The Charlie Kirk Show - Analyzing the New 'Trial of the Century' with Alan Dershowitz & Self-Defense Expert Andrew Branca
Aired: 2021-11-17
Duration: 36:00


=== Prosecution Influence and Jury Pressure (14:58) ===

[00:00:00]  Hey, everybody.
[00:00:00]  Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we have two amazing defense attorneys, Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Branca from Self-Defense, Lawofself Defense.com, to go over the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the implications of it as we await a verdict.
[00:00:17]  You can email us your thoughts.
[00:00:18]  It's always freedom at charliekirk.com.
[00:00:20]  And if you want to support our show like so many people have, go to charliekirk.com slash support.
[00:00:25]  We'd be so thankful if you'd consider doing it.
[00:00:28]  And I want to thank some of our supporters that have generously got behind the work we are doing at charliekirk.com slash support.
[00:00:36]  Jerry from Nevada, thank you for supporting us.
[00:00:39]  Very, very generous support.
[00:00:41]  Edith from Virginia, thank you.
[00:00:43]  William from Washington, thank you.
[00:00:45]  Teresa from Massachusetts.
[00:00:47]  Victor from California, thank you.
[00:00:49]  Robert from Michigan.
[00:00:51]  Bernard from Virginia.
[00:00:52]  A lot of Virginia people.
[00:00:53]  God bless Virginia.
[00:00:55]  And Matthew from Minnesota, charliekirk.com slash support.
[00:00:58]  We are very appreciative when you get behind us and the work we are doing, charliekirk.com slash support.
[00:01:06]  If you want to come to America Fest, everybody, it's tpusa.com slash AMFEST.
[00:01:12]  Tickets are running low.
[00:01:14]  So go to tpusa.com slash amf.
[00:01:17]  Or now we have a new way you could do it, amfest.com.
[00:01:21]  Just go to amfest.com.
[00:01:23]  Let me tell you about some of these incredible speakers we have coming, everybody.
[00:01:26]  We have Tucker Carlson, Kaylee McEnany, Ted Cruz, Jesse Waters, Candace Owens, Jim Jordan, Donald Trump Jr., Madison Cawthorne, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jack Pesobic, Benny Johnson, Sean Foyt, and more.
[00:01:38]  Brantley Gilbert, Dustin Lynch, Russell Dickerson, and others as country music artists.
[00:01:42]  Tpusa.com.
[00:01:44]  Slash Amf.
[00:01:46]  Be there in person, can't wait to see you again.
[00:01:49]  You can always email us directly freedom at Charliekirk.com, and make sure you are subscribed to the Charlie Kirk show podcast.
[00:01:55]  It is an upper, it is a plus sign in the upper right hand corner, and if you say Charlie, I want to get back to the show, but I have no money, then just go, take some of your friends phones and subscribe to the Charlie Kirk show.
[00:02:05]  It always helps us.
[00:02:06]  I'm not kidding when I say that.
[00:02:08]  Email us your thoughts again.
[00:02:09]  Freedom at Charliekirk.com.
[00:02:10]  Dershowitz is here.
[00:02:11]  Buckle up.
[00:02:11]  Here we go, Charlie.
[00:02:13]  What you've done is incredible here.
[00:02:14]  Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
[00:02:16]  I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
[00:02:20]  Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks.
[00:02:23]  I want to thank Charlie.
[00:02:24]  He's an incredible guy.
[00:02:25]  His spirit, his love of this country.
[00:02:27]  He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
[00:02:32]  Turning point.
[00:02:33]  We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
[00:02:42]  That's why we are here.
[00:02:44]  Hey everybody, this episode is brought to you by my friends at Expressvpn Expressvpn.com.
[00:02:51]  Slash Charlie.
[00:02:52]  Secure your device.
[00:02:53]  Anonymize your online activity.
[00:02:55]  Protect your action online.
[00:02:58]  Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
[00:03:02]  Help our show out by also helping yourself protect yourself.
[00:03:06]  Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.
[00:03:12]  I've been telling you guys about Relief Factor for quite some time.
[00:03:15]  And truth is, I know millions of people are, in fact, 100 million people are in some kind of pain.
[00:03:19]  Look, producer Andrew, he couldn't walk.
[00:03:20]  He was a hobbled individual.
[00:03:23]  He was bedridden in his chair, complaining all the time.
[00:03:27]  And then all of a sudden, we got this call from Relief Factor.
[00:03:29]  They said, hey, we want to partner with your show.
[00:03:31]  We're going to send you some Relief Factor.
[00:03:32]  Producer Andrew got it.
[00:03:34]  He took it, got a little bit better, took some more, got a little bit better.
[00:03:37]  Next thing you know, he's doing the Fallsberry flop like you wouldn't believe.
[00:03:41]  In fact, he might be training for an Ironman.
[00:03:44]  It's pretty incredible.
[00:03:45]  Now, he says it's thanks to Relief Factor.
[00:03:47]  I ask him all the time, Relief Factor?
[00:03:49]  He says relieffactor.com, 100% drug-free supplement.
[00:03:51]  You can get it for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day.
