i was a practicing lawyer for 26 years.*** i worked at various times as a prosecuting attorney, and at various times as a defense attorney over the span of those years. i know the ethical & legal obligations of both kinds of practice.
now, the practice of law is a series of decisions that require weighted and considered judgments and assessments of human acts and motivations, and no two lawyers should ever be expected to look at a given set of facts and arrive at the same precise understanding of them .... that is why a host of legal decisions ended up being tried before a court, and the facts of the matter ultimately decided by a jury.
and, i am going to say something that will surprise most non-lawyers. justice is not necessarily expected from this process ..... what is expected is that the trial process and its ultimate rulings are expected to put an end to a given controversy. what the law promises is an end to controversy, so that people and society can get on with the business of life.
that being said, the law intends the process to be as fair and above board as humans, and those who administer and practice the law, can make it. to reach that goal, certain rules and procedures are set forth, to try insofar as humans are capable, to make sure that the conduct of trials (including the trial proper, and all of the things leading up to it, such as discovery, the gathering of evidence, etc.) is proper.
it appears to me that in this trial the prosecuting attorneys have fallen very far short of the standard of behavior and conduct expected of prosecuting attorneys. it appears that they have withheld providing evidence to the rittenhouse defense team that they are ethically, morally and legally obliged to provide the defendants and his lawyers. to wit, that they have altered some of the evidence seemingly to withhold evidence tending to exculpate rittenhouse from the charges brought against him.
to put it plainly, they have "phonied up" & altered their case in an attempt to fabricate a version of facts more likely to obtain a conviction. they have done so to withhold evidence from the defendant that they know is likely to exonerate and exculpate rittenhouse's conduct .... they "edited" a tape to remove evidence damning to the prosecutor's case.
this was not a matter of "judgment." this was simply an effort to deceive. it was an effort to avoid their obligations as prosecutor's to present a fair case. in short, they cheated. unforgivably.
it is, in my mind, as simple as that.
john jay @ 11.18.2021
*** i no longer practice. years ago, i applied for and was granted "inactive status" by the washington state supreme court because of heart health reasons. i paid "inactive" bar dues for one year, and then decided that was silly. the washington state bar association did not think it was silly to not pay my bar dues for being "inactive," so the bar association suspended me from inactive status. it is their club, so, i guess they can run it the way they think best. but, the up-shoot is that i am no longer permitted to practice law in any form, whatsoever. i think it only fair that you know that, in this context.