Where is “here”?
Such as…?
Why didn’t the prosecution play the video again in closing?
Are you allowed to re-present evidence?
My understanding is that his blood was re-oxygenated when CPR was administered by the EMTs. But he was already dead at that point. By manually pumping the heart and doing rescue breathing you can reoxygenate the blood.
In fact, the defense made exactly this point (that the 98% O2sat is meaningless) in their closing, likely to get the bad argument in front of the jury knowing it was bad but that, like you, they may be confused and think it was actually a good argument. Here is the quote from Eric Nelson:
I was very confused by why Nelson brought this up until I read your post. Now I’m pretty convinced that the entire point was to frame it as a “bad argument” but hope that the listener would think it was a good argument.
Cite: Defense Closing Argument Transcript: Derek Chauvin Trial For Murder of George Floyd | Rev Blog
I meant to address this too. This is another area where Nelson misled the jury as to the nature of the law. In fact, the prosecutor requested the judge inform the jury about this, but the judge declined and instead said he would re-read the instructions that define the crime and remind the jury that they should refer to the judges instructions not the lawyers statements regarding the elements of the crime.
The prosecution in no way has to show that Chauvin’s actions were the sole cause of Floyd’s death.
Here is the prosecutions description of “causation”, but you can refer the law itself if you want:
I can’t imagine the pressure of being on that jury. Any of them could get doxxed and have their life ruined.
The defense witness is lucky his online info is several years out of date.
What happens if the jury agrees on one of the charges but not on the other 2? i.e. Do they have to be unanimous on all 3 charges?
I saw the tape of Rep. Waters saying what she said.
You know, it really wasn’t all that inflammatory. She seemed to me to be saying that if the outcome of the trial isn’t a conviction, demonstrators (and people in general, I guess) should get more “confrontational.”
I think she’s right. To let this man walk would be intolerable. And she wasn’t calling for violence.
And the judge was out of line to criticize her, on the record, the way he did. Yes, he can declare a mistrial if he thinks the jury was unduly influenced by what she said (assuming they’re aware of it), but, again, I saw the tape of what he said. If he’d thought there were grounds for a mistrial, he had a remedy. He chose not to exercise that remedy, which indicates that he didn’t think there was adequate reason for a mistrial. Even so, he chose to criticize Rep. Waters from the bench. He was angrier than he had a right to be, and there was an element of “she should know her place” in his words and demeanor.
Where is “here”?
‘Here’ would be England, where it is a contempt of court to publish speculation about the defendant’s guilt or innocence, or predictions about the consequence of a verdict, or details of his previous criminal record, if any, while the trial is still ongoing.
But the prosecution does have to prove that Chauvin’s actions were a substantial cause of death. I don’t think the state met that proof.
The state claims that nothing else in the prior 10-20 minutes matters. That the officers probably shouldn’t even have arrested Floyd in the first place. That their experts all said it wasn’t a drug overdose so drugs had nothing to do with the death at all. Floyd’s heart was fine, in fact, all the medical issues made his heart stronger. The initial arrest was at least questionable and worse illegal. Floyd was done fighting once he said “thank you.”
The prosecution has to argue all that because their theory of substantial cause starts when Floyd is out of the car and on the ground. That up to that point Floyd was doing just fine.
They can’t defend their theory if the substantial cause was George Floyd fighting police, being on drugs (not overdosed), and being (unknowingly) compromised with a bad heart.
I don’t believe the state cleared that hurdle.
We shall see. My reading of the law would require an acquittal on all charges the jury does not believe Mr Chauvin’s actions were a substantial cause of death. I don’t believe that standard is any different for the murder or manslaughter charges - they all have the element that Chauvin “caused” the death of George Floyd.
I guess the jury could try to “compromise” on manslaughter, but to me that is a cop out. Either Chauvin’s actions caused Floyd to die (which I mean as “if Chavin had acted otherwise Floyd would have survived”) or they didn’t.
Now, if you believe that Chauvin’s actions were a substantial cause then you could parse the intent to assault element to acquit on murder but still convict on manslaughter.
I honestly don’t understand your paragraph where you claim the state has to prove that the officers shouldn’t have arrested Floyd, or that the drugs have nothing to do with death. I don’t think the state has to prove any of that - just that if Chauvin had acted differently Floyd would have lived, and that a reasonable officer would not have acted as Chauvin did.
They can reach a verdict on one charge and be “hung” on the others. That would allow for a retrial on the charges that were not unanimous. Depending on which charge, and the split of jurors, the State may not bother (or could reach a plea deal on those)
Now Biden is praying for the Floyd family and hoping for a good outcome?
WTH? I guess the Pope will weigh in next.
This world just keeps on getting crazier. There’s no way this jury can be completely objective.
Well, I agree Waters statements were asinine but what is wrong with Biden praying for a dead man’s family? What is wrong with hoping for a good outcome? I don’t see anything wrong in that story at all.
Agreed. Didn’t people hope for a good outcome when the Boston Marathon bomber was on trial? Or the OK city guys?
This is a murder trial. We’re supposed to be routing for the prosecution.
What would be a good outcome? A full conviction against Chauvin? That’s the message I’d get from that story.
I’m hoping for a conviction too. But it seems inappropriate for our nation’s leaders to say it publicly during jury deliberations.
I don’t want to see this verdict overturned on appeal.
This is the entirety of the quote in the article you linked:
It sounds clearly to me that this is about grief, not about the trial. I don’t see any quotes from Biden regarding the trial, a preferred outcome, or anything. If you have one from a different source I’d love to see it.
I don’t think he’ll get the murder conviction, but will likely get the manslaughter conviction.
IMO, some conviction, with some meaningful amount of prison time. At least 5 years.