[00:03:54]  So go to relieffactor.com, and I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start to see if we can get you out of pain.
[00:04:00]  And then after that, it's less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day to stay out of pain.
[00:04:02]  So go to relieffactor.com.
[00:04:04]  That is relieffactor.com.
[00:04:06]  I'm telling you, a lot of people are in pain.
[00:04:07]  It's 100% drug-free.
[00:04:09]  Don't go to opioids.
[00:04:10]  Don't go to these other things.
[00:04:11]  Check it out at relieffactor.com.
[00:04:16]  With us right now is Alan Dershowitz, who I think needs no introduction and does a great job on a variety of different topics.
[00:04:25]  And we've had Alan on the show before.
[00:04:27]  Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much for joining the program.
[00:04:31]  My question is, what's your take on the Kyle Rittenhouse drama?
[00:04:35]  And kind of, I read an article that said you believe he should be acquitted.
[00:04:39]  Please, the floor is yours.
[00:04:40]  Well, not only do I think he should be acquitted, but I don't think he got a fair trial.
[00:04:44]  Whether he's acquitted or convicted, the media has put not a thumb on the scale, but an elbow on the scale.
[00:04:51]  They have told everybody, particularly CNN, New Yorker Magazine, MSNBC, they've already told the public, this guy is a white supremacist, a vigilante.
[00:05:03]  He's no good.
[00:05:05]  This will send a terrible, terrible message and a precedent.
[00:05:09]  They have basically tried to take the self-defense issue away from the jury and broaden the crime into him being there at all.
[00:05:18]  He never should have been there.
[00:05:19]  He never should have had a gun.
[00:05:20]  He never should have confronted any of these other people.
[00:05:24]  But that's not what he's charged with.
[00:05:26]  He's charged with murdering two people and attempting to murder another.
[00:05:29]  His defense is self-defense.
[00:05:31]  And the issue should be limited to the minutes leading up to the shootings and the moments after the shootings.
[00:05:39]  He should not be put on trial for his activities that whole day.
[00:05:43]  Whether we like or don't like what he did that whole day, and I don't like it.
[00:05:47]  I wish he hadn't come.
[00:05:48]  I wish he hadn't brought his gun.
[00:05:50]  But that's not what he's on trial for.
[00:05:52]  And so the jury has been distracted, I think, from the focus by the prosecution's case and by the outside influences of the media.
[00:06:02]  Yeah.
[00:06:03]  And so right now the jury is deliberating or they're arguing over many different kind of technical aspects or issues of evidence being provided.
[00:06:11]  You know, Professor Dershowitz, you are the expert on this.
[00:06:14]  Have you ever seen a prosecution act like this prosecution did, especially in regards to potentially challenging the Fifth Amendment rights of Kyle, the defendant?
[00:06:26]  Do you think that was an intentional tactic to try to trigger a mistrial?
[00:06:30]  What's your take on that with all of your experience?
[00:06:33]  Tragically, I've seen this happen over and over again.
[00:06:36]  Prosecutors constantly violate the Constitution and judges let them get away with it.
[00:06:41]  This judge has been criticized because he hasn't let them get away with it.
[00:06:44]  If the shoe were on the other foot, if this were a Black Lives protester who had killed and was being charged and was claiming self-defense, the hard left media would be taking exactly the opposite view.
[00:06:55]  They'd be praising the judge, et cetera.
[00:06:57]  So this is clearly a violation of the Constitution, what the prosecution did.
[00:07:04]  And I said from day one, because this case is going badly for the prosecution, they may win.
[00:07:09]  Can't predict the outcome of the case, but because they thought the case was going badly, they may have deliberately tried to get a mistrial without prejudice so that they could start all over again and do a better job.
[00:07:21]  The same thing happened in the O.J. Simpson case.
[00:07:23]  When the O.J. Simpson case wasn't going well, the prosecution tried to get rid of jurors and go below the 12 numbers in order to do it again.
[00:07:33]  I actually argued that aspect of the case went to LA and prevented them from doing that.
[00:07:39]  But prosecutors will do that from time to time.
[00:07:42]  That's a kind of a learning curve for a lot of us that are watching from the outside and kind of not as much in the legal world.
[00:07:49]  So can you explain to our audience the difference between a potential motion for dismissal of prejudice or a mistrial?
[00:07:56]  Would a motion for dismissal with prejudice mean that Kyle could never be retried again?
[00:08:01]  Is that correct?
[00:08:02]  That's right.
[00:08:03]  With prejudice.
[00:08:04]  And if the prosecution deliberately created a mistrial in order to get a second shot, the law is they don't get the second shot.
[00:08:14]  It's dismissed with prejudice.
[00:08:16]  He can never be tried again.
[00:08:17]  He's free.
[00:08:18]  On the other hand, if it's an ordinary mistrial, it just means you start all over again, you pick 12 different jurors, maybe a different judge, and you present the evidence.
[00:08:27]  You don't present some of the evidence that backfired the way the prosecution would like not to present the evidence of the man who is the alleged victim of attempted murder.
