An assistant prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse admitted to the court Wednesday that the state did indeed send the defense team a different video file than the larger, better quality video they had.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus conceded that the file he sent defense attorney Natalie Wisco was a different version of the drone video the state had, but blamed the email of Kenosha Detective Martin Howard, who testified in the case, for “compressing” the file before Kraus eventually sent it to Wisco.
Kraus told the court he had the larger file when Howard airdropped the video to him. For some reason, Howard also allegedly emailed him the video, and it was “compressed” by Howard’s email, Kraus is claiming. “If it was emailed, it was compressed,” the prosecutor told the court, “if he airdropped it, it was complete.”
During the back and forth, Judge Bruce Schroeder said this issue would have to be addressed further and indicted his disapproval with prosecution for relying on the video, saying it made him feel “very queazy.”
The drone footage in question is critical to the trial. As outlined by National Review, the defense has asked Schroeder for a mistrial with prejudice (which, if granted, would mean Rittenhouse could not be retried) based on the prosecution withholding the evidence, which had already been admitted into evidence and presented to the jury.
“The video footage has been at the center of this case,” reads the motion from defense. “The failure to provide the same quality footage in this particular case is intentional and clearly prejudices the defendant.”
Before Kraus conceded the issue to defense, he blamed Wisco for having the “wrong software” on her device and therefore receiving a “compressed” version of the video, denying the state sent her a different video of lower quality than what the prosecution had access to.
Wisco hit back, explaining to the judge that the file she received from ADA Kraus was almost three times smaller than the file the state had. She said that the metadata indicates that the state’s video was created some 21 minutes before the file that she received was created.
Only after Friday, when ADA Kraus noted that the state has a better version of the video, did Wisco become aware of the discrepancy. When she came to the courthouse to receive the clearer, larger video from Kraus, the file was 11 megabytes — much larger than the 4-megabyte file she initially received from the state, Wisco said.
“There’s no way what ADA Kraus is saying is true,” Wisco said before the court.
WATCH:
howard dropped it to kraus, kraus emailed it himself (??), then howard emailed it to him and it got the new name and compression???
total garbage pic.twitter.com/BfonEFGlF7
— oak_tree_upheaval (@oaktreeupheaval) November 17, 2021
Related: ‘No Way’ What He’s ‘Saying Is True’: Defense Attorney Takes It To Prosecution Over Video Revelation