Here's my summary after watching: The prosecution asked that Kyle's interactions with the police on the night of the self-defense shootings (they saw him, had cordial interactions with him, and did not, for example, arrest him for unlawful possession of a firearm) be suppressed. Judge Schroeder DENIED that request. The judge indicated that he would not allow testimony from the experts about the various involved parties' intents. I'm not sure if that's going to cut more against the prosecution or defense. He indicated that he would likely allow the defense's use-of-force expert to testify on technical / scientific / timing matters or aspects of human behavior, perception, etc, but that neither the defense nor the prosecution's experts would not be allowed to testify about conclusions or overall impression on the question at issue in the trial. The prosecution's motion to suppress the defense's use-of-force expert's testimony at trial was DENIED. The prosecution indicated they do not plan to call their own use-of-force expert at trial. The prosecution's motion to disallow the labeling of the pedo and his pals as "looters" or "rioters" or "arsonists" was DENIED. If the defense has evidence that they were engaged in rioting / looting / arson, the defense can refer to them as such. He also admonished the prosecution that they can not refer to the pedo and his pals as "victims" or "alleged victims" because it's a loaded term. They can refer to them as "decedent" or "complaining witness". The judge noted that this rule (on "victim") is fairly unique to him. On this point, that's a pretty significant win for the defense. The prosecution's motion to disallow other video / other evidence that Kyle wasn't a direct witness to (e.g. pedo started a fire, used racial slurs, urged people to shoot him, etc.) was DENIED. The prosecutor kind of stepped on his own dick here too, trying to argue that it didn't matter if Rosenbaum (or the other shootee's) were the aggressors. From the prosecutor's perspective, it doesn't even matter if Rosenbaum was the aggressor, if an armed person shot an unarmed person, then he should be convicted. The judge (and defense counsel) beat him up pretty badly for this. The judge cited a circuit court opinion that said the question of who the aggressor was, was an "essential element" of the crime. The judge got pretty fired up during this part of the hearing, he seemed rather annoyed with the prosecution. The prosecution's motion to disallow discussion of the shootee's (and their estate's) civil claims was largely DENIED (some limited exception for the one that survived in case he testifies at trial). The prosecution's motion to ensure that all parties are referred to formally (e.g. Mr. ____ or Mrs. _____) was largely approved, with the exception that defense counsel can refer to Kyle as "Kyle". All in all it seems like a largely good day for the defense and a bad one for the prosecution, again.