Opening statement trial transcripts

Jump to main content. Request Information. Give Visit Apply. Trial Transcripts Toolkit for Legal Interpreters. Resources: Trial Transcripts A variety of trial transcripts are presented. Trial Transcripts. For the Defendant:. For the Insurance Company:. For the Plaintiff:. Law Firms. Accelerate Research Insights and Publish with Precision. A Trusted Partner from Transcription to Certification.

Expert insights on AI, productivity, workflow automation, and much more. Latest news about Rev's speech-to-text technology. Whitepapers, reports, and guides to inform your business decisions. Guides and tutorials to help you get the most from Rev. Free transcripts from influential moments in politics and media. Help Center Developers Security Login.

Get Started. Coming soon. Transcription Closed Captions Accessibility Technology. Supreme Court. World News. Joe Biden. Legal Event. Stock Market. Congressional Testimony. Donald Trump. Artificial Intelligence. Rev Announcements. Creator Spotlights. Video Editing. Automated Transcription. Revver Features. Rev Features. Customer Features. Revver Spotlights.

How-to Guides. Rev Spotlight. Why Rev. Revver Tips. Speech to Text Technology. Rev Product Features. Transcription Blog. Hungry For More? Luckily for you, we deliver. Subscribe to our blog today. Thank You for Subscribing! Share this post. Jerry Blackwell: May it please the court? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning. My name is Jerry Blackwell, and I apologize for talking to you through this plexiglass, but it's probably the least of the gifts that the pandemic has given us.

You're going to learn in this case a lot about what it means to be a public servant and to have the honor of wearing this badge. Jerry Blackwell: It's a small badge that carries with it a large responsibility and a large accountability to the public. What does it stand for? It represents the very motto of the Minneapolis Police Department, to protect with courage, to serve with compassion, but it also represents the essence of the Minneapolis Police Department approach to the use of force against its citizens when appropriate.

The sanctity of life and the protection of the public shall be the cornerstones of the Minneapolis Police Department's use of force. Compassion, sanctity of life are cornerstones and that little badge is worn right over the officer's heart. Jerry Blackwell: But you're also going to learn that the officers take an oath when they become police officers.

Recently, I heard someone sort of tongue-and-cheek joke that jury service is bringing in folks from our community and paying them eight dollars a day to help solve a murder. We're not asking you to solve a mystery in this case. In most homicide cases, the elements that I need to prove might be a little challenging, but here, there's no doubt. There will be no dispute in this record that the defendant- Lawyer: There will be no dispute in this record that the defendant had that gun that night, shot eight bullets, four of them hit Joseph Rosenbaum, two of them at an unknown individual, one into Anthony Huber's chest, and one into Gaige Grosskreut's arm.

That will not be in dispute. The central issue in this case is going to be self defense. And the judge has given you an instruction, which I want to highlight here, because there are some factors that I'd like you to keep in mind when you hear the evidence in this case. The defendant used deadly force. There is a privilege under our laws to use deadly force, but it's a very limited privilege.

That privilege, according to the law, indicates that the defendant can only use deadly force if he reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. Lawyer: In determining whether or not those beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the offense.

The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at time of his acts and not with the benefit of hindsight. You are essentially the people of ordinary intelligence and prudence who will apply that standard of reasonableness to the defendant's behavior and make a determination as to whether or not his use of deadly force was reasonable.

Was it reasonable for the defendant to believe that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself? Let's talk about the context of that evening. And I'm going to try and go in a little bit of chronological order to set things up for you so you understand the evidence that comes in in this trial. Lawyer: The first witness you're going to hear from in this trial is a man by the name of Dominick Black.

Dominick Black was, at the time of this incident, dating McKenzie Rittenhouse, who is the defendant's sister. And through McKenzie, Dominick Black got to know the defendant and they spent a lot of time together in the months leading up to August 25th, That occurred up in Ladysmith, Wisconsin. Dominick Black used money that was given to him by the defendant to go Ace Hardware up in Ladysmith and buy the gun in Dominick Black's name.

Now you might ask, why was it necessary for Dominick Black to do that? Why couldn't the defendant do that? Because the defendant was And Dominick Black and the defendant knew that because the defendant is 17, he cannot purchase a gun. He cannot legally own a gun. And so this was, in effect, a straw purchase on behalf of Dominick Black, on behalf of the defendant.

Lawyer: After the gun is purchased in Ladysmith, Dominick Black and the defendant spend a little time up there at Dominick Black's family's hunting property, and they fire both that AR and one that Dominick Black already had. And the two of them are practicing using their ARs at a shooting range that they have on that property. And Mr. Black will tell you some more about that.

Then they agreed that that gun would not go home with the defendant, to his home in Antioch, Illinois. It would stay here in Kenosha at the residence of Dominick Black's stepfather in a locked gun case. And in fact, after the two of them returned from Ladysmith in early May of , the gun stayed at that residence here in Kenosha until the day of August 25th, Lawyer: On the night leading up to August 25th, that Monday night, the defendant stayed over at Mr.

Black's residence here in Kenosha. And the two of them decided on that next day, Tuesday, August 25th, that they would do something about what was going on in Kenosha.

Opening statement trial transcripts

So at one point earlier in the day, they come down here, they work on cleaning up some graffiti on some buildings here downtown. Then they decide they want to come back later that night and protect a local business, a business called Car Source, which is located at 59th and Sheridan. Now, as I talked to you a little bit about yesterday, Car Source actually has three locations very close in this downtown area.

