Re:Searchable flight logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s plane
by Rebelgecko on Tuesday November 30, 2021 @08:49PM
(#29399730)
Rittenhouse was charged with violating a law that only applies if you're younger than 17 years old or have a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. Since both of those things are trivial to disprove (the prosecutor admitted that Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the rifle was longer than 16"), would that be considered malicious prosecution?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Searchable flight logs from Jeffrey Epstein’s plane
by maxlybbert on Tuesday November 30, 2021 @10:35PM
(#29400368)
I would love to learn the answer to this: if some charges are arguably justified, but others aren’t, can you claim malicious prosecution for the ones that aren’t? I would think so.
Unfortunately, for this specific case, I don’t think it qualifies. The judge only dismissed the charge because he couldn’t write clear jury instructions for it ( https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhou... ). I think that could be enough to say “we brought the charge because we honestly thought it applied; the confusion wasn’t malice, it was just difficulty understanding a convoluted law.”
I don’t know about Wisconsin, and I don’t know if Rittenhouse has some way to afford bringing a malicious prosecution lawsuit or some other lawsuit against Kenosha. I get the feeling that kind of reaction (followed by a negotiated settlement) is more common in some parts of the country than others.