established that Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, a violent rioter who was on medication for bipolar disorder, who threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he got him alone, and who chased Rittenhouse down as he (Rittenhouse) was trying to retreat and yelling “friendly” to indicate he was not a threat. Rittenhouse fired only after Rosenbaum’s friend, Joshua Ziminsky, fired a shot in the air, causing Rittenhouse to turn quickly and find Rosenbaum charging him, screaming, “F*** you,” and lunging to grab his gun and try to take it away.

Rittenhouse then tried to run to a police barricade to surrender himself, but he was pursued by an incensed mob. He lost his footing and fell (there were things being thrown at him and he may have been pushed). When he was on the ground, and under siege from multiple flanks, an unidentified leaping man wearing heavy work-boots attempted to kick him in the face but missed as Rittenhouse fired and missed.

Then Thomas Huber approached, beat Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard, and tried to get the gun away, in response to which Rittenhouse fired, killing him. Finally, Gaige Grosskreutz (the state’s star witness who imploded on the stand), chased Rittenhouse as he fell and was closing in as the Huber altercation occurred. Grosskreutz was carrying a loaded handgun which he had been concealing without a valid license (and about which he later gave misleading statements). He raised his hands as if in surrender, so Rittenhouse did not fire; but then he abruptly charged Rittenhouse. Only when Grosskreutz pointed the handgun directly at Rittenhouse from three feet away did Rittenhouse fire, striking Grosskreutz’s arm and severely wounding him.

It is worth underscoring: That is the state’s evidence. The defense lawyers have done a fine job, but mostly they’ve just had to let the prosecution’s own witnesses and videos speak for themselves.
...

There is more.

McCarthy does a good job of pointing out how nonsensical the prosecution's case is and its weird opposition to self-defense.   In the process of presenting a weak case, the prosecution has also played fast and loose with evidentiary procedures which limit some of the things that can be said about the accused such as their right to refuse to give a statement to the prosecution.  The judge's exasperation with the prosecution has also become evident.