[00:08:38]  So there is a big difference between dismissal with prejudice and dismissal without prejudice.
[00:08:44]  So Professor, I'd love to get your take on Kyle himself taking the stand.
[00:08:47]  That's unusual.
[00:08:49]  Talk about when does a defense do that?
[00:08:52]  And do you think that was wise in this case?
[00:08:55]  It was wise in this case.
[00:08:56]  Of course, if he ends up losing, people will say it was not wise in this case, but I would have done the same thing as a very experienced defense counsel.
[00:09:04]  You can't win a self-defense case without the defendant looking the jury in the eye and saying, look, I feared for my life.
[00:09:12]  If you were in this situation, you would have done the same thing.
[00:09:15]  And Rittenhouse, I think, presented himself quite effectively.
[00:09:20]  Of course, the hard left media, Don Lemon and others, said it was crocodile tears, you know, it's white privilege.
[00:09:28]  You name all the clichés that run around these days.
[00:09:32]  But I think it was necessary for him to take the stand.
[00:09:34]  He also doesn't have a criminal record, and they didn't open the door to questioning him.
[00:09:42]  The other people, the people who were shot, had criminal records.
[00:09:46]  But of course, that doesn't come in unless the defendant essentially knew about their dangerousness and their criminal record, which he didn't.
[00:09:54]  Right.
[00:09:54]  And so one thing that is floating around is the potential for jury intimidation.
[00:09:59]  There's been some activists that say we know who these jurors are, we know their identities.
[00:10:04]  First, how common is that?
[00:10:05]  And if that is happening, what is the path forward then?
[00:10:09]  Does the case get dismissed?
[00:10:11]  I'm not quite sure on that in that regard.
[00:10:13]  Well, it's a horrible situation.
[00:10:15]  It started in the deep south when jurors were intimidated into convicting innocent African Americans, or in one case, an innocent Jew, Leo Frank, because of crowd pressures.
[00:10:29]  It happened in the famous case of Shepard versus Maxwell, which led to the TV series, The Fugitive.
[00:10:36]  It's happened over and over again.
[00:10:38]  But in modern times, in recent times, the pressure comes from the hard left.
[00:10:44]  Today in Georgia, we're seeing dozens, maybe hundreds of black ministers putting pressure, praying that the jury convicts.
[00:10:54]  And if the jury hears about that, it can't help but influence the outcome of the case.
[00:10:59]  And that's not right.
[00:11:00]  Maxine Waters threatened violence, essentially, if there were anything less than a murder verdict in the George Floyd's case.
[00:11:12]  So we're seeing the mob hijacking the justice system all over the United States today.
[00:11:19]  And it's happening on both sides, much more the hard left trying to hijack the juries in cases where they think that conviction is appropriate.
[00:11:29]  That shouldn't be allowed to happen.
[00:11:31]  From what I understand, the jury is not being sequestered.
[00:11:34]  Is that normal?
[00:11:35]  And in modern America now, with everyone having a smartphone, is it even realistic to act as if the jury's not going to be able to hear everything else that's happening?
[00:11:44]  No, the jury should have been sequestered in this case, certainly during deliberations.
[00:11:49]  Juries, I think, have to be sequestered more than they used to be sequestered because, as you say, of modern media, and it's very hard to insulate jurors from what's going on outside.
[00:12:01]  It's not enough to tell jurors, don't talk about it when you get home with your wife or your children.
[00:12:05]  Don't watch television.
[00:12:07]  We know that juries don't always obey those orders.
[00:12:11]  Yeah, and so you mentioned something I think that's really important, which is a troubling new trend that if enough people protest or demand it, it's as if there is this extra pressure outside of the courtroom.
[00:12:22]  You call it the mob.
[00:12:23]  I think that's appropriate.
[00:12:25]  And we're seeing that now in Rittenhouse, but also, as you say, in the Ahmad Arbery case as well.
[00:12:31]  Professor, have you personally dealt with that?
[00:12:34]  I'm sure in the OJ trial, there were some issues with that.
[00:12:39]  How do we break away from that?
[00:12:41]  Because that would be the end of the kind of constitutional order that both you and I admire and we want to protect.
[00:12:47]  If you just get enough protesters in the streets or threaten violence, then justice as we know it is done.
[00:12:53]  It is.
[00:12:53]  And the worst example of it is the Office of Potter case in Minneapolis.
[00:12:58]  This was an officer with 20-something years of experience, perfect record.
[00:13:03]  She made a tragic mistake.
[00:13:04]  She pulled out a gun instead of a taser and shot to death a young man who should have been tased.
[00:13:10]  He was perfectly appropriate target for tasing.
[00:13:12]  She made a mistake.
[00:13:13]  She should not have been charged with any crime whatsoever.
[00:13:16]  A mistake is not a crime.
[00:13:18]  But because of mob pressure, she was indicted.
[00:13:21]  Now mob pressure wants to increase the charges from manslaughter to murder.
[00:13:26]  That's the worst example I've seen of how mob pressures influence the charging process.
[00:13:32]  But I also think in the George Floyd case, that mob pressures may very well have had an influence on the verdict in that case.
