His credibility took a big hit. “What do you mean by top?”
Dude sorry to hijack but it’s defense not defence.
Let’s not overlook the possibility that @rocking_chair is [gasp] … Canadian.
How would the judge know that? Do the sides present an outline of the cases they’re going to be making to the judge? And if so, is it in any way improper for the judge to comment on the lengths of those cases?
In American English yes, but not in British English 
.
In my experience, yes, the judge generally asks how long the parties estimate their presentation to take place for scheduling purposes. I don’t know of any authority that says such a thing is improper or that commenting to the jury about it is improper, especially in the context of this case when the jury knows it will be sequestered during deliberations.
Again, whether other posters believe it or not, I am still undecided, but this point is not particularly apt. Every person who does dangerous things survive until it kills them. Just because he didn’t die before doesn’t mean it didn’t kill him on May 25.
The salient point was that his blood pressure at the prior arrest was 216/160. That’s astounding. My doctor wants my bottom number below 80. We reach a point a year later where his ingesting of drugs puts pressure on his already weakened heart, and he is still using drugs, and likely still has a dangerously and absurdly high blood pressure and gets in a scrape with four cops while resisting arrest–not a slam dunk, but an attempt to raise reasonable doubt that he died because of poor health and drug use.
Many commentators are saying the same thing, but to me it is like saying that I have driven drunk hundreds of times prior to last night, so how can you say that I was able to live all of those times, but that caused me to have a fatal accident last night? It can’t be alcohol intoxication, it simply must be something else.
Again, not to say it is a convincing argument, but it is a good one.
When I’ve been involved in jury duty, the judge does give you a rough outline of the timing of the trial.
At the beginning of this trail the judge gave a 3-4 week time frame.
(I do tend to spell British. I blame the sisters bronte and all the other British English books we read in school in phila.)
I don’t think it is, in the circumstances. If he had been walking down the street and dropped dead of a heart attack, perhaps that wouldn’t be surprising.
But he was pinned with a knee to the neck and upper body for nine minutes, with expert testimony as to the stress that puts on the ability to breathe. Even if he had a weak heart, that can’t be seen in isolation from the effect of being pinned prone for nine minutes, showing signs of distress.
Sure, but “trail” is not an alternative British spelling. 
And that is the state’s argument, and it is rather convincing, IMHO. However, the defense case is not over and they are attempting to say: 1) this restraint technique is normal and reasonable under the circumstances, 2) it is backed up by legitimate police science as not being dangerous to a person in reasonably good health, and 3) but for George Floyd’s poor health, he would have survived.
I’m not saying that the defense can get to 1, 2, and 3, but it simply has to in order to win.
Ack!
How ‘bout at this time the defence is trailing behind in proving its case?
I don’t know how anyone could be undecided at this point but I do appreciate your perspective.
It’s their language, after all.
If Chauvin stops kneeling on Floyd after he’s cuffed and basically helpless then I’d completely agree. But to keep the pressure on 4ish minutes after the guy is dead is beyond ridiculous, IMHO.
They’re going to have a heck of a time proving “normal and reasonable technique” when even the chief is arguing otherwise.
It’s interesting how much has changed in a generation. Stories about police brutality usually involved nightsticks, fists, and kicks. Remember the Rodney King beat down with batons?
This was a take down and pin to the ground. Techniques borrowed from wrestling. A significantly less violent approach and yet the suspect didn’t survived.
The modern approach is certainly better when used correctly.
This guy is the “expert” and says "Brodd said that he contacted the city attorney’s office and offered his services for Chauvin’s trial. He testified that he was then retained as an expert by Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson. "
His background: " Brodd, who said he’s served as a use-of-force expert in more than 140 cases, testified in another high-profile case: the trial of the former Chicago police officer who shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald roughly seven years ago. In Jason Van Dyke’s trial, Brodd testified that every one of the 16 shots the white officer fired at the Black teenager was justified, WBEZ reported."
Yeah, nothing to see here but a paycheck.
“resting comfortably” may well be the term that sinks his career. i could not believe that he said that. the prosecution did very well on the cross examination.
i do not believe that the jury will see him as credible.
I like the South African pathologist. His work in Maryland sounds quite impressive.
He’s a bit long winded.
But there’s a lot of technical information to summarize into testimony.