The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[TexasHooch 5137]

As both the OP and the guy responsible for the derail, I concur.

 

[GopherRock 1765]

Getting back to the trial: It sounds like this is the only place where defense counsel has been on the offensive. Judge told the jury to have a bag packed when they come to court Monday, sounds like they'll be getting the case then and will be sequestered until they reach a verdict.

 

 

[TexasEd 8071]

On 4/9/2021 at 2:22 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

why are people making fun of Chauvin for being 140? The average weight of the US soldier in WW2 was 144. Is someone declaring them to be little people? They marched around the world and saved it.

We're just all fat now. We see someone that is normal weight today, and call them skinny.

FYI, I'm a lot higher than 140. Wish I was closer to 140.

 

 

[GopherRock 1765]

State of Minnesota rests.

Defense's first witness is a MPD retiree that is supposed to only explain how Mr. Floyd reacted to opioids. 

[JBJ 3664]

That cross had some terrible moments for the prosecutor.

[tigol 2399]

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by tigol

[tigol 2399]

6 hours ago, JBJ said:

That cross had some terrible moments for the prosecutor.

Whew!  An out.  I mean, I was concerned there for a moment.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Chauvin had another bad day at trial.  The state lit up his use of force expert.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Chauvin had another bad day at trial.  The state lit up his use of force expert.

I agree. Yesterday was the most I watched of the trial...and that guy got sliced and diced.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I agree. Yesterday was the most I watched of the trial...and that guy got sliced and diced.

He ain't getting acquitted.

[SquishMitten 10425]

Agreed. That use of force guy was not well prepared at all. But when your premise is entirely flawed, I suppose it’s hard to actually defend it.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

Agreed. That use of force guy was not well prepared at all. But when your premise is entirely flawed, I suppose it’s hard to actually defend it.

This is with my untrained legal knowledge mind...before they lay GF on his side, GF kicks his leg at the officer. The force guy didn’t bring that up once from what I saw. Isn’t that all the police needs to say that he resisted arrest?

[Captainant 27726]

6 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

This is with my untrained legal knowledge mind...before they lay GF on his side, GF kicks his leg at the officer. The force guy didn’t bring that up once from what I saw. Isn’t that all the police needs to say that he resisted arrest?

Once Floyd passed out aroundthe 5 minute mark in the video, he was no longer resisting arrest. The next four minutes of kneeling on an unconscious man's neck by chauvin is what makes any previous resisting by Floyd irrelevant. He was clearly no longer resisting - because he was slowly being strangled to death.

Cops do not have a right to vengeance. It was murder, even if you could make a hollow argument that Floyd at one point resisted.

[GopherRock 1765]

If Ellison and co. aren't preparing to cross-examine Chauvin, they should be. Yesterday's testimony was bad, bad, bad for the defense. 

[SquishMitten 10425]

14 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

This is with my untrained legal knowledge mind...before they lay GF on his side, GF kicks his leg at the officer. The force guy didn’t bring that up once from what I saw. Isn’t that all the police needs to say that he resisted arrest?

I don't think anybody has argued that he never resisted at any point. I believe each of the prosecution's experts acknowledged that he resisted at various points early on. But that becomes entirely irrelevant once he stopped resisting. This fucking guy said that Floyd trying to breath was somewhat non-compliant. Also, other reasons why this dude is a shill:

1) The main justification for his conclusion was "the officers were no longer using force" even though Chauvin was on top of him. That was blown when the prosecution pointed out that MPD generally considers anything that could potentially cause pain to be a use of force.

2) In that same line of reasoning, he argued that Chauvin being on top of Floyd, occasionally smashing his face into the pavement, was unlikely to cause pain. Therefore, it was not a use of force. He eventually admitted that it may be possible it could have caused pain.

3) There were many moments like this, but the most ridiculous one was when it took forever for him to admit that Chauvin was "on top" of Floyd. I'm not sure he technically ever agreed, just sort of reluctantly agreed to use the word "top". 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 hour ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

This is with my untrained legal knowledge mind...before they lay GF on his side, GF kicks his leg at the officer. The force guy didn’t bring that up once from what I saw. Isn’t that all the police needs to say that he resisted arrest?

what?

[SquishMitten 10425]

One other point about the leg kick... there may have been multiple "kicks" so I don't know which one you're referring to, but several medical experts testified that the leg kick (or one of them) was an involuntary movement that occurred at the time he first began suffering brain damage due to lack of oxygen. So that's probably not a point the defense wants to focus on.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8817]

One other point about the leg kick... there may have been multiple "kicks" so I don't know which one you're referring to, but several medical experts testified that the leg kick (or one of them) was an involuntary movement that occurred at the time he first began suffering brain damage due to lack of oxygen. So that's probably not a point the defense wants to focus on.