[00:13:42]  Well, and it's just for anyone that wants a fair hearing in court, it's a scary set of circumstances to think that the prosecution can be influenced by outside forces to go to higher charges and more aggressive charges, and then the jury can as well.
[00:13:58]  Our system has to have some sort of additional measures in place, as you mentioned, sequestration of jury or some set of circumstances because I'm...
[00:14:09]  We're moving trials outside of the urban areas to more isolated rural areas where the influence isn't as great or as direct or as dramatic.
[00:14:20]  I think that has to be done.
[00:14:22]  Look, people have a right under the First Amendment to protest.
[00:14:25]  People even have the right to pray for a guilty verdict.
[00:14:28]  But what they don't have the right to do is to try to influence the jurors, either directly or indirectly.
[00:14:34]  And we see that happening.
[00:14:35]  Is there any doubt that the pastors who are praying for a guilty verdict hope that the jury will hear them and listen to their prayers?
[00:14:44]  Yeah, they're praying to God, to be sure, but they have two audiences.
[00:14:48]  God, on the one hand, fortunately will not intervene in this case and in others, and the jurors who will decide the fate of the defendant.

=== Brady Violations and Mistrial Risks (13:01) ===

[00:14:58]  I think those defendants in that case in Georgia are horrible.
[00:15:02]  And what they did was inexcusable, but they're entitled to a fair trial.
[00:15:06]  And a fair trial means not having the jury hear from pastors who are praying for a guilty verdict.
[00:15:13]  Well, and Professor, you have been so consistent on this for years.
[00:15:17]  And, you know, as someone who would be more on the liberal side, you know, and me on the more conservative side, I think we have this agreement that if we just kind of shred the Constitution, it's regardless of your political affiliation, we're going to go in a direction we don't want to go.
[00:15:30]  And it's cost me.
[00:15:32]  It's lost me a lot of friends on the left.
[00:15:35]  It's cost me institutions in New York like the 92nd Street Y, which have banned me and won't allow me to speak.
[00:15:42]  When you stick to your principles and you don't choose sides politically, you pay a heavy cost.
[00:15:47]  I'm actually writing a book on that subject called The Price of Principle.
[00:15:52]  How expensive it is to stick to your principles in an age of partisan division.
[00:15:58]  And I'm hated by the right, some people on the extreme right as well, because I have an op-ed yesterday condemning former National Security Advisor Flynn for saying that we need one religion in this country.
[00:16:11]  And so I condemn the right and the left equally when they try to violate the Constitution.
[00:16:16]  The Price of Principle.
[00:16:17]  I think that's going to be a book.
[00:16:18]  I encourage everyone.
[00:16:19]  I don't know if it's available for pre-order or not, Professor, but if I encourage people to go buy it.
[00:16:24]  Thank you so much for joining us.
[00:16:26]  Your insight is so deeply appreciated.
[00:16:28]  And I just want to commend you for your clarity and your bravery.
[00:16:32]  It's very needed in these times.
[00:16:33]  So thank you so much, Professor.
[00:16:34]  Great to see you.
[00:16:35]  Thank you for having me on.
[00:16:37]  I appreciate it.
[00:16:37]  Thank you.
[00:16:41]  Big tech is monitoring, censoring, mining, and selling your online information.
[00:16:45]  Squadpod is the solution, 100% U.S. programmed, owned, and operated.
[00:16:48]  SquadPod is a convenient, all-in-one application supporting your private connection with others of your choice.
[00:16:53]  I know the people behind SquadPod, they do a great job.
[00:16:56]  Safely bring together your family, your friends, your team, club businesses, or congregation with SquadPod's chat, document sharing, discussion, and televideo capabilities.
[00:17:04]  The SquadPod application is encrypted, protecting your communications and content without any annoying advertisements.
[00:17:10]  They do not censor mine profile or sell your information.
[00:17:13]  I have gotten to know the SquadPod team, and they are true patriots with a mission dedicated to your privacy, safety, and freedom of speech.
[00:17:19]  Join myself and other organizations such as Turning Point USA, nonprofits, and churches by adopting SquadPod as your collaboration platform.
[00:17:26]  Take back control of your privacy by visiting squadpod.com/slash Charlie.
[00:17:29]  That is squadpod.com slash Charlie.
[00:17:31]  Great people.
[00:17:32]  Check it out right now.
[00:17:33]  Squadpod.com/slash Charlie.
[00:17:37]  With us is an expert and someone who is terrific and came highly recommended from the wonderful Jack Pesobic is Andrew Branca from lawofselfdefense.com.
[00:17:49]  Andrew, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
[00:17:51]  You have been terrific explaining this case.
[00:17:55]  What has been your greatest frustration in how the media has covered the Rittenhouse case from your perspective and knowing the law as it pertains to self-defense?
[00:18:06]  Well, of course, the media is largely a propaganda arm of the political left in America.
[00:18:10]  So with all these politicized cases, they rapidly develop a false narrative about what happened, a narrative that, if it were true, would outrage anybody.
[00:18:19]  But it's not true.
