The Arizona Republic

Rittenhous­e lawyers’ strategy at trial: Don’t ‘crusade,’ defend

- Amy Forliti

Soon after a Wisconsin jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhous­e of all charges against him, defense attorney Mark Richards took a swipe at his predecesso­rs, telling reporters that their tactics – leaning into Rittenhous­e’s portrayal as a rallying point for the right to carry weapons and defend oneself – were not his.

“I was hired by the first two lawyers. I’m not going to use their names,” Richards said Friday. “They wanted to use Kyle for a cause and something that I think was inappropri­ate – and I don’t represent causes. I represent clients.”

Richards, beaming as he talked to reporters outside his Racine, Wisconsin, law office after the acquittal, said that to him, the only thing that mattered was “whether he was found not guilty or not.”

It seemed an apt comment from Richards. Along with co-counsel Corey Chirafisi, he spent the months leading up to the case in virtual silence – “I don’t do interviews,” he said brusquely to one emailed request in December – and sought at trial to minimize the polarizing questions about Second Amendment rights.

Hours after the verdict, Fox News touted an exclusive interview and upcoming documentar­y on Rittenhous­e, with footage that made it clear a crew had been embedded with him during the trial. Richards told The Associated Press on Saturday that he opposed the crew as inappropri­ate, but that it was arranged by those raising money for Rittenhous­e.

Regardless of what was happening behind the scenes, the strategy from Richards and Chirafisi in court was clear: get the jury to regard Rittenhous­e as a scared teenager who shot to save his life.

They repeatedly focused on the two minutes, 55 seconds in which the shootings unfolded – the critical moments in which Rittenhous­e, then 17, said he felt a threat and pulled the trigger.

“These guys have a client who is a human being ... that’s what they’re rightly focused on,” said Dean Strang, a defense attorney and distinguis­hed professor in residence at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

In the days after the shootings, Rittenhous­e – who brought an AR-style rifle to a protest, saying he was protecting a stranger’s property – was initially represente­d by attorneys John Pierce and Lin Wood, who painted Rittenhous­e as a defender of liberty and a patriot who was exercising his right to bear arms. Pierce tweeted a video of Rittenhous­e speaking by phone from a jail in Illinois, where he’s from, thanking supporters.

Rivers of money flowed in to a legal defense fund – more than enough for Rittenhous­e to post his $2 million bail – but Wood left the case and became active in pressing the false claim that Donald Trump had won the presidenti­al election.

Pierce left the criminal case in December after prosecutor­s said he shouldn’t be allowed to raise money for Rittenhous­e, but he stayed on the civil side of things until Rittenhous­e said he fired him in February.

On Friday, Richards recounted his first meeting with Rittenhous­e: “I told him when I first met him, if he’s looking for somebody to go off on a crusade, I wasn’t his lawyer.”

They came to court prepared. Richards used several videos during his opening statement – over the objection of prosecutor­s who did not seize on that opportunit­y. They argued vehemently for a mistrial when they felt prosecutor­s were acting in bad faith, and appeared to outmaneuve­r prosecutor­s in getting a gun charge dismissed.

And they made a careful calculatio­n with perhaps their biggest decision: whether Rittenhous­e should take the stand, risking a potentiall­y damaging cross-examinatio­n. Richards said they tested their case against a pair of mock juries and found it was “substantia­lly better” with Rittenhous­e testifying.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States