Gotcha.

[Captainant 27726]

Oh for fucks sake

[Newdoc 3448]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh for fucks sake

[hookemATL 11836]

"Your honor, if you zoom in really really really closely, you can clearly see a small gremlin sneak up and steal George Floyd's lifeforce.  This gremlin must be brought to justice!!!!"

[JimmyJames 12271]

34 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh for fucks sake

Sue Ford! They did it! 

[JimmyJames 12271]

It’s too late now but the entire defense should have been putting Chauvin on the stand to tearfully apologize for what happened but he never meant to kill him.   

[JBJ 3664]

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

One other point about the leg kick... there may have been multiple "kicks" so I don't know which one you're referring to, but several medical experts testified that the leg kick (or one of them) was an involuntary movement that occurred at the time he first began suffering brain damage due to lack of oxygen. So that's probably not a point the defense wants to focus on.

It is earlier kick from when they first got Floyd from the car.  The prosecutor was asking whether Floyd started in the side-recovery position and the officers turned him prone on purpose.  The kick happened immediately before they changed his position. And the witness testified that Floyd still struggling coud be a reason why he was placed prone.

The cross was going very well up to this point, but these few lines of questioning the prosecution pressed a bit harder where they probably shouldn't have, and it did not go well. (Chauvin's foot off the ground, difficulty balancing, yelling "I can't  breathe", writhing in pain vs fighting the officers, etc.).  They all ran one after another and right before a break as well.

-----

That's not to say they didn't press some areas and score wins. The whole "on top" discussion undercut the witness significantly.  Others were control/force/pain, the impact of the crowd, specific policy vs general caselaw.  In fact, the cross was going really well up to the point where they focused in on the first few minutes on the ground.  That's not where the state's case is strong and it didn't need to be pressed (with benefit of hindsight).

Edited April 14, 2021 by JBJ

[Captainant 27726]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Oh for fucks sake

Update: the prosecution is pantsing this theory on cross examination, focusing on that the autopsy did not have any evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning, that they did not test/measure/monitor the CO emissions from the hybrid police interceptor, and that the studies they based on this theory around did not record how long the CO exposure was.

[TexasHooch 5137]

Chauvin is testifying!  I'm a little surprised by that.  

[Brisketexan 105273]

Chauvin is testifying!  I'm a little surprised by that.  

That’s a Hail Mary move.

[GopherRock 1765]

He's not testifying.

 

Sounds like defense is resting once the jury is brought back in. State wants to call a rebuttal witness to newly discovered evidence.

[Parliament 14283]

Resting already? Seems kinda soon, no?

[TexasHooch 5137]

5 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

He's not testifying.

 

Sounds like defense is resting once the jury is brought back in. State wants to call a rebuttal witness to newly discovered evidence.

Yeah, sorry. Got ahead of myself.

[Hanrahan 1306]

I was half listening and it sounded like the state found some newly discovered evidence in the medical records.  Sounded like oxygen saturation levels.  Judge kind of called the state a bunch of assholes for trying to introduce/disclose it so late in the game. Said it can't come in and if their rebuttal expert mentions it there will be a mistrial.

[Captainant 27726]

1 minute ago, Hanrahan said:

I was half listening and it sounded like the state found some newly discovered evidence in the medical records.  Sounded like oxygen saturation levels.  Judge kind of called the state a bunch of assholes for trying to introduce/disclose it so late in the game. Said it can't come in and if their rebuttal expert mentions it there will be a mistrial.

It's surprising that the complete medical records weren't already in evidence and can't be examined in additional arguments

[TwiceHorn 31529]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's surprising that the complete medical records weren't already in evidence and can't be examined in additional arguments

Civil litigators are probably more likely to have admitted something like that by agreement in its entirety.  Criminal lawyers tend not to be all that document-conscious.

The other thing is that the medical records "cut both ways" in this, so I can see some reluctance on both sides to just stipulate to admission of the whole mess, which I'm relatively sure is voluminous.

[GopherRock 1765]

Defense rests.

Dr Tobin back on the stand, and the State did some serious tap-dancing to not end in an immediate mistrial. 

[GopherRock 1765]

Evidence is finished. Jury has been sent off. Lawyers still have to do the instructions conference, but I think this is the end of public discussion. 

Closing arguments at 9 AM Monday. 

[Eskimohorn 5642]

From the video and the snippets I got, it seems like a slam dunk. I will be shocked if there’s a not guilty. Not surprised by a hung jury. Also shocked if there’s a guilty on all charges.

[hayden_horn 11365]

11 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Evidence is finished. Jury has been sent off. Lawyers still have to do the instructions conference, but I think this is the end of public discussion. 