[00:18:20]  They do this with Zimmerman.
[00:18:21]  They do this with Jacob Blake.
[00:18:22]  They do this with George Floyd.
[00:18:24]  They do this with, and now the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
[00:18:26]  And unfortunately, you know, normal human beings only know what they perceive in their environment.
[00:18:33]  They only know the information that's presented to them.
[00:18:35]  And if all they see is the news media propaganda, well, that's what they're going to believe.
[00:18:41]  So people believe, for example, that Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times for no good reason when, in fact, he was armed with a knife and getting into a car with children in it, being non-compliant with lawful arrest.
[00:18:52]  And people, for some reason, believe that Kyle Rittenhouse was an active shooter who shot a bunch of black people at a protest.
[00:18:57]  None of that ever happened.
[00:18:59]  Kyle Rittenhouse never shot anyone who wasn't actively attacking him with deadly force.
[00:19:04]  But you see people on Twitter over the course of this trial shocked to discover that what they thought had happened with Kyle Rittenhouse was not at all true.
[00:19:13]  And unfortunately, the power of the media to effectively brainwash the American population is tremendously powerful.
[00:19:22]  Well, I agree with that.
[00:19:23]  And so let's go through the facts and circumstances.
[00:19:26]  I am by no means a legal expert, but the first video I saw of Kyle Rittenhouse, I said, how on earth is this even going to charge us?
[00:19:32]  How is he indicted around that?
[00:19:34]  And so just walk us through.
[00:19:36]  What does the law say when it comes to self-defense?
[00:19:39]  And what argument did the prosecution make that to try to possibly say that Kyle had a premeditated intent?
[00:19:50]  That's essentially the standard that they had to try to meet here.
[00:19:54]  Well, intent in a killing can form in an instant.
[00:19:57]  So it doesn't necessarily mean need to be premeditated in the sense we might think of from TV shows and movies where someone has a plan and purchases items and rope and duct tape and all this.
[00:20:07]  That's not required to have criminal intent for a murder.
[00:20:10]  It can happen in a moment.
[00:20:11]  The difficulty for the prosecution here was that there was literally no evidence inconsistent with lawful self-defense in a case where the state, like they do in every self-defense case, has to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold.
[00:20:26]  So what you expect to see when the state presents their witnesses is an accumulation to a mountain level of evidence that this was not self-defense.
[00:20:34]  They didn't have anything like that for any of the use of force charges against Kyle.
[00:20:39]  So they tried to do a backdoor attack.
[00:20:42]  They tried to say that Kyle provoked the attacks against him.
[00:20:44]  Because if you do that, then they don't have to worry about the self-defense claim because someone who provokes a fight cannot claim self-defense.
[00:20:51]  They're ineligible to claim self-defense.
[00:20:53]  The only evidence they had of this provocation was this drone video that if you've seen it, doesn't look like much under the best of circumstances.
[00:21:04]  Plus, the version they provided the defense was 1 16th the resolution of what they ended up showing to the jury.
[00:21:11]  So the defense had only this low resolution version for a few days because it showed up from the evidence ferry on the prosecution's doorstep in the middle of the trial.
[00:21:24]  And they didn't have the high resolution version until after the evidence was closed.
[00:21:28]  So in other words, they didn't have it to prep their client for his testimony on the witness stand.
[00:21:34]  And so there's a motion to, I want to make sure I get my language right.
[00:21:40]  You would know this better.
[00:21:41]  There's a motion to dismiss with prejudice.
[00:21:43]  Is that right?
[00:21:44]  That is currently under consideration.
[00:21:48]  There's actually two because they filed one motion to dismiss with prejudice after prosecutor Binger inappropriately referenced Kyle's assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to silence in front of the jury, as well as referenced evidence that the judge had ruled excluded from the court.
[00:22:09]  And he did this intentionally.
[00:22:11]  I mean, he knew he was not permitted.
[00:22:12]  They had discussed it just that morning in court that the judge had not changed his rulings on any of this.
[00:22:18]  And he mentioned it in front of the jury anyway.
[00:22:19]  So that was the basis for the first motion for a mistrial with prejudice.
[00:22:24]  And for folks who don't know, a normal mistrial, the trial is dissolved, but the prosecutor is completely free to bring the defendant back again.
[00:22:33]  And this is not harmful to the prosecution.
[00:22:35]  They spend their day in court anyway.
[00:22:37]  They're getting paid anyway.
[00:22:38]  They have the same amount of resources every day.
[00:22:41]  But for the criminal defendant, it's catastrophic because just think about the resources you'll put into not spending the rest of your life in prison.
[00:22:49]  Well, you spend those resources in your first trial.
[00:22:52]  And when it comes back for a second trial, a retrial, you don't have those resources anymore.
[00:22:57]  Your first lawyer's got paid.
[00:22:58]  They're not giving that money back.
[00:23:00]  So what you want as a defendant is not just a mistrial, but a mistrial with prejudice.
[00:23:04]  The prejudice part means the prosecutor is not free to bring the case again.
