TRAINWRECK: Rittenhouse prosecution implodes with state witness Richard McGinnis

I’ll cover all of this in greater detail in my end of day analysis, but couldn’t resist getting this out to all of you promptly.

The direct questioning of STATE witness Richard McGinnis by ADA Binger was an absolute trainwreck for the prosecution–and, of course, the jury watched it all happen in real-time.

UPDATE: To provide some context, for more than 12 minutes ADA Binger tried to get McGinnis to testify that Rosenbaum was already falling to the ground when Rittenhouse began shooting him–in other words, that Rittenhouse simply executed Rosenbaum by shooting him in the back when he was helplessly falling.

The actual exchange is in the video, so you can watch it for yourself, but a reasonable paraphrase would go something like this:

Binger: So Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum as he was falling, correct?

McGinnis: No, Rittenhouse didn’t fire until Rosenbaum charged and lunged at him.

Binger: So he shot him as he was falling?

McGinnis: No, not falling, lunging.

Binger: So you’re saying he shot him while he was falling?

McGinnis: No, that’s not my testimony. Lunging.

This is NOT how it’s supposed to be done, folks.

Talk to you all again when we do our end-of-day analysis this evening.


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

7 thoughts on “TRAINWRECK: Rittenhouse prosecution implodes with state witness Richard McGinnis”

  1. Don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. And I’m never to be confused with a lawyer.
    I’m beginning to wonder if this guy Binger is to. Or was he forced to take this case by his higher-up’s and scuttling it on purpose?
    When he mentioned the recorded interview, I thought Binger meant one he himself had done previously to insure he had the desired answer locked in on tape.
    This first shooting seemed the most likely to be a problem before because we hadn’t seen and heard this sort of testimony. Both McGinnis and the detective seem to be defense witnesses more that prosecution witnesses. The next two shootings are both pretty well documented cases of a justified shooting, even without a defense being put up to rebut and I’m not sure what there is to rebut so far.
    Andrew, if things continue like this, do you think it’s likely the judge will give a directed verdict when the prosecution rests, or is this too political for him not allow it to continue so the jury finishes off poor Mr. Binger’s non-case?

  2. The McGinnis testimony seemed to confirm that it was a very dangerous place to be that night for anyone and that medics were needed and being armed was wise.

  3. Hasn’t the trajectory of the bullets that hit Rosenbaum already been determined by forensic analysis? The prosecution seems to want to establish some insidious culpability of Rittenhouse for failing to react to allegation that Rosenbaum was “falling” as he reached him during the attack on Rittenhouse. Bullets hit Rosenbaum’s front and his back. That’s only possible if the first shots hit Rosenbaum in the front. The rapid fire succession is not in question. So the shot “in the back” happened immediately in an extremely short time from the first shot. There was no time for Rittenhouse to judge whether the threat of Rosenbaum’s lunge was diffused.

Leave a Comment