Kyle Rittenhouse speaks with his lawyers before the jury is relieved for the evening during his trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, United States on November 18, 2021. Sean Krajacic / Pool via REUTERS / File Photo

Nov. 19 (Reuters) – Under Wisconsin’s self-defense laws, prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial faced a delicate legal challenge: proving a negative result.

Rittenhouse’s testimony that he acted in self-defense when he killed two men and injured another on a chaotic night of protests in Kenosha, Wis., Last year compelled the State to convince a jury that the 17-year-old did not have a believe his life was in danger, legal experts have said.

“It’s one thing to affirmatively prove something. It’s another to prove something non-existent, which prosecutors had to show,” former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Janine Geske said. , now a law professor.

On Friday, a jury acquitted Rittenhouse of five counts, including two counts of homicide, in a case that reignited debate over guns in the United States and the scope of the law on self-defense before the courts.

Wisconsin is one of at least 15 states that require prosecutors to rebut a defendant’s self-defense claims, according to the National Non-partisan Conference of State Legislatures. Additionally, there is no “stand your ground” law in Wisconsin. Under these laws, a person does not have to exhaust all other options before resorting to lethal force in self-defense.

Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger argued at trial that Rittenhouse was an assailant in the August 25, 2020 confrontation and created an “active shooter” scenario that resulted in the death of 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum , and Anthony Huber, 26, and the injury of Gaige Grosskreutz, 28.

The defense argued that Rittenhouse, who legally carried an AR-15 type rifle, was repeatedly attacked after taking him to Kenosha to protect private property and shot the men out of fear for his life.

Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Daniel Adams, who has been following the trial closely, called the verdict “very dramatic but not entirely surprising.”

“In each of the three shootings, the victims were in a position very opposite to Rittenhouse,” Adams said. “These weren’t people who were just walking down the street. They weren’t people who were just protesting. They were actively engaging in contradictory ways with Rittenhouse.”

Rittenhouse’s risky decision to take a stand in his own defense has made it even more difficult for prosecutors to refute his claims of self-defense, lawyers said.

Rittenhouse told the prosecution during cross-examination: “I did what I had to do to stop the person attacking me.

Some legal observers said the prosecution was also hampered by its own mistakes.

Wisconsin criminal defense attorney Benjamin Van Severen said prosecutors could have focused their questioning of witnesses, especially Grosskreutz, to obtain more favorable testimony. Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse only fired after pointing his own rifle at Rittenhouse.

Paul Applebaum, a criminal defense attorney practicing in Minnesota, said the jury was also likely in favor of self-defense arguments.

“I think the climate in the country is much more conducive to self-defense” than it was just 10 years ago, Applebaum said, citing a growing public perception of crime and self-harm. “There is a lot more appetite for people who claim that they fear for their lives and that they have used guns to resolve the situation.”

The Rittenhouse trial was the most high-profile U.S. civil self-defense case since a man named George Zimmerman was acquitted in the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2013.

Geske, the former judge, praised the jury’s extensive deliberations for more than three days, but said she feared the verdict would send a broader message that “when you’re protesting or protesting counter-protest, it’s perfectly okay to bring loaded guns to ‘protect yourself.’ “

Reporting by Mike Scarcella in Maryland and Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.