[00:23:09]  So they had that first motion for a mistrial with prejudice, and then they discovered just this past Friday after the evidence had closed that they had not, in fact, received the same resolution video as was in the prosecution's possession.
[00:23:22]  So they've now added that as another reason why they should have a mistrial with prejudice and filed a new motion, including the drone video resolution issued just this past Monday.
[00:23:33]  So if that's the case, then that would, in my personal opinion, feed into this narrative that maybe the prosecution is trying to trigger a mistrial without prejudice.
[00:23:43]  Do you think that's the same?
[00:23:44]  And that's what that's what the defense is arguing.
[00:23:48]  I mean, we can't see into the prosecution's mind, right?
[00:23:51]  But what we do know is that their case is terrible.
[00:23:54]  And there have been previous cases in Wisconsin courts where prosecutors have done this, where they've had a losing case and they decided, you know what, we're just going to deliberately throw the case.
[00:24:04]  So it goes away and then we'll try them again.
[00:24:07]  And maybe we'll get a better jury the second time around, or maybe we'll get a more amenable judge the second time around.
[00:24:12]  And of course, that's a terrible injustice to allow that to happen.
[00:24:16]  So the conditions that have to be met is not just that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, but that he did so intentionally for the purpose of throwing the trial so you can get another shot.
[00:24:26]  And I think the judge is onto it, though.
[00:24:28]  I mean, if you read carefully into what the judge says, I don't really know what you're up to here.
[00:24:32]  He was almost implying that, you know, I'm not going to let you throw this thing.
[00:24:37]  Do you think that that could be there?
[00:24:40]  The judge talks a lot and you might make reasonable inferences from the things he says.
[00:24:45]  I mean, he's shouted at the prosecution.
[00:24:47]  He's told them he doesn't believe they're acting in good faith, which means, of course, he believes they're acting in bad faith.
[00:24:52]  I mean, those are the only two options.
[00:24:54]  But then he doesn't do anything.
[00:24:55]  I mean, he doesn't follow through and hold them accountable.
[00:24:58]  Certainly, if they provided this drone footage in a lower resolution, knowing they were doing that, I mean, that's an explicit Brady violation of a violation of the prosecution's duty under the U.S. Constitution to provide the defense with the evidence that's going to be used against them.
[00:25:13]  And that should lead to a malicious prosecution case against these prosecutors.
[00:25:18]  They should pierce their normal prosecutorial immunity.
[00:25:21]  But we don't know if it was intentional.
[00:25:23]  It could have been accidental.
[00:25:24]  You know, they put it in a Dropbox.
[00:25:26]  And I'm not a technology-savvy guy, but I hear that you put a big file in Dropbox, sometimes it shrinks it, compresses it, results in a lower resolution without the person who put it there knowing.
[00:25:35]  So it's possible the drone video resolution issue was unintentional.
[00:25:40]  We really don't know.
[00:25:41]  But even if it was unintentional, it puts the defendant in such a bad position in combination with the other acts by the prosecutor that we know were intentional that I really don't see any other recourse but a mistrial with prejudice in this case.
[00:25:58]  Yeah, with prejudice means that he couldn't be retried again.
[00:26:02]  So my other question, though, and I'm kind of still learning on the fly with this alongside the audience, how is it that the prosecution just add charges as we go along?
[00:26:14]  As if they're second degree, first degree.
[00:26:16]  Aren't those different arguments that need to be presented to the jury?
[00:26:20]  Yeah, they're really not.
[00:26:21]  So this is very normal in criminal cases.
[00:26:23]  You'll have a high-level charge, and the high-level charge is often an aggravated form of a lower charge.
[00:26:30]  So for example, with these recklessness charges, they're claiming not only was he reckless, but he had utter disregard for human life.
[00:26:36]  That's an additional element that turns second degree recklessness into first degree recklessness.
[00:26:41]  Well, they charged him with first degree, but it's possible the jury could look at the evidence and say, well, you know, we don't see utter disregard for human life here, so it's not first degree, but we do see the other parts of it.
[00:26:50]  And that is what qualifies as second degree.
[00:26:53]  So it's called a lesser included offense.
[00:26:55]  And in the law, when you have a client that is charged with a higher level offense, you're on notice.
[00:27:00]  You know what the lesser includeds are.
[00:27:01]  You know you're going to have to defend against those two.
[00:27:04]  So this was not a surprise to the defense that they were going to be facing these lesser included charges.
[00:27:09]  This is a normal part of the process.
[00:27:11]  Yeah, I just found it to be interesting because I suppose the arguments have to be a little bit, I mean, you obviously tried to go after the one that could land you in life in prison, right?
[00:27:20]  But did you see the defense also trying to simultaneously, you know, defend against those charges as well?
[00:27:26]  And just a few of them.
[00:27:28]  I mean, it's a very complicated fact pattern case because there's so many people involved and so many different uses of force and they're under slightly different circumstances.
[00:27:38]  So there were some cases where the lesser included just it wasn't reasonable under the under the facts of that particular case.
[00:27:45]  And they pushed back on those and the judge pretty much accepted that.
[00:27:48]  But for the most part, the lesser included got in.
