Somehow I don’t think the “we didn’t choke him to death, we let him breathe in CO” bit isn’t going to help the defense.
Fingers crossed for guilty verdict by the end of Monday. Should the unthinkable happen and not guilty is the verdict, it will not be pretty as it shouldn’t be.
Yes, because ordinary citizens aren’t allowed the same use of force techniques that police are allowed to use to apprehend suspects.
I have no data, only anecdote. It is becoming increasingly rare for defendants to testify unless under the most dire of circumstances–which I would consider Chauvin to be one. Twice in my career have defendants testified, and I lost both cases.
The issue is multifold. Defendants, even innocent ones, are laypeople. They cannot stand up to withering cross examination by an experienced attorney. That is not to say that attorneys are any smarter than others, but that this is our job. If I come within your career, your wheelhouse, you will tear me up, as I with you. In many ways it is unfair, as the justice system should bring forth the truth in that examination. But an experienced attorney can keep painting that picture.
In addition, the defendant is nervous. His life is on the line. He is frustrated, angry, sad, or perhaps guilty and lying. In any of these events, he is not like any other witness. He has a vested interest in the case which is why they tell even lawyers not to act as their own lawyer. He will show his emotions and act out or cry, or do the wrong thing at the wrong time, again, even if he is innocent.
Prosecutors will pick this apart. He has had months or years to think about it, likely sitting in jail. Why is he angry when he should be sad? Why is he sad, when he should be angry? Why was he a smartass when I asked him simple questions? If he got the details mixed up, that means he can’t keep his lie together. If the details were perfect, then he just rehearsed his lie.
It’s just a bad, and IMHO sad thing that defendants don’t feel good enough to testify more.
The point was that department policies allowed MORE use of force than the law allows a normal citizen, so if you go beyond both standards you have no leg to stand on. You’re not doing something the law would normally allow and you’re not doing something your capacity as a police officer would allow.
It’s not just A guilty verdict, it’s also which guilty verdict and what is the sentence. Johannes Mehserle was convicted but only on the lightest of three possible charges, involuntary manslaughter with a gun enhancement (MHO on the sideline was tending towards the middle charge of voluntary manslaughter, but of course I wasn’t on the jury so who’s to know). The judge then tossed the gun enhancement (which would have added three-ten years) and sentenced Mehserle to a relatively light two years reduced by double-credit for time served (due to prison overcrowding). It unfortunately was regarded as a slap on the wrist.
The same thing could happen here. If convicted of second degree manslaughter, the lightest of the three charges against him, Chauvin could face a maximum sentence of ten years. But maximums are rarely applied and I believe the judge in these situations typically have pretty wide latitudes and many are understandably pro-police.
I think Chauvin’s ass is in a tighter crack than Mehserle’s at the equivalent points in their trials, but you never know.
No. The employment as a police officer allows arrest powers to begin with. The use of force in an arrest is governed by state law, either statute or common law. You are looking at it backwards for the reason I stated. The state allows me to practice law. If I do it abusively, it is incorrect to say that I had no authority to practice law to begin with; or, to use your paraphrase, “MORE ability to practice law than the law allows a normal citizen” therefore my conduct as to whether I was legally entitled to file that pleading should be harsher than someone with no law license at all.
If my firm says that we are not using the state standard for frivolous pleadings, but using a harsher standard, one wouldn’t say that as I still had the ability to practice law more than a normal citizen that I should be criminally held to the firm’s standard. I still (subject to review by the State Bar) have a law license and am entitled to file pleadings and am not practicing law without a license.
Likewise, Chauvin was still clothed with arrest powers and had the state law use of force to exceed before he could be criminally charged, not the standard of his department.
This is extremely simple. If you act in a way that would not be legal for a normal citizen, and is not allowed by the exceptional policies of the group you fall under, there are no grounds to declare it legal.
So if the particular use of force Chauvin employed in the way he employed it would not be legal for a normal person, and would not be permissible under his department policies, it is not legal. What general category the use of force falls into is irrelevant.
According to these folk, it almost never happens:
(4) How often does a defendant in a murder trial take a stand and destroys the prosecution’s case by simply telling the truth? What are some examples of this? - Quora
First of all, that’s Quora, which about like citing the SDMB. I am not going to dismiss it out of hand, there is often some good info there. That Retired cop seems to be pretty good.
Next we have two parts:
How often does a defendant in a murder trial take a stand (which is what RickJay asked) and
and destroys the prosecution’s case by simply telling the truth? which IMHO would much more rare.
Well, I didn’t say “in a murder case.”
True, excellent point and that would be #3.
So, a not bad source but it doesnt quite answer the question you were asking.
I mean, in small claims and traffic, the answer would be “about 100%”.
The few (two?) times I was called in to give testimony (they preferred a FBI agent or someone better run down the money laundering charges- and the DA made the right call there I have to admit) the defendant didnt take the stand.
No, I agree with @UltraVires. The policy of a particular police force cannot determine the meaning of the law. It is a factor to take into account, but a police force cannot set the meaning of a law enacted by the Legislature.
Suppose a state law says that police cannot use unreasonable force in subduing a subject.
And 9 of the 10 police forces in that state have a policy allowing an officer to kneel on the back of a prone person under arrest, provided the officer flips the person off their back as soon as the cuffs are on.
But the 10th police force in that state has a policy which says an officer can never place their knee and body weight on the back of a prone person.
Does that mean that in the 9 police forces, it is reasonable to put a knee on the back of a prone arrestee, provided the officer gets off and flips the arrestee once the cuffs are on, but in the 10th police force, doing so is always unreasonable force?
If that is the case, then the police forces have acquired the power to amend the law by their own definitions of what is reasonable force. The meaning of “reasonable force” no longer has a uniform meaning throughout the state, but depends on the opinion and training of the police forces throughout that state.
Are you arguing that the police don’t have any legal authority to do anything a normal citizen wouldn’t be legally allowed to do?
No, not at all. What I’m saying is that the definition of “reasonable force” used by a police officer cannot depend solely on what that officer’s police force uses as its standard. That is a factor to consider, but a state law standard of reasonable force cannot be defined by the practices of individual police forces.
That’s what I understand UltraVires is saying.
So I could imagine a situation where a police dept. authorized something that was obviously excessive and a court could determine that it still wasn’t legal to follow that procedure.
But if a police dept. doesn’t authorize something then what basis does a police officer have to go beyond the legal rights of the general public?
I know it was mentioned upthread that the ct delayed closing til Monday to avoid sequestering the jury over the weekend. I’m not sure I understand that.
If the jury is going to be sequestered, why does it matter whether it is over the weekend or weekdays?
Is the assumption that deliberations will not last long, and it would be impossible to reconvene court over the weekend?
It just seems odd to me to get the jury up to this point, and the turn them loose and say, don’t talk about or read/listen to anything about this for the next 3 days. I’d think giving them this period could alter their receptiveness to closing arguments, and could cause them to harden their personal responses to the evidence they heard/saw. And I’m not sure that is a good thing.
The attorneys probably appreciate the extra time to fine tune their arguments. The judge is probably spending today finalizing jury instructions. The jury gets a day off to catch up on other work. Deliberation over the weekend requires all the court staff to come in and in many places (because of Union agreements or otherwise) that can’t happen. If they’re not going to deliberate over the weekend, it’s a needless expense and hassle to sequester them.
It’s not uncommon at all for a jury to get an extra day or two off now and then during a long trial.
Yes.
The very fact that he is a police officer clothes him with powers of arrest that members of the general public do not have. However, when anyone makes an arrest, whether it is a member of the general public through a citizen’s arrest, or a certified police officer through his greater arrest powers, that individual must perform the arrest using “reasonable force” as defined by state law. If the force used to make a lawful arrest is not reasonable, as defined by state law, then the person making the arrest, whether a police officer or a member of the general public, that individual can be held criminally liable.
However, simply because that police officer’s boss has enacted a policy, not a law, but a policy, that voluntarily restricts the use of force to that less than what state law defines as “reasonable force,” then it is clear what the individual has violated: the policy of his boss and not state law.
Northern Piper makes a good point that the general practices of the police forces around the state can inform what is reasonable force, but I think the lawyers should look more at case law and statutory law. I’m sure they have done that, but I’ve never heard it discussed.
The attorneys, especially the defense attorney, need to see that justice is served and pull an all-nighter to finalize the closing arguments. And most of the argument should be done anyways; a few tweaks here and there.
Court staff routinely work weekends and it is sometimes necessary. And the high profile nature of this case, IMHO, makes it necessary. What is the point of sequestering the jury starting Monday night? Here we sit on Friday afternoon and the jury has three days to get access to outside information.
In fairness, I would have told the jury to pack a bag over the weekend, had the closings today, and depending on the time they ended, either start deliberating tonight, or go to the hotel and start in the morning. Maybe give them Sunday off, at the hotel and sequestered, and start again Monday.
I’m concerned by the defense case. There’s crucial questions that have been left unanswered.
Why didn’t Chauvin follow training and the other officers requests to turn Floyd onto his side?
Why wasn’t CPR administered before EMT arrive?
IMHO it will be discussed in the juryroom. It appears to be blatant negligence. Errors you’d a expect a rookie officer to make.
It’ll be interesting to hear closing arguments. The last chance the defense has to give the jury a explanation.