But if he did click that button and now is trying to say that the defense might have caused the video to be converted to a lower quality then ignorance is no longer plausible.

How many excuses do people have? It seems to be widely acknowledged that prosecutors widely railroad and use unethical and even illegal tactics against defendants and that this is a problem. It also seems to be the idea that black defendants tend to be disproportionately on the receiving end of this behavior and that is a problem. And yet there's astounding difficulty connecting these things. A lot of people I've seen here and all other social media platforms seem to be hoping Kyle gets convicted and the prosecutors are not held to account because he is white and they think a black boy would have been convicted.

This is called (racist, but also) cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kyle being sent to jail by unethical prosecutors will not help the next black boy who is unethically prosecuted or wrongfully convicted.

Hold them to a high standard. Do not find excuses for them, they must be made to justify their own actions. If they are going to use technology to prosecute somebody and they don't know how the technology works, that is not an excuse it is incompetence and highly unethical at best.

> But if he did click that button and now is trying to say that the defense might have caused the video to be converted to a lower quality then ignorance is no longer plausible.

I don't understand. Are you saying that my idle speculation somehow grants positive evidence to the claim that there's been prosecutorial misconduct in the case?

The fact that you or I can identify a likely source of error doesn't mean that (1) that is, in fact, the source of error, or (2) that the prosecutor is aware of it. The rest of your post is overly wrought given the information we actually have.

No, I am not saying that.

I'm very much on the side that Rittenhouse was defending himself when he pulled the trigger.

Furthermore, I think the prosecution has been terrible, and at times, downright malicious (trying to get a mistrial after their start witness flopped, etc).

HOWEVER I really do agree with this take. I'm fairly computer literate (sysadmin for a microscopy facility, daily drive Linux, couple years of web development under my belt) and recently spent a non-insignificant amount of time trying to create a video from a bunch of .tif files and embed them into a PowerPoint. It was not simple or easy. Working with video is always an annoying, expensive, black box. Sometimes I'd do things, and it would just come out a blurry mess. Or balloon in file size for no obvious reason.

Why would you do any conversion at all if you are to provide a "true and accurate copy" of all evidence to the defense? It's supposed to be an identical copy so the defense has the exact same evidence that the all-powerful state that has the power to put you in prison for the rest of your life does. Why wouldn't you just drag the file over to the dropbox folder shared with the defense, like every other piece of evidence that had been distributed?

This isn't just a lawyer. This is an Assistant District Attorney, officially representing the government. They, all lawyers, are trained in handling evidence and know full well what their obligations and duties are. Even if it was somehow a "mistake," it's the type of mistake that trials are dismissed over, with prejudice, and rightly so, because it potentially biases every piece of evidence the prosecution handled.

Besides, using handbrake doesn't completely change the filename, and we're not talking about appending "(1)", "(2)" or "(copy)" like an OS would do for files with the same filename in the same directory.