[ad_1]
The judge provoked outrage on Thursday when he made a remark about “Asian cuisine.” And his effort to commemorate soldiers prompted the courtroom to cheer a man who looked to be the sole veteran in the room: a defence witness.
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder continues to garner attention, criticism, and claims of prejudice a day after shouting in rage at the prosecution in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial.Schroeder is Wisconsin’s longest-serving current judge. According to public documents, he is in his mid-seventies. In late October, he drew national attention and charges of bias in favour of the defence when he stated the persons shot by Rittenhouse couldn’t be termed “victims” during the trial.
His courtroom methods include avoiding the usage of the word “victims.” However, his decision to allow the same persons to be referred to as “rioters, looters, and arsonists” set in motion a cycle in which Rittenhouse’s detractors blasted the court as biassed and Rittenhouse’s supporters celebrated the judge’s judgments.
While claims of prejudice have increased during the trial, Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother stated on Thursday that she believed the judge was “quite fair.” Wendy Rittenhouse told Sean Hannity of FOX News Channel that she had been told by locals that “he doesn’t accept no foolishness in his courtroom.”
Those remarks occurred as Schroeder’s newest issue drew widespread notice. In answer to a question about a lunch break on Thursday, he attempted a joke: “I hope the Asian cuisine isn’t coming… isn’t on one of those boats down Long Beach Harbor,” he remarked.
The remark appeared to be in reference to the crisis developing on the West Coast, where a record number of cargo ships have been stranded off the coast of California owing to a backlog at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
“The biassed judge in the Rittenhouse case just made a poorly veiled anti-Asian remark,” Stanford law professor Michele Dauber tweeted. “Because all Asian cuisine originates from China, just like the ships, what a racist.”
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat, used the video to attack the judge and the court system that put him in charge of the trial: “Schroeder has demonstrated how not to be a competent judge. Wisconsin’s selection mechanism is likewise severely broken “He tweeted about it.
“They are chosen after being appointed for a period of time, and there is no retirement age. This is why we have such inebriated and unsuitable judges all across the country.”
In a second occasion, Schroeder asked the courtroom whether anybody was a veteran at the outset of proceedings on Veterans Day. Expert witness John Black was the only one who said “yes.”
“OK, and I believe we can give a round of applause to those who have served our nation,” Schroeder remarked. The judge applauded. People in the gallery, including a defence attorney and Rittenhouse, began to applause as well.
Recognizing soldiers is not out of character for Schroeder, who wore a tie embroidered with American flags on Thursday and whose phone ringtone, as heard in court, is “God Bless the United States of America.”
According to Steven Wright, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, Schroeder risked making Black look more believable to the jury by asking for applause.
Wright perceived the incident as a blunder on the part of the judge.
If the jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty, there will very certainly be no appeal. If he is found guilty, Schroeder’s error might only be perceived as a benefit to Rittenhouse rather than a subject of contention on appeal, according to Wright.
While social media critics have regularly targeted the judge, some experts have said that the prosecution has botched portions of the Rittenhouse case.
“Some have chastised Judge Bruce Schroeder for upholding long-standing constitutional norms,” said Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, in a USA TODAY editorial piece.
“Even without the prosecution’s unforced errors, this was always going to be a challenging case. Wisconsin has a strict self-defense law. When a defendant claims to have acted to repel a threat, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[ad_2]