Closing arguments at 9 AM Monday. 

interesting to me that the judge is giving the jury the weekend.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

interesting to me that the judge is giving the jury the weekend.

Probably more to give attorneys time to prepare for summation and get the instructions/jury charge right.

I saw somewhere that evidence was introduced that Floyd was at 98% ox saturation?  Is that right?

[Enchubben 5510]

Not having watched a minute of this, but only following the thread, I would venture to guess the cop is toast. 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

 

So the jury can find him not guilty on whatever the most serious charge is (some degree of murder I'm guessing), but guilty on some lesser degree of murder, or perhaps man-slaughter? Is that right? Anybody?

 

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

49 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Not having watched a minute of this, but only following the thread, I would venture to guess the cop is toast. 

Never bet against a cop on trial.

[Brisketexan 105273]

2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

From the video and the snippets I got, it seems like a slam dunk. I will be shocked if there’s a not guilty. Not surprised by a hung jury. Also shocked if there’s a guilty on all charges.

About my read, although I confess to not having followed every detail.  I'm mostly speaking from my gut.

54 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Probably more to give attorneys time to prepare for summation and get the instructions/jury charge right.

 

That is most likely the case.  The charge is going to be super important (charge errors are one of the best ways to flip a verdict on appeal).  Gotta get that right, and then give the attorneys time to prepare their arguments to match the questions in the charge.

1 minute ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Never bet against a cop on trial.

And.....this.  They're like the house in Vegas -- the odds are ALWAYS stacked in their favor.

[Red Five 40881]

52 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Not having watched a minute of this, but only following the thread, I would venture to guess the cop is toast. 

I would hope so, considering he's on tape murdering someone in front of a bunch of witnesses. 

[Guest Lobo]

53 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Not having watched a minute of this, but only following the thread, I would venture to guess the cop is toast. 

The thread vibe is that the cop is toast.  35% of the adult U.S. population says the cop is a hero and black people should learn to obey better.  

Thankfully, the U.S. Judicial System is a hint more pragmatic.  He'll get convicted of a lesser charge and likely do every day of the sentence.  

[Brisketexan 105273]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

The thread vibe is that the cop is toast.  35% of the adult U.S. population says the cop is a hero and black people should learn to obey better.  

Thankfully, the U.S. Judicial System is a hint more pragmatic.  He'll get convicted of a lesser charge and likely do every day of the sentence.  

Johnny Sack would hold out for acquittal, and guarantee at least a mistrial.  The only question is "is there a Johnny Sack on the jury?"  Based on the numbers in our society, the answer is that there VERY likely is such a juror.  Or two.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Johnny Sack would hold out for acquittal, and guarantee at least a mistrial.  The only question is "is there a Johnny Sack on the jury?"  Based on the numbers in our society, the answer is that there VERY likely is such a juror.  Or two.

I would convict on manslaughter.  I think Chauvin was grossly negligent by restraining him for 5 minutes after he was passed out.  So fuck right off.

[Brisketexan 105273]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think Chauvin was grossly negligent by restraining him for 5 minutes after he was passed out. 

Yeah, no intent in that at all.  Awesome.

Odds are good that there will be a juror on there who gets stuck on "he was a thug, and tough shit."  Just like you've talked about over and over and over.  That's all it takes.  Cops good, thug bad, result ok.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, no intent in that at all.  Awesome.

Odds are good that there will be a juror on there who gets stuck on "he was a thug, and tough shit."  Just like you've talked about over and over and over.  That's all it takes.  Cops good, thug bad, result ok.

I don't tend to care much for criminals who put a gun to a pregnant woman's belly while committing armed robbery. He was no loss to society.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

About my read, although I confess to not having followed every detail.  I'm mostly speaking from my gut.

That is most likely the case.  The charge is going to be super important (charge errors are one of the best ways to flip a verdict on appeal).  Gotta get that right, and then give the attorneys time to prepare their arguments to match the questions in the charge.

And.....this.  They're like the house in Vegas -- the odds are ALWAYS stacked in their favor.

There's probably going to be a big foofaraw about instructing on something like aggravated assault.  Defense probably wants it bad in hopes some racists or cop supremacists will hold out for the lowest charge.  The question will probably be whether the cause of death evidence is such that such a charge is warranted.

[Red Five 40881]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, no intent in that at all.  Awesome.

Odds are good that there will be a juror on there who gets stuck on "he was a thug, and tough shit."  Just like you've talked about over and over and over.  That's all it takes.  Cops good, thug bad, result ok.

I honestly don't think he was trying to kill him. But I don't think he really cared all that much if he did either, if that's a distinction that makes sense.