Nick Sandmann's lawyer has taken the Rittenhouse case

Politics
1

Lawyer for Nick Sandmann, Lin Wood, has taken the case for the Kenosha shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse.

There is growing evidence that supports that Rittenhouse shot in self defense. Ironically the New York Times provided some of the new evidence:

. . . evidence turned up by the New York Times actually strengthens the case for self-defense. It turns out that, before the first shooting, Rittenhouse was being chased by a gunman who actually fired a shot into the air.

Wood may smell millions in civil damages after Rittenhouse is found innocent. Things could get interesting.

1 Like
2

Holy crap, that lawyer is on a tear. Lin Wood, eh? That name is going to become well known if this keeps up. I wonder how much they’ll end up squeezing out of whom? :thinking:

1 Like
3

Well Mr. Wood certainly did well against the media. Might go back to that well again and maybe get this kid out of a big jam?

4

Yes, Lin Wood should strike fear into the hearts of the prosecutors and news media.

In addition to the Nick Sandmann case, he won millions in defamation damages for Richard Jewell, the security guard who was falsely accused in the Olympic bombing back in 1996.

1 Like
5

Oh boy. I guess Rittenhouse is going to be the 2nd highest paid CNN employee now

6

Lin wood is not a criminal defense attorney.

2 Likes
7

Why would the prosecutors be afraid of a personal injury/defamation attorney?

2 Likes
8

Going to be well known? He was the lawyer who represented Richard Jewell. That should give him a good deal of experience here. Maybe Mueller can prosecute.

9

He represented Richard Jewell in his defamation suit.

Richard Jewell was not prosecuted for any crimes.

10

I am sure that Wood can find lawyers to help with details of the criminal defense. I doubt that Wood be involved if he had any doubt the innocence of Rittenhouse.

Once Rittenhouse clears the criminal charges, the media and government officials may face multimillions in defamation suits.

11

From “The Hill”
His attorney, Lin Wood, has claimed he acted in self-defense.
“From my standpoint, it’s important that the message be clear to other Americans who are attacked that there will be legal resources available in the event false charges are brought against them,” Wood said. “Americans should never be deterred from exercising their right of self-defense.”

Apparently he is now.

Hmmm…he is currently handling a lawsuit against various of the media for Carter Page.

1 Like
12

No, they won’t. Thats not how it works.

First of all, prosecutors are absolutely immune from civil suits.

Secondly, if you want to sue “the media”, they have to lie first.

13

No, he isn’t.

14

Uh is Lin Wood or whatever that dude’s name is even a criminal defense attorney?

15

He is if he want’s to be. As someone already said, he certainly isn’t going handle this alone. He will have someone with plenty of criminal trial experience working with him, doubtless.

16

You have badly misread this situation.

1 Like
17

Y’all want this Little Kyle to be a hero so bad :rofl:. He thought real life was Call of Duty and the two dead didn’t respawn.

Look if he manages to stay out of prison, you can invite him to the next RNC!

2 Likes
18

I just now learned his name. I’ve known who Johnny Cochrane is my whole life. I want to see more of this Lin Wood in the future.

1 Like
19

If he was the one initially attacked, I don’t want him to spend the rest of his life in prison for defending himself, no.
If he just went up to someone who was not attacking him and shot them, I don’t care what they do to him.

20

In Wisconsin, it looks people can sue for “malicious prosecution”:

The six elements in an action for malicious prosecution are:

1. There must have been a previous judicial proceeding brought against the victim.

2. The previous proceeding must have brought by the defendant in the malicious prosecution lawsuit.

3. The previous proceeding must have resulted in a judgment or ruling in favor of the defendant in the malicious prosecution lawsuit.

4. There must have been malice in instituting the previous proceeding.

5. There must have been lack of probable cause supporting the former proceeding.

6. There must have been injury or damage resulting to the victim from the former proceedings.

See 54 C.J.S., Malicious Prosecution, p. 955, A? 4; Yelk v. Seefeldt, 35 Wis.2d 271, 277, 151 N.W.2d 4 (1967), and Strid v. Converse,111 Wis.2d 418, 331 N.W.2d 350 (1983).
https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/how-to-tell-if-you-are-being-maliciously-prosecuted-in-wisconsin

There could also be defamation suits. Lin Wood is no dummy.