[00:27:52]  The only way for the lesser included not to get in really is if the state doesn't want them.
[00:27:56]  So the state can say, we want only the highest level charge.

=== Good Ranchers Meat Scandal Exposed (02:45) ===

[00:27:59]  We're going, you know, we're placing all our chips on that highest level charge.
[00:28:03]  And we don't want the jury to have an opportunity to only convict on the lesser offense.
[00:28:09]  We want everything or we want nothing.
[00:28:10]  But they didn't do that here.
[00:28:11]  That's what they do for Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph, right?
[00:28:14]  That's what they do for Charles Manson.
[00:28:16]  They don't do that for cases like this.
[00:28:18]  They try to hedge their bets here because a lot, you know, if it's Eric Rudolph, they don't want him to get off with a reckless endangerment for the centennial bombing, right?
[00:28:26]  And what it tells you is that they, you know, they don't have confidence in their highest level charge, right?
[00:28:30]  If they did, they would just go for that one.
[00:28:34]  I want to tell you guys about Good Ranchers, okay?
[00:28:37]  You've heard me talk about it a lot.
[00:28:38]  Look, Good Ranchers, they achieve the trifecta.
[00:28:41]  The trifecta is very simple.
[00:28:43]  One, everyone has to eat.
[00:28:45]  Two, you love the country.
[00:28:46]  Three, you want to support the Charlie Kirk show.
[00:28:48]  So Good Ranchers, they send you boxes of meat.
[00:28:50]  When we get a box of meat from Good Ranchers, it's bedlam.
[00:28:54]  People fight over the meat.
[00:28:57]  It is the closest thing to Christmas morning I've ever seen with adults.
[00:29:02]  And Good Ranchers has a limited time offer for all our listeners.
[00:29:05]  10 free bistro fillets when you enter promo code Charlie at checkout.
[00:29:09]  If you go to goodranchers.com/slash Charlie right now, this is a $100 value free with promo code Charlie.
[00:29:15]  I want you to imagine over 100,000 Americans losing their jobs.
[00:29:19]  So you could stop imagining because it's a reality.
[00:29:21]  Since 2015, over 100,000 independent farms and ranches in the United States have shut down.
[00:29:26]  Why?
[00:29:27]  Because foreign meat is stealing their business and robbing you the quality and flavor you deserve.
[00:29:31]  That's why Good Ranchers is here.
[00:29:33]  They exist to support local American farms to help you make great American meals.
[00:29:36]  Together, they want to restore the American ranch and your meals to their former glory.
[00:29:41]  Get the beef, chicken, and seafood that can't be imported or matched at goodranchers.com.
[00:29:45]  Did you know the product made in the USA has been stolen by foreign countries or product of the USA?
[00:29:51]  They process their meat here and then they fraudulently label it as if it came here from America.
[00:29:56]  Good Ranchers is here to put America first at the dinner table and the farmers that work to raise the meat we eat.
[00:30:01]  So do me a favor, get a box of Good Ranchers.
[00:30:04]  It supports the country.
[00:30:05]  It supports the show.
[00:30:06]  And everyone listening to this has to eat.
[00:30:08]  Go to goodranchers.com slash Charlie right now and get 10 free bistro fillets.
[00:30:12]  And in addition, when you subscribe, you'll save $25 off each subscription box of mouthwatering American meats for life.
[00:30:19]  These boxes will show up on schedule right to your door.
[00:30:21]  That's right.
[00:30:22]  Get 10 free bistro fillets, $100 value, free express shipping, and a $25 of your monthly subscription for life.
[00:30:29]  Goodranchers.com/slash Charlie.
[00:30:31]  Go to goodranchers.com/slash Charlie or use code Charlie at checkout.
[00:30:34]  That's 10 free bistro fillets, free express shipping, $25 of your monthly subscription for life at goodranchers.com/slash Charlie.

=== Self-Defense Fights and Video Evidence (05:14) ===

[00:30:45]  I want to ask you about the future of self-defense and how it's more broadly under attack.
[00:30:50]  I'm really interested in that topic, and I know our audience is as well.
[00:30:53]  Andrew, I want you to listen.
[00:30:55]  I want to just listen for a second here to what's happening in the courtroom, and you could tell us what's happening because I'm sort of confused.
[00:31:02]  I'm sure our audience is as well.
[00:31:07]  Actually, what I would propose is making the courtroom the jury room, clearing out the courtroom, looking for checking for any devices that would be recording the deliberations.
[00:31:17]  We can either give them all the exhibits and instruct them to only watch the numbers that we agree on or that are allowed, or we can put them on a separate drive, the exhibits that they've requested or that they'll be allowed to see, and they can essentially have access to all the screens here, and they can play it and do it as they see fit.
[00:31:38]  Now, so normally the distinction of it being privately, no one is with them, but these concerns about giving them unlimited access to the video.
[00:31:47]  Got it.
[00:31:47]  So that's what we're watching.
[00:31:48]  All right.
[00:31:48]  So, okay.
[00:31:49]  So, and is that normal in a proceeding, kind of the back and forth?
