Sounds like a “Victim Impact Statement” - an idea recommended by President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime and endorsed by Attorney General Bill Barr in 1992. 44 states allow them.
Can’t be. That’s only permitted at sentencing, once a defendant has been convicted and when there is no jury in the box.
Ah. You’re right. Thanks.
They are called “spark of life” witnesses, and yes they appear to be somewhat unique to Minnesota. Apparently they came from a State Supreme Court ruling in 1985.
Thanks. I just dug up that reference, tool
I am amazed they haven’t been found unconstitutional. This appears to be a rule created literally for the purpose of making the trial less fair.
From your link:
The defense also argues that the subject matter, the victim’s personal life, was not a proper subject for the opening statement. While it is true that the quality or personal details of the victim’s life are not strictly relevant to the issue of who murdered the victim, it would seem to tie unduly the hands of the prosecutor to prohibit any mention of the victim’s life. The victim was not just bones and sinews covered with flesh, but was imbued with the spark of life. The prosecution has some leeway to show that spark and present the victim as a human being as long as it is not an “attempt to invoke any undue sympathy or inflame the jury’s passions.” State v. Plan, 316 N.W.2d 727, 728 (Minn.1982). The prosecutor’s speech was not such an attempt.
–It seems like a big leap from excusing a prosecutor for making a couple of off handed remarks versus allowing it to call witnesses who serve no legitimate purpose.
ABC reporting that there is a 7pm curfew in Minneapolis. How do you keep THAT from the jury? Should be a mistrial IMHO.
Why should unrest due to a case unrelated to the trial be cause for a mistrial?
I dispute “unrelated.” It is a black man killed by the Minneapolis PD, and this one is pretty direct that it was improper (debate for another thread). A juror may fear that a Not Guilty verdict will cause his or her town to become violent. And although, through legal naivety, we can assume that the jurors might follow the instructions of the Judge not to watch the news, how do you handle when the juror gets home from the trial and wants to go grab a burger at 7:32pm?
At minimum they should now be sequestered.
Except he wasn’t killed in Minneapolis or by the Minneapolis PD. He was shot by a Brooklyn Center cop in Brooklyn Center.
Fair enough, but the point still stands. It happened 10 miles from the courthouse and the curfew is for Minneapolis.
How far away is far enough? And does this mean we mistrial every time a similar crime is committed within a ten mile radius and hits the news? If we start trying Jan 6th insurrectionists, will they all get mistrials if there are riots when their trials happen? That seems like a good way for those in power to make sure justice never gets served, just keep letting the people in power commit crimes.
I don’t see any additional value in this last use of force witness. He’s using the same screen shots and making similar comments based on Graham v. Connor. It was established last week the Minneapolis officer training is based on National Standards and Chauvin didn’t follow his training.
The jury must be getting a bit tired by now. They’ve sat through a lot of testimony.
Getting into Floyd’s personal life is a slippery slope, IMHO. I think it’s common ground that Floyd had a significant thug past.
Two points:
-
Floyd’s past does not matter. Whether he was a wonderful man or a terrible man is irrelevant. If Chauvin’s actions were illegal and killed him, the punishment should be the same.
-
Along with point #1, that is why these “spark of life” witnesses are improper. Again, it doesn’t matter if he loved his mother or played basketball or had a good relationship with his brother. It doesn’t matter any more than his criminal past. It should all not be permitted.
Seth Stoughton is the MAN. My hero. 
Those are precisely my points. The only things relevant is the force used by Chauvin to subdue Floyd leading to this death. IMHO the fact Floyd was a wonder man to some and a thug to others should both be irrelevant. Those issues cut both ways.
Of course, one could also make the point that, even if one thinks that the rules should be different, as of right now, such witnesses are allowed in Minnesota courts. In fact, they’ve probably been used in the prosecution of others arrested by Chauvin.
And it would be a perversion of justice to declare a mistrial based on further misconduct of people associated with the defendant.
Interesting that the judge said that the defense case will start tomorrow and be over by Friday, possibly Thursday (which I interpret to mean that IF Chauvin testifies, it will be Friday). That is a pretty scant case for the defense, but maybe it is a “less is more” type of case which sometimes works.