Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Closing Arguments: What We Learned

• Closing Arguments
• Jury Deliberations: What to Expect
• 6 Key Moments
• Understand the Case
• Timeline of Events

Supported by

KENOSHA, Wis. — A prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial began his closing argument on Monday with an acknowledgment that the case had been clouded by politics, by feverish media coverage, by anger and outrage on both the right and the left.

“Look for the truth,” Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, urged the jury. “So many people look at this case and they see what they want to see.”

Mark Richards, a defense lawyer, echoed the sentiment in his own closing argument.

“This case is not a game,” Mr. Richards said. “Use your common sense and good judgment.”

The jury will begin on Tuesday to deliberate the fate of Mr. Rittenhouse, who is accused of first-degree intentional homicide and four other felonies in the shootings of three men in the aftermath of protests in 2020. Throughout the morning and afternoon on Monday, the panel of Kenosha County residents watched intently — like the jurors had through two weeks of testimony — as lawyers delivered dueling narratives.

When graphic images of the two men who died and a third man who was injured were displayed on television screens, several jurors winced and looked away. They grew visibly tired as closing arguments dragged into the late afternoon, and at one point, the sound of chants from a small gathering of demonstrators outside could be heard inside the courtroom.

Mr. Binger, over the course of a two-hour closing argument, tried to convince the jury that Mr. Rittenhouse had behaved in an ignorant and reckless fashion that resulted in the deaths of two people and the maiming of another.

Mr. Rittenhouse, who was then 17, came to downtown Kenosha with a gun that he was too young to legally purchase, Mr. Binger said. He lied about his medical credentials, saying he was an E.M.T. when he was not, the prosecutor said. And when chased by a man into a parking lot, Mr. Binger said, Mr. Rittenhouse shot the man, Joseph Rosenbaum, four times — an unnecessary action that ended the life of Mr. Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.

“This is someone who has no remorse, no regard for life, and only cares about himself,” Mr. Binger said of the defendant.

Mr. Richards, the defense lawyer, described the events of Aug. 25, 2020, the third night of protests against a police shooting in Kenosha. Repeatedly referring to Mr. Rittenhouse by his first name, Mr. Richards said the defendant had fired his rifle only because he was threatened by people in the crowd, beginning with Mr. Rosenbaum.

“Mr. Rosenbaum was shot because he was chasing my client,” Mr. Richards said, “because he was going to kill him, take his gun, and carry out the threats he made.”

On the day of the shootings, Mr. Rittenhouse traveled to downtown Kenosha, which had erupted in protests that included looting and arson after a white police officer, Rusten Sheskey, shot Jacob Blake, a Black resident. Mr. Rittenhouse has said he went to Kenosha to protect property and provide medical treatment, but things quickly got violent after someone near him fired a gun.

The day of closing arguments began with a packed courtroom full of spectators, the first time in the 11-day trial that every seat in the courtroom was taken. Hannah Gittings, the girlfriend of Anthony Huber, the second man who was shot and killed by Mr. Rittenhouse, sat next to Kariann Swart, Mr. Rosenbaum’s fiancée. Wendy Rittenhouse, Mr. Rittenhouse’s mother, sat in her usual seat in the courtroom, alongside her two daughters.

Judge Bruce Schroeder of Kenosha County Circuit Court and the lawyers debated the language of voluminous jury instructions on six criminal charges that Mr. Rittenhouse had originally faced. The judge dismissed the least serious of the charges, a misdemeanor charge of illegally possessing a dangerous weapon as a minor. Wisconsin is an open carry state where it is legal for adults to carry firearms openly, but state law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except in limited circumstances.

The judge sided with Mr. Rittenhouse’s defense lawyers, who argued that the language of the state law does not prohibit a 17-year-old from carrying a rifle with a long barrel, as prosecutors had contended.

In a win for the prosecution, the judge told jurors to weigh some less serious charges along with the most serious counts they have been asked to consider. Giving jurors instructions on lesser charges can be significant, legal experts say, because the lesser charges offer jurors a path to compromise if they disagree on the most serious offenses.

For example, for the most serious charge Mr. Rittenhouse faces — first-degree intentional homicide for killing Mr. Huber, 26 — the judge told jurors that they also had the option of finding the defendant guilty of second-degree intentional homicide or first-degree reckless homicide.

Judge Schroeder read 36 pages of instructions aloud to the jurors as the day wore on, including many references to the decisions jurors must make over the issue of self-defense. The instructions highlighted the complicated nature of the case and the many factors and intricacies of the law that jurors must consider.

At the center of the trial is the question of whether Mr. Rittenhouse was reasonable in his belief that shooting the three men was necessary to save himself from death or serious injury.

Mr. Binger, the prosecutor, showed jurors a drone video on Monday that he said showed evidence that Mr. Rittenhouse had provoked the confrontation by pointing his gun at a bystander and prompting Mr. Rosenbaum to give chase.

“When the defendant provokes the incident, he loses the right to self-defense,” he said. “You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”

Mr. Rosenbaum, who was 5-foot-4, was no real threat to Mr. Rittenhouse, Mr. Binger argued, contradicting the defense’s assertion that Mr. Rosenbaum was intent on taking Mr. Rittenhouse’s gun — a “cockamamie theory,” he said.

Mr. Richards at one point made what appeared to be a reference to Mr. Blake, the man who was shot seven times by the police, and the Kenosha County district attorney’s decision not to charge Officer Sheskey.

“Other people in this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be OK,” Mr. Richards said, adding of Mr. Rittenhouse’s shooting of Mr. Rosenbaum, “My client did it four times in three-quarters of a second to protect his life.”

Mr. Richards said the group pursuing Mr. Rittenhouse, including those who gave chase after the first shooting, was a “mob” intending to do him harm.

“Every person who was shot was attacking Kyle,” he said.

“It’s a tough choice, but the evidence only leads to one conclusion: that is that Kyle Rittenhouse’s conduct on Aug. 25 was privileged based upon the actions of Mr. Rosenbaum and others,” he said, adding, “There are no winners in this case.”