One of them was on the east side of Sheridan Road, at 58th and Sheridan. And either on Sunday or Monday night, I think it was on Monday night, August 24th, that entire property was pretty much destroyed. There were multiple cars in the car parking lot that were set fire and completely burned out. The building itself was damaged as well. Lawyer: Right across the street from there is another Car Source location that also sold used cars, and some of those cars had been damaged on the night of Monday, August 24th.

So on Tuesday, when the defendant and Mr. Black are out and about, they encounter one of the owners of Car Source, and they talked to him about protecting their 59th Street location that night, and there's some discussion about that. In the afternoon, Mr. Black and the defendant go out Jalensky's, out on Highway 31, Green Bay Road, and they acquire straps so that they can sling those guns around them themselves when they come back to the downtown area that night.

And eventually later that evening, they return. They meet up with some other folks that are interested in protecting Car Source. Originally they start out at 63rd Street Car Source, which is the third and final Car Source location. But then they agree, "We're going to go to the 59th Street, 59th and Sheridan, location and protect that location to make sure no one damages the cars, no one damages the property.

There's nothing wrong with that. Protecting that property is entirely lawful. Totally understandable, and it's something that many people here in Kenosha did. And there's a group of people, including the defendant and Dominick Black, that take up positions at 59th Street. Some of them, like the defendant, are on the ground in the parking lot, where, as people are walking by in the street, they're having interactions with these people.

Dominick Black will testify, he took up a position on the roof. He did that because he didn't want to be on the ground close to where other folks were, close to where potential issues might arise. He wanted to stay a little bit removed from all of that, didn't want to get directly involved in it. Lawyer: You will hear and see videos of sequence of events going on around Kenosha that night.

The evening begins with large scale protests, large scale, no other way to put it, rioting that's occurring right outside these windows, right in front of the courthouse here at Civic Center Park. There is a crowd of police that have lined up to protect this building, to protect the public safety building, which is right next door. And there are a large number of protestors that are agitating, they are screaming at the police, they are throwing projectiles.

Police are shooting rubber bullets, tear gas, et cetera. It is a very volatile situation at Civic Center Park. Now, that's at 56th and Sheridan, about three blocks North of the Car Source where the defendant was. But as the evening goes on, the police decide to move the line of protestors South on Sheridan. Lawyer: And eventually, they pass the Car Source at 59th and Sheridan.

The police establish a line at 60th and Sheridan, one block South. Now, as that process is going on, many of these protestors pass by the defendant and the people that he's with at 59th Street. Words are exchanged. There is confrontation. There is a little bit of high hostility. No one is hurt. No one fires a gun. No one is injured. But clearly there's antagonism.

It is clear that this is a crowd that is not on the same side as the defendant, that does not see him as an ally, does not see in his group as someone that they had identify with. And as I said, there is a hostile exchange there for a while. In fact, at one point, members of the crowd pull one of the dumpsters from the property out into the street and attempt to start it on fire.

And some of the other folks that are there with the defendant go out and put the fire out and have some very harsh interactions with those people in the street. I believe the- Lawyer: People in the street. I believe the evidence will show that it is this process that demonstrated for the defendant, that this is a crowd that is not a safe crowd to be in.

This is a crowd that does not view him as an ally. This is a crowd that if he ventures out into it, there could be problems. Now, once the police pass by and the protestors are pushed down south of 60th, I believe the evidence will show that the car source that the defendant is stationed at is no longer in danger. There's no one there who's attempting to damage the property.

There's no one there who's going to do anything to harm anyone there. Lawyer: The situation has moved on. Does the defendant stay there? Does he decide that he's done what he's set out to do and it's time to go home? The evidence will show that the defendant and another individual in the group, by the name of Ryan Balch, who you will hear from, decide to venture out into the crowd.

They crossed the police line at 60th and Sheridan, and they walk amongst this group of hostile protestors. At some point, they both wind up at a gas station on the Southeast corner of 60th and Sheridan called Ultimate Gas. And you'll see some video of the scene there. It is a scene, again, of groups of people that are clashing with one another verbally.

Therefore, the integrity and precision of court transcripts are of paramount importance, as they are foundational to the concept of justice itself. The availability of court transcripts varies depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case. The clerk is generally well-versed in court procedures and can guide you through the steps needed to request a transcript.

They will provide you with the necessary request forms and inform you about any associated fees and expected turnaround times. Additionally, they can let you know if audio recordings of the proceedings are available, a potentially time-saving and cost-effective alternative. By starting your transcript request in person at the court, you can get immediate, accurate guidance, making the process smoother and less intimidating.

When it comes to obtaining a court proceeding transcript, different courts offer various options to accommodate the diverse needs of the parties involved and the public. Below are some of the typical options that most courts provide:. Each of these options comes with its own set of pros and cons, from cost to speed and level of detail.

When it comes to court proceedings, often getting an audio recording may be the fastest and most economical alternative to waiting for a standard written transcript. If you do find yourself with an audio file in hand, you can work with a specialized legal transcription service that balances the best of technology and human expertise for optimal results.

Professional transcription agencies provide secure and accurate transcription solutions. The best transcription services leverage cutting-edge AI technology in tandem with highly-skilled human transcriptionists. Professional legal transcription companies are designed for speed, allowing you to receive your court transcripts quickly , without compromising on quality.