Israel Keyes

During the Rittenhouse trial, one of the reasons I was kind of leery of predicting, even though I thought that it looked to me like it was a self-defense, was you can't look or I can't see the jurors.

I mean, the jury selection.

I've said this for years.

Most cases are over by the time you've sworn the panel, because you understand, I don't care how good you are as a lawyer, you're never going to change people's view or their prism for what they look through and who they are.

So you have to basically...

pick a jury or deselect a jury that'll give you your best shot.

So I haven't seen their jury.

But I will tell you that so far, the way the evidence is unfolding, it sure is a compelling argument for a not guilty.

And that, I think, is probably where it's headed.

Like I said, I'll circle back to what I told you before.

Cops get a presumption of innocence that a lot of other people don't get.

Well, I saw that today, and most probably that will not come into evidence because unless the cop knew or had some indication that they knew about that incident, the judge would probably rule that that's inadmissible.

But having seen that, it certainly, I think, would give pause to a prosecutor if they knew about that when they were filing the case and what charges they were filing.

I mean, that's when you get back to prosecutorial discretion.

part of the argument you've kind of implicitly made here, Megan, is why are they exercising their discretion in this way on this case?

What is the motivation for that?

Is it because they want to seek justice or are they pandering?

So that's a question.

Well, I handled the case originally the first time it was dismissed and had I violated one of my standard rules, which is I generally will not do a state court case, criminal case out of state, out of California.

I just I think I'll do federal anywhere.