This will be my last post on this particular tangent but I don’t think that a police dept policy should inherently be treated as law. The specific situation where I think it should matter legally is when someone says “Normally I wouldn’t be allowed to do this, but I am allowed because I was acting in my capacity as a police officer.” Well if the department they work for doesn’t allow them to do the thing they did, I don’t know how they can argue they were acting in their capacity as a police officer.
It’s been explained to you at least four times, by two attorneys, so if you don’t understand, then you never will.
I agree with everything you said. If I was Eric Nelson, I would have hoped to have a client to explain these things. Maybe he cannot which is why you keep him off of the stand. Regardless of jury instructions, it hurts the defense case that Chauvin cannot articulate why he did what he did.
That varies considerably by location. Certainly not true in Seattle or Vegas. Not sure about Minneapolis.
I’m sure it does. However if a judge says that we have this high profile case and we are doing weekend duty that there are union rules that can override a judge’s order. Maybe unions are that strong in some parts of the country. I don’t pretend to opine on that…but union rules can’t override the right to a fair trial.
I’ve been in court at 4:55 and in needed 10 moor minutes to finish a witness and had the judge say, “Sorry, we are required to stop at 5:00’’”. I’ve been in other courts that will go to 7:00 pm and let juries deliberate until midnight
Were these trials of national significance and where there would be later jury sequestration?
NB: I have not been following the trial closely, and I have not read this thread.
Re: ‘I ate too many drugs.’ That’s an odd thing for someone to say. I wonder if he said, ‘I ain’t do any drugs.’?
Since I haven’t been following, has this been resolved?
That, like every other point in the trial, will be resolved when the jury hands down a verdict. In the meanwhile, the defense says that it’s resolved that he said that, and the prosecution says that it’s resolved that he didn’t.
So my interpretation was brought up at the trial? As I said, I haven’t been following closely. I’ve only heard the audio once, and I was in traffic so I was paying attention to driving.
No, it hasn’t. The audio is muffled and you can pretty much hear anything if you try hard enough.
Yes, it was resolved.
The defence played a bit of the video, and the witness said he heard I ate too many drugs.
The prosecution played a longer portion of the video and the witness stated that he heard I ain’t do no drugs.
That is what the witness said in response to the leading questions of the respective attorneys but objectively speaking, the audio is so muffled and Floyd is mumbling that if you wanted to hear, “I was on the grassy knoll in Dallas” you could hear that as well.
I heard “laurel”
Maybe where you are. Definitely not here in New York. And we’ve got so many courts you practically can’t through a rock without hitting one.
Of course if you do that you’re likely to end up in court.
It depends on what the employer has agreed to in the Collective Agreement. There’s no such thing as “union (only) rules”.
The former Northern California home of an expert police use-of-force witness who testified last week for the defense in the Derek Chauvin murder trial was targeted over the weekend by vandals, police said.
Police in Santa Rosa, California, said the vandalism occurred early Saturday morning at the former home of Barry Brodd, a former Santa Rosa Police Department training officer, who moved out of the residence several years ago and no longer lives in the state. “Because Mr. Brodd no longer lives in the city of Santa Rosa, it appears the victim was falsely targeted,” Santa Rosa police said in a statement.
Police were called to the home just after 3 a.m. by the new homeowners, who told officers they were awakened by a group of people dressed all in black, who threw a severed pig’s head on their front porch and splattered blood on the front of their house, officials said.
“It appears the suspects in this vandalism were targeting Mr. Brodd for his testimony,” the police statement reads.
Targeting someone home is wrong, and getting the address wrong is stupid.
This is the type of BS that could lead to an unwarranted acquittal.
Yeah, let’s hope the jury doesnt know about it.