Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal not surprising, Wisconsin legal experts say

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse on all charges is not a surprise to some Wisconsin legal analysts who say the prosecution always faced a difficult challenge of arguing the teen did not fire his gun in self-defence.

"I think the way in which self-defence is defined in the law in Wisconsin, this was going to be a difficult charge to prove," said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of the Public Defender Project.

Gross said from the start of the trial he and his legal colleagues — both prosecutors and defence attorneys — observed that, "Unless the prosecution does something really remarkable here or shows us some evidence that we're unaware of, we just do not see this ending in a conviction."

Rittenhouse, 18,  was charged with homicide, attempted homicide and recklessly endangering safety for killing two men — Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber — and wounding a third, Gaige Grosskreutz — with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle in the summer of 2020 during a tumultuous night of protests over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white Kenosha police officer.

Rittenhouse, then 17 and a former police youth cadet, said he went to Kenosha to protect property from rioters. He is white, as were those he shot. But the case became a flashpoint in the nation's debate over guns, vigilantism and racial injustice.

Supporters saw him as a patriot who wanted to stop lawlessness and exercised his Second Amendment right to carry a gun and to defend himself.

Critics saw him as a vigilante, with some accusing him of being a white supremacist, a charge denied by his family. Those outraged with the verdict claimed a double standard at work — that a Black man charged with the same crimes would have been found guilty. 

Gross said he understands the reaction and expected people would be upset with the verdict, but: "You can't say the jury got this wrong. They did not get it wrong."

Self-defence law in Wisconsin, which is generally consistent across the states, allows for an individual to use deadly force when they reasonably believe deadly force or serious force that could cause great bodily harm or death is about to be used against them, Gross said.

"The prosecution [had] to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that [Rittenhouse] was not, in fact, acting in self-defence," he said.

With that burden being placed on the prosecution and with the law allowing Rittenhouse to assert the defence, "this is the result that the law dictated in this case."

"I almost think the prosecution did a bit of a disservice by presenting the case in the way that they did," Gross said. "They really wanted to try to make the case to the jury that Mr. Rittenhouse was some type of a vigilante and that he was coming to Kenosha looking to shoot people."

Rittenhouse told the jury that earlier that evening Rosenbaum threatened to kill him twice. He said he opened fire after Rosenbaum chased him and made a grab for his gun. He said he was afraid his rifle was going to be wrested away and used to kill him.

Huber was then killed after hitting Rittenhouse in the head or neck with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz was shot after pointing a gun of his own at Rittenhouse.