[00:31:52]  Well, this, this should already have, everyone knew there was going to be video evidence here.
[00:31:56]  I don't know why these procedures weren't defined beforehand.
[00:31:58]  They're doing this in the middle of deliberations.
[00:32:00]  I mean, I don't understand how this was allowed to happen, frankly.
[00:32:06]  But there are real problems with some of the video.
[00:32:08]  I mean, some of the video, when shown in court as evidence, the prosecution had to mute and unmute because they were saying militia in it.
[00:32:14]  Militia was not something that was supposed to be presented to the jury.
[00:32:18]  So you can't just give the jurors the original videos and let them watch whatever they want because some of that was objected to and the objections sustained.
[00:32:25]  And of course, we have the whole issue with the drone video now, where it's being contested that the defense was not even not ever given the high-definition drone video until after the evidence was closed.
[00:32:36]  So it feels just like a, it's like JV prosecutors, quite honestly, is what this feels like, with way too much power on a national stage.
[00:32:43]  But maybe intentional.
[00:32:46]  So all these mistakes they're making happen to go in the state's favor.
[00:32:50]  Is that a coincidence?
[00:32:51]  Yeah, that's well, that's a good question.
[00:32:54]  Lawofselfdefense.com.
[00:32:56]  We have three minutes remaining.
[00:32:57]  Andrew, I want to ask you, what do you think is the current threat to self-defense?
[00:33:02]  My current opinion is that if they can't confiscate your guns, they're going to criminalize your ability to protect yourself.
[00:33:08]  Are you seeing a disturbing increase in baseless prosecutions against people that want to protect themselves?
[00:33:14]  Yes, what they do is even if they know they can't convict you because your use of force was so clearly within the bounds of lawful self-defense, they use the process as the punishment.
[00:33:23]  They bring you to trial anyway because we have no effective probable cause threshold here.
[00:33:28]  The prosecution can bring anybody they want to trial and then they destroy you through the expense and time and risk of the trial process.
[00:33:35]  Folks, no matter how innocent you are, if you're put in front of a jury, there's a 10% chance you can get convicted.
[00:33:41]  So innocent people go to jail.
[00:33:43]  And even if you're acquitted, if you've killed someone in self-defense and you're on trial for murder or manslaughter, it's easy to burn through $200,000 before you even get to trial.
[00:33:52]  So if you don't have that kind of money sitting around just in case you're compelled to defend yourself or your family, that's what they'll do to you.
[00:33:58]  Well, and so we also saw this with the McCloskey case, right?
[00:34:02]  Which is where they even come outside their home.
[00:34:04]  They didn't even fire away.
[00:34:05]  They didn't even fire around, yet people are breaking in.
[00:34:08]  So you have a great organization, law firm, lawofselfdefense.com.
[00:34:13]  You have a promo where people can get it to learn how to defend themselves.
[00:34:17]  Just kind of what's your wisdom to our audience is obviously a firearm owning audience.
[00:34:22]  Sure.
[00:34:23]  People have to really know the law, don't they?
[00:34:25]  Because it's not as simple as just being able to, you know, it's as simple as being able to defend yourself, but I think there's some things people have to know.
[00:34:33]  It's not complicated.
[00:34:34]  Self-defense law is very straightforward, but there's a lot of bad information out there and people are misled.
[00:34:38]  And if you make a mistake and you violate those boundaries, you are just guilty.
[00:34:43]  So, people really need to know where those limits are.
[00:34:45]  And like I said, there's always a risk of conviction.
[00:34:47]  So, think hard about what fights you're willing to get into.
[00:34:51]  Think about, make sure the juice is worth the squeeze, that the risks are worth the stakes.
[00:34:56]  Well, I appreciate the work you're doing.
[00:34:58]  It's incredibly important.
[00:34:59]  You guys can get it at, you guys can check it out, lawofselfdefense.com.
[00:35:03]  And if you know anyone that's involved in any of these cases, because I know personally a couple of people that are, you know, they defend themselves during Floyd Apalooza last summer, and they're getting caught up in a lot of different things, right?
[00:35:14]  It wasn't lethal, right?
[00:35:16]  But it was just self-defense of, you know, fist fights or whatever, baseball bat stuff.
[00:35:20]  And then they got charged, even though they defended themselves.
[00:35:23]  And so it's important that, you know, you continue to get the message out.
[00:35:27]  We'd love to have you back on once this, you know, the verdict comes because I'm immensely curious.
[00:35:31]  This is one of the most high-profile self-defense cases, as you said, since George Zimmerman, in my personal opinion, especially all the implications.
[00:35:37]  Thank you so much, lawofselfdefense.com.
[00:35:39]  Deeply appreciate it.
[00:35:40]  Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
[00:35:42]  We will see you in Phoenix, Arizona.
[00:35:44]  Email us your thoughts.
[00:35:44]  As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
[00:35:46]  And if you want to support us, it's charliekirk.com/slash support.
[00:35:50]  Thank you so much for listening, everybody.
[00:35:52]  God bless.
[00:35:53]  Speak to you soon.
[00:35:56]  For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk. com.