It's going bad for the prosecution

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,758
1
Go to app 13 minutes, Floyd didn't die on the ground but actually died at the hospital. The doctor who identified the moment of death was completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,758
1
From author Marc MacYoung:


Before you give out this kind of stupid shit advice you had DAMNED well make sure people know how to do what you're recommending. If not, odds are good someone is going to get hurt or killed.

Simply stated, quietly standing WAAAAY back and recording is fine. Getting close and insisting on expressing your opinion or telling the cops what to do is a recipe for disaster.

If you do the latter—whether you believe that's what you are doing or not— you are giving the officers reasonable belief that there is a safety issue to them. Hostile crowds are both dangerous and likely to go off. This advice weaponizes that against cops. (For the record I am a court recognized expert witness on the subject of multiple attackers and I've written a book on the subject. Something I repeatedly mention in the book is "Numbers are the weapon.") It puts cops into a defensive mindset because they—unlike you or the people being encouraged to gather—know the danger of a mob and being outnumbered.

Let me give you a current example of what is probably going to come up in the trial. A damned good argument can be made that that it was the crowd that prompted Chauvin to remain kneeling on Floyd for so long. That's because other officers—who could have otherwise helped if Floyd was rolled into a different position and then continued to fight—were occupied keeping the hostile crowd back.

So short version, don't encourage people to do stuff without telling them how to do it so it doesn't make shit worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

katchthis

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2004
22,073
7,038
1
Best guesses on how many days defense will take for their presentations?
When the judge said there is no need to sequester the jury until deliberation, he stated Monday, 4/19 as the date for end of defense portion of the trial.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,465
1
What do you think of the judge not sequestering the jury in the face of the recent shooting and riots in MN ?
The judge has gotta bring the jurors back and forth each day for court proceedings. Where, exactly, was he gonna put them that they would not see or hear something about this? Possibly on the upper floor of some high rise hotel with an absolute news blackout to their hotel rooms. You never know