As I listen to Mr. Nelson say “reasonable police officer” over and over again, I can’t help but think “It’s too bad one of those reasonable officers didn’t show up.”
Nelson raised some good points. The drugs, the physical conflict, and Floyd’s heart blockage had to contribute to his death. A lot of things went wrong before he died.
The prosecution wants all the blame on what Chauvin did. Life doesn’t work that way. Chauvin’s actions were a major factor but the other things have to be considered.
I don’t understand, legally, what such a vague “George Floyd didn’t lead a very virtuous life” comment means. He didn’t, but Chauvin still killed him, for no discernable good reason.
The question I’d want answered if I were a juror would be: “Why 9 and a half minutes? What feedback was Chauvin getting at minute 6 … minute 7 … minute 8 … that made him certain it was not yet time to get up?”
I’m watching it on ABC. Their legal analysts have said that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that Chauvin’s actions were the only factor in Floyd’s death, and that they are not even claiming this. The standard is whether Chauvin’s actions were a major contributory factor in Floyd’s death.
Why does the jury have to solely rely on their recollection of everything they’ve seen and heard over the last few weeks? Why can’t they get a transcript of some witness’ testimony?
What if there is one juror whose recollection is completely false? For example, their recollection is that Dr. Tobin testified that George Floyd has sufficient oxygen during the entire ordeal.
This is an area where the courts haven’t caught up with modern technology. It seems like it should be possible to have a transcript, but all that exists at the point when the jury retires to deliberate is the court reporter’s stenography, which most people are unable to read.
I’ve been on three juries. In each case, we could ask the judge to have the court reporter read a portion of the trial to us. We actually did so in one case.
One problem I can see with providing a transcript to the jury is that the lawyers on both sides would want to review it before the jury sees it. This could take a lot of time.
The TV analysts are praising the prosecution’s closing arguments. Guess they hit it out of the park.
I don’t see any proof of intent. There were cameras everywhere. I can’t accept that Chauvin intended to harm Floyd and did it on camera. That doesn’t make sense.
Yes, he used more force than needed. He stayed on top of Floyd for too long. He was negligent and his actions contributed to Floyd’s death.
The problem isn’t the technology. We often get “daily transcripts” during a trial. The problem is more philosophical (and tradition). They don’t want the jury to over focus on any one particular piece of testimony. The evidence should be considered as a whole. If one juror wants to hear a witnesses direct testimony, should they also be forced to listen to the cross? And if two witnesses talk about the same event, should they review both? (I’ve never seen anyone suggest they get an actual transcript, it is usually read to the jurors) The courts seem to be comfortable asking jurors to rely on their collective memories.
As noted, judges can allow trial testimony to be read to a jury during deliberations. It takes a long time and is of questionable value.
They don’t have to prove intent to kill
Second degree murder - unintentional is defined as causing death without intent to do so, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense. Chauvin’s alleged felony is assault in the third degree, the infliction — or attempted infliction — of substantial bodily harm upon another by using unlawful force.
Cahill said it is not necessary for the state to prove that Chauvin intended to inflict substantial bodily harm on Floyd, “or knew that his actions would.” The prosecution must only prove that Chauvin “intended to commit the assault and that George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result.” The charge carries a maximum sentence of 40 years.
I’ve not been able to watch the live feed, but I am following the live blog on Legal Insurrection.
Granting their transcription as reasonably accurate, I don’t think the state proved its case. That doesn’t mean Chauvin will be found not guilty, the jury has to know what is waiting for them if they don’t come up with the mob approved verdict, but the prosecution story leaves too many questions unanswered.
The defense closing story seems pretty straightforward. Floyd died not solely of officers’ actions but because he had a long list of medical and drug ailments that were aggravated by his choosing to fight with the officers.
The prosecutor closing story seemed to want to ignore a lot of Floyd’s medical issues and at some points toward the end I thought they were employing the Chewbacca Defense. A lot of use your eyes because they can be trusted more than the medical evidence. Floyd was somebody’s baby, didn’t deserve to die over a counterfeit $20. The angry crowd was a nice crowd. Floyd’s medical condition was perfectly normal and safe, he could have run a marathon. The drugs he took had no effect. I don’t believe the state did enough to overcome the reasonable doubt to impeach the defense theory.
Also, did I miss something about blood oxygen concentration? It seems like the state had an expert testify that lying prone, Floyd’s BOC was down to 45% due to Chauvin’s actions and killed Floyd at the scene. Even pointed out the exact moment on tape when Floyd died. Yet when the CO argument came up, another state witness testified the BOC at the hospital was 98% so CO wasn’t an issue. If Floyd was dead in the street due to Chauvin, how did Floyd’s BOC go from too low to normal at the hospital?
That’s not a defense. If Chauvin’s actions were a substantial factor, they don’t have to be the only factor.
Judge says Rep Waters comments could possibly overturn this case on appeal.
IMHO Politicians need to respect the judicial system and not comment on active cases.
The whole trial was televised, maybe the jury could just watch some of the footage if they can’t afford a transcript. /s
Maxine Waters said some stupid and very inappropriate things. I can’t believe she said the things she did.
Various government officials have seem determined to create prime appeal issues by interfering with Chauvin’s right to a fair trial. See also state and local officials calling him guilty in the immediate aftermath of the events and announcing the civil settlement in the middle of jury selection.
What Maxine Waters said was totally unacceptable, and I wish she would take her own advice that she gave (quite appropriately) to Jim “The Shirt” Jordan when he was implying that Dr. Fauci was a freedom-hating Nazi, that advice being “shut your mouth”. Hers has been doing altogether too much flapping, too.
But, digging a little deeper into this, Chauvin’s lawyer was trying to get the judge to declare a mistrial over this. And the judge denied the request, saying that the jury “… have been told not to watch the news. I trust they are following those instructions, and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case.”
I don’t doubt that a guilty verdit will, in fact, be appealed, because I suspect that Chauvin probably has infinite legal funds thanks to the police union. But based on Judge Cahill’s reasoning, I’m not sure that an appeal will succeed. But one can sorely wish that Maxine Waters would put a sock in her pie-hole.
She would be on her way to jail here for contempt of court for saying that.
That’s not what contempt of court is.
Rep Waters should apologize and restate her dopey comments. WTF???
Besides that, everything in this trial hasn’t changed my mind from the start. Four cops on a handcuffed person and one with a knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes. I’m guessing verdict will happen soon, probably tomorrow.
I find the idea that some politician sharing their opinion should somehow help with a mistrial to be utterly ridiculous. She’s not a party to the trial, so she should be able to say whatever she wants about it, just like anyone else.
If anything happens because of what she said, it would actually be repudiation of her opinion of the legal system. There is no way that the onus should be on other people outside the trial to not prejudice the jury. That’s obviously trying to use a technical loophole.
And, frankly, given how black people are repeatedly treated by our justice system, the lawyers demanding she show fealty to that system is disgusting to me. As is how “freedom of speech,” which we treat as so important we can’t stop racism, so often seems to be ignored relating to trials. At least the participants can be argued to be need restraints, but NO ONE ELSE.