Was this the most iconic courtroom moment ever?

There was a funny old one, the name escapes me but the litigants were throwing chairs at each other.

youtube.com/watch?v=yX0g2aL7cE8

most iconic courtroom moment ever?

Trial of Tim Heidecker

for the murder of the Sun Coast 19

This one birthed many good memes

YEET

Was the defendant his hairdresser?

Is that Spottemgottem?

HUNTER!!

Yes. On trial for killing his sons babymum.

Yeah nothing will ever top this. Rittenhouse trial had some moments that came close though.

it's probably this.

Do international courts count? Remember that guy who drank poison right after he was convicted of war crimes? The pic used to get posted as a reaction image on Anon Babble a lot.
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/29/567143434/his-sentence-upheld-war-criminal-drinks-poison-in-court-and-dies-hours-later

They let him go totally free without even starting to talk about his role in the shooting

all they talked about was the bullet and armorer... something they had an entire separate trial for already

he was let go free because the prosecution didn't think it was relevant to put some random bullets a random guy came with that had no relevancy on the case into evidence

Is this how it works? Could you just go free if you raped and murdered like 100 people just because the prosecution didn't file a random rock at the incident as evidence for example? Or is this only the case with celebrities?

kek. There was also

that's real retarded, sir

youtube.com/watch?v=0PP0DPt2W9w&ab_channel=CNN

pic-rel
dailymotion.com/video/x6as11f

I think on technicalities like that, you don't go free but they can declare a mistrial so the prosecution would have to start over with a new jury etc. I'm not sure though

It was dismissed with prejudice

damn, now I wonder if regular people get that or if it really is just celeb privilege

Yeah the guy was charged with murdering someone, surely a "regular" murderer won't just get away scot-free because of a minor technicality during a trial that lasts for months? It all seemed so fake, especially the part where they didn't even discuss his part of the killing and what he did, all they talked about for weeks was what the armorer did... something they've had a trial for already.

Could you just go free if you raped and murdered like 100 people just because the prosecution didn't file a random rock at the incident as evidence for example?

Yes. Any appearance of prosecutorial impropriety is taken extremely seriously and something like a brady disclosure violation as happened with the rust case will get a prosecution shitcanned before you can blink. Courts are institutionally interested above almost all else. Anything that parties to a lawsuit do that reflects poorly on the court will result in drastic action.

you poured yourself a uh... a megapint of red wine?

So I can just murder someone and then have a bunch of friends send useless shit to the prosecution and unless they file everything sent for evidence and archive it I can just go free?

But during the Rittenhouse trial the prosecution withheld evidence, magically conjured high quality video evidence that they didn't file before and all shady crap like that... how come that trial was not shut down like this?

the judge was kino though

youtube.com/watch?v=fLOOBBFlK9Y

HOCUS POCUS OUT OF FOCUS!

Name a single more evil witness that appeared in a movie protip you can't

you would agree you were violent right?

"I admit I assaulted some cabinets, but I never touched Ms. Heard"

fucking legend

Omar testifying against Bird in The Wire.

it all comes down to the judge and how much of an institutionalist they are. In the Rittenhouse situation the trial had already gone on so long, he presumably thought there was a greater good served in slapping the prosecution's shit for pulling the stunt and letting the trial finish out and go to the jury with that evidence and argumentation suppressed than force a mistrial or dismissal with prejudice. Especially given that the case only happened in the first place as a result of the post groid riots. The last thing he wanted to become was the face of a second season of wisconsin burning to the ground.

You can conspire to manipulate evidence and do all sorts of shit to get off, it's not remotely unheard of. The question is do you want to roll the dice that your scheme doesn't get uncovered and the judge grants you the remedy you're looking for. You have to remember that context matters too. The charges brought already painted the DA and the prosecution in a poor light as if they were trying anything to make an example of Baldwin. That combined with the appearance that the prosecution deliberately concealed material evidence from the defense was a bridge too far for that judge to let things continue.