I was working on a Chicago trading floor, with the trial on at least one screen in every pit. The bookmaking on the verdict was frenzied, with odds changing every day. Some traders had thousands at stake, and “guilty” was still a strong favorite until the end. The roar that went up when the verdict was read was staggering. /hijack
Well, there you have it. Traders and lawyers are different.
The lawyers were watching the nuts and bolts of the trial, observing that the judge wasn’t exerting the kind of control he should have been exerting, and that the prosecution was putting on testimony that a better trial lawyer would have known would create reasonable doubt.
Traders are gamblers. And (usually) not lawyers. To them, it was a sporting event. It was like watching the Lakers play a high school team. I mean, everyone knew OJ did it, right? The outcome was obvious. Of course you’re going to put your money on the Lakers.
But the lawyers are thinking, “hey, look at the way LeBron is walking. Obviously there’s a serious knee issue there, and it’s going to give out after two games. And Davis is in the middle of a divorce, and it’s going to fuck up his head.”*
So they bet on the Heat.
I’m just making that stuff up to illustrate my point, and I know nothing about the state of LeBron James’ knees, or Anthony Davis’ marriage. Or head.
I remember saying at the time, “If it takes six months to put on your case, you don’t have a case.” That should have been a 3 or 4 week trial. I know things go slower in California courts, so let’s say 8 weeks. It actually took about 9 months (from opening statements), I see now that I google it.
By comparison, the OJ civil trial lasted a little over 3 months.
Yes, that – but in the mid-90s, traders were also predominantly white, male and (as far as I could tell) racist AF. They could never grasp that the Black members of the jury would see things from a completely different point of view.
I myself have been wondering exactly how hard GF was fighting back for those last 4 minutes.
What if he came back to life as a zombie? Ever think of that, smart guy? Chauvin was just protecting the crowd’s brains.
the defence is really locked in on the drugs/heart cause of death.
the prosecution is doing very well holding the line on drugs/heart had nothing to do with his death.
i expect that the medical examiner will be on after the lunch break.
Yeah but the drugs and lack of motive muddies this enuf that I think Manslaughter is the end result.
Surely you mean manslawster?
the defence has not had any luck so far having any medical expert, pathologist, or medical examiner state that mr floyd died of anything other than the actions of the police officers.
for something completely different, the medical examiner had a bit of a clark kent vibe with his glasses.
Not being a lawyer and not knowing the definition of murder in MN, I’ve always felt that this case is consistent with a layperson’s definition of manslaughter, but it could be a step above that, however such a crime could be defined.
I don’t see how Chauvin’s lack of a motive is material - he hasn’t been charged with premeditated murder. And the drugs aren’t the direct cause of death. The fact that someone had preexisting conditions doesn’t get someone out of a murder charge. It might if fellow officers were saying that the force applied was reasonable and consistent with training standards and then Floyd’s conditions led to unforeseen tragedy. That’s not what is being argued though.
Now, whether any of that is properly sorted in the minds of ignorant or biased jurors, I don’t know.
I doubt they thought they were going to get any Perry Mason moments out of the prosecution witnesses. They will have their own experts who listened to the others and will have the opportunity to introduce doubt.
Would you say that if the cop had been using a chokehold around Floyd’s neck for ten minutes? Is the casualness of merely kneeling the redeeming factor?
I feel this is a step above manslaughter. There clearly was malice in what Chauvin did to Floyd - A black man didn’t respect my authoritah; I’ll show him.
The question is what can be proved.
When does the defense start calling their own witnesses? And is it public knowledge who they’re going to call?
I expect that they’re going to be able to find some experts who say that the death was caused by drugs, but the question is who those experts will be, and how credible they’ll be to the jury, compared with the prosecution’s witnesses. And I’m sure the prosecution has cross-examination all ready and waiting for whatever they say (if nothing else, “why do all of these experts we’ve already called disagree with you?”).
Also, has Chauvin himself been called to the stand yet? Is he expected to be? As I understand it, the prosecution can’t call the defendant as a witness if he doesn’t want it (which most don’t), but if the defense calls him, then the prosecution can cross-examine (he can still refuse to answer questions, but he’d be very visibly refusing to answer). Is that correct?
Not quite. The defendant can invoke the 5th and refuse to take the stand, but if he does take the stand, he must also answer any questions on cross-examination. He doesn’t get to pick what he answers, it’s all or nothing.
IMHO they can not put chauvin on the stand. He will not do well under cross exam and even the slimmest possibility of him turning the jury against him… nope, not worth it.
If they put him on the stand it will be a strong indication that they think they’re losing and are down to desperation plays.
Is anyone else wondering if his name is going to hurt his case? That’s a heck of a name for someone who is basically on trial for bigotry.
I know that’s kind of a superficial thing to think about what there are so many complicated issues, but a lot of things can influence a jury. I was on a jury once when a witness had an odd first name, and another juror could not let it go-- she made a comment practically every time his testimony was mentioned.
I’m positive the guy will be convicted of something but from a legal standpoint I think the defense has done a better job than some are letting on here. There is a case for reasonable doubt.
Two witnesses, one the chief of police said it appeared from the footage that Chauvin’s foot was on Floyd’s shoulder
The doctor said on the stand that yes either of the drugs fentanyl or methamphetamine, or a combination of the two can cause hypoxia
Floyd claimed he couldn’t breathe while still in the patrol car
The drug dealer refusing to testify
A witness agreeing yes that Floyd said he ate too many drugs, but later changed his answer
I’m not saying a crime wasn’t committed or he won’t be convicted but I think the defense isn’t as incompetent as made out in this thread.