I think all the evidence has been presented. Everything else now is hearsay. The prosecutor did all he could to get a conviction. The defense did all they could to get the boy off. The jury will render verdict and unless the judge weighs in on the jury verdict some way, a sentencing date will be set, one presumes.
Kyle should probably get some punishment for getting into a situation carrying a gun he was not old enough to own, but other than that, he should be freed.
Generally speaking, in summation you reiterate the high to low points of your argument, emphasizing whatever the attorney wants the jury to remember. By their summation each side tries to sell their argument to the jury. This summation is for the jury but it often is viewed by other attorneys as the measure of the presenter, how good or bad he is.
Arguments and summations and most anywhere else an argument is used, evidence is nearly always presented stressing the weak points first, leading up to stressing the high points or the most important evidence last, so the jury will likely remember it. But everybody knows this. I'm only trying to be a minor part of the discussion.
I have only sat one trial and yes evidence was re-presented but I guess the thing that disturbed me was the use of the tapes again.
Not understabnding your meaning, @Al Amoling about tapes. Sometime tapes may be the best evidence they have or maybe the only evidence they have. I have been watching a live streaming of the defense final argument, only thirty minutes or so. I thought the defense lawyer was good. The prosecution will come next but I'm impressed with the defense.
I don't like the idea of locking an 18 year-old for a three, or even two digit number of years, but it should be made clear that teen agers crossing state lines with military rifles is not the right thing. His guardian(s) should spend the time behind bars.
I disagree @James Hintze I don’t think parents can be responsible for an active seventeen year old in most cases, not police officers, the pastor of the church if he has children. Nor a judge, etc. Seventeen year old, sixteen year olds, have a mind of their own. But it is what the law says and is or may be different in different states. If I were on a jury I might think of my grandkids or someone might remember who was shot or nearly shot, perhaps a young boy or a girl, some family member or acquaintance a long time ago and that weigh their judgement, letting emotion over rule the evidence. Jurys can do this. I’m afraid the boy will have to stand on his own two feet. The jury may come back with a quick verdict. Perhaps already having made up their mind. It is a roll of the dice. But we are all opinionated. The jury I'll give us the way it is. Both sides will have their fingers crossed.
It doesn’t matter now, @Shirley Martin, as for as this trial is concerned. But it could on appeal. But he could very well get off.
I think he is guilty of being stupid and also wanting to walk around toting a gun and acting like a big man but I don't think he went there intending to kill anybody. If they sent all the stupid people to jail, the streets would be empty except for me and you. ..... And I'm not too sure about you.
He's from Illinois and traveled to Kenosha WI. I don't believe he was charged with transporting a weapon across state lines, though.
I don't think it is usually illegal to take a gun across state lines, but a 17-year doing so is another matter. He believed he was doing a good thing, and I don't think parents are responsible for the good or the bad things their teenaged children do.
He was guilty of that, Shirley, but when you are stupid and kill somebody, most often you have to answer for it. This is not a second amendment issue on trial. It is a murder trial, although it may have those issues, it is a minute happening during a protest.the boy shot three people. Was it self defense or murder. That's the issue. Or primary issue. The judge will charge the jury tomorrow morning.