As with all expert witnesses. That’s not to say all expert witnesses are lying. It’s just that both sides in all trials somehow are able to find experts that agree with their side and they happen to make a good living at it.
Yup. And if you think about it, it’s really hard for a jury to actually separate who is a credible expert and who is just collecting a paycheck. If you hear as a juror that someone has testified as an expert witness in 200 trials, is that because this person is the undisputed expert in this area? Or is it because they are the only person who is willing to say whatever the prosecution or defense needs said?
In wrestling and more specifically martial arts the technique is to restrain, take down and then GET OFF. Any martial arts school worth its salt wouldn’t even take a student who thinks the point of the move is to lay on the attacker like they’re some prize animal you just bagged on a hunting trip. You’re absolutely right martial arts moves are safer for both parties if used correctly - which includes the right mindset. When you get a brute like Chauvin in there, it becomes deadly. Unfortunately I think many of the people who want to be police officers are the type of people who are not trying to practice martial arts correctly.
Yeah - I posted a while back either in this thread or another, that in my not inconsiderable experience studying/teaching MMA, the only reason I would act as Chauvin did is if I WANTED to seriously injure/kill Floyd, oor if I simply DIDN’T CARE if I did.
Absolutely NO justification for that behavior, if there was ANY consideration of limiting harm to Floyd.
Using Barry Brodd was a very bad decision. It seems obvious he was there to make a buck by trying to support Chauvins use of force. It backfired spectacularly.
Dr. Fowler is doing a good job. He hasn’t disagreed with the Minneapolis Medical Examiner. But I think the DA will bring up a controversial case in Maryland. Anton Black died similarly to Floyd. The family is suing because of Dr. Fowler’s handling of it.
I’m at work so I can’t watch the trial. Can you please explain a bit – who said “resting comfortably,” and in what context? Thanks!
here is the exchange, quoted from cbc.ca:
Brodd argued that Floyd kept on struggling, and he suggested that if Floyd was being compliant, he would have had both hands in the small of his back “and just be resting comfortably.”
“Did you say ‘resting comfortably’?” Schleicher asked.
Brodd: “Or laying comfortably.”
Schleicher: “Resting comfortably on the pavement?”
Brodd said yes and added that he was describing the signs of a perfectly compliant person.
“So attempting to breathe, while restrained, is being slightly non-compliant now,” Schleicher said.
“No,” Brodd said.
Schleicher argued that the only struggling by Floyd was as a result of him trying to breathe.
" I don’t know, if he was struggling or if he was struggling to catch a breath … I can’t tell," Brodd said.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree, that’s a really poor choice of words.
Indeed. When that happens, I have trouble not screaming at my expert in the hallway. The problem with experts is that they are great egghead academics, but they are terrible at talking to juries, and while the State has unlimited resources to hire the best who CAN talk to juries, unless a defendant is OJ Simpson, the defendant gets stuck with experts who say stupid things.
What was so hard for this expert to say something like, “He should have submitted. Nobody likes to lie on the pavement and it is very uncomfortable, but being arrested is uncomfortable, and our duty as citizens is to comply with a police officer when you are placed under arrest” ?
Nelson should have objected to the argumentative question about “attempting to breathe,” but as he didn’t, the expert should have simply said that he did not observe Floyd being unable to breathe.
The crazy part is that sometimes the jurors simply don’t hear and/or put as much significance on things like this as the observers do. However, as of now, I put the advantage to the State. Unless Chauvin will make a terrible witness, I would seriously think about putting him on the stand.
I disagree. A person who makes even part of his living as an expert witness is not some egghead academic - or he wouldn’t be paid for his services on the witness stand more than once.
If I’m the prosecution, I make sure they’re reminded in the closing statements.
The prosecution won’t admit the patrol car was on?
Any one with eyes recognizes the wet tailpipe of running cars. It took awhile to make a puddle that big.
They must think the juors are complete idiots.
If it can convince the jury that Chauvin didn’t kill Floyd, it’s an good argument.
In fact, if it can convince ONE juror, it’s a good argument.
The patrol car was a hybrid, in earlier testimony it was mentioned that the car was very quiet. The park policeman on the stand yesterday could not tell if the vehicle was running or not.
I’ve only been following the trial here and in the headlines. What’s the general feeling if the competency of the prosecution? It sounds like they (he?) are pretty good.
IMHO The prosecution has done quite well. There’s an entire team of them and the case was meticulously prepared.
The defense is clearly struggling. Eric Nelson is doing the best he can with limited resources. He was dealt a losing hand. His clients guilt is being shown to the jury from multiple camera angles. The EMT’s almost needed a can opener to pry Chauvin off Floyd’s dying body.
Looks like they’ll wrap up today. Closing arguments will take most of the day.
The judge had said earlier this week that the defense will likely conclude today. They will have tomorrow off and closing arguments will be Monday.
He said that he didn’t want to do closing Friday and sequester the jury over the weekend. They will be sequestered once deliberation starts.
I think what the defense is trying to do is tip the scale on the “substantial cause” part of the charge.
Imagine a balance scale with Chauvin’s actions as the cause on one side and everything else on the other. I think the defense is trying to pile every little thing on the scale so that all of those things together are the “substantial cause” rather than Chauvin’s actions.
I didn’t realize the defense still had more witnesses.
It sure does seem that a manslaughter conviction is a slam dunk. Maybe the defense is just trying to make it the only charge that sticks.