What specific criminal counts were included in Kyle Rittenhouse’s indictment and which were dismissed before trial?

1. What the indictment formally included: the five felony counts tried

Kenosha County prosecutors’ amended complaint listed five felony counts that the jury considered: first‑degree intentional homicide, first‑degree reckless homicide, first‑degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first‑degree reckless endangerment tied to Rittenhouse’s August 2020 shootings and wounding of three people during unrest ^{[2] [6] [1]}. The complaint also attached aggravating factors to those felonies and the trial judge instructed jurors they could consider lesser included offenses on some counts, which is why the jury was presented with a complex set of legal options beyond the named charges ^{[7] [6]}.

2. The two counts dismissed before the jury ever deliberated

Before the jury began deliberations, the court dismissed two non‑felony counts: a misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and a curfew/failure‑to‑comply charge that prosecutors had filed later; the weapons count was dismissed after prosecutors conceded the rifle Rittenhouse carried was not short‑barreled under the statutory subsection at issue, and the curfew charge was dismissed amid questions about the sufficiency of evidence ^{[3] [8] [4] [5]}. Multiple outlets reported Judge Bruce Schroeder twice earlier declined to dismiss the weapons charge but ultimately granted dismissal when the parties’ positions about the statute crystallized and prosecutors conceded the factual predicate ^{[3] [8]}.

3. How the trial unfolded and the ultimate outcome on those counts

The five felonies were submitted to a 12‑member jury after the dismissal of the two misdemeanors, and jurors deliberated for roughly 27 hours over four days before finding Rittenhouse not guilty on each of the five counts, concluding that he acted in self‑defense as argued by his attorneys ^{[2] [6] [9]}. After the verdict the judge formally dismissed the charges with prejudice, concluding the prosecution’s case had ended with acquittal on all counts that had been tried ^[10].

4. Competing narratives, legal nuance and what the record shows

Prosecutors framed the charging structure to reflect distinct criminal acts and aggravators—separating killings, the attempted killing, and reckless endangerment for the wounded victim—while defense lawyers and supporters framed dismissal of the weapons charge and the ultimate acquittals as vindication of a self‑defense claim and, for some, a defense of armed intervention during unrest; reporting notes both narratives and stresses that the judge permitted jurors to consider lesser included offenses, underscoring legal complexity rather than simple headline counts ^{[7] [1] [11]}. Observers also flagged implicit agendas in media and political reactions: some outlets emphasized the public‑safety and vigilantism questions behind the indictments, while others amplified constitutional and Second Amendment frames—each framing affects which elements of the charging and dismissal story get foregrounded ^{[1] [11]}.

5. Limitations in the available reporting and what remains outside this summary

Public reports supplied here summarize the amended criminal complaint, judge’s rulings and jury verdicts but do not supply the full charging document or every transcript of in‑court rulings; therefore, this account relies on contemporaneous reporting of which counts were filed, which were dismissed and the reasons the court recorded ^{[4] [3]}. For line‑by‑line statutory citations, the full amended complaint and judge’s written rulings—documents not included in the provided sources—would be required to quote precise statutory language and minute court reasoning.