From the perspective of a lawyer, writing this out and releasing it publicly is problematic.

If this goes to trial, inevitably Rittenhouse will be cross-examined on this statement. If there are inconsistencies he could try to blame them on his lawyer: “my lawyer drafted this.” https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1299791270655582208

The lawyer then becomes a witness and is in a conflict. Was Rittenhouse instructed to agree to this? Was this what he told the lawyer? Privilege is waived over the statement given that it was released publicly.

The lawyer could assert privilege but at that point it may be in Rittenhouse’s interest to waive it and point to the lawyer for the inconsistency. Lawyer attempts CYA by saying he was instructed by Rittenhouse.

But mid-trial, this causes chaos and confusion and a change in legal team. Necessarily a mistrial application is made. It’s probably granted. Now they have to empanel a new jury.

But the jury pool - tainted as it was to begin with from how public and politically/racially charged this whole situation is, is now tainted by the statement and the corresponding drama.

Smart lawyers that I know in the US would step in. And they’d bust panel after panel, until it was shown that no fair trial could be held based on the pre-judging of the case by potential jurors.

Meanwhile, Rittenhouse never has a trial. The truth never comes out. Justice - whatever that looks like - is never done.

As a trial strategy this may be genius. If this is what’s in the mind of the lawyers. It may be evil genius and it may border on the unethical.

Of course we don’t know if this is what they plan. All we know is that this is a very real possibility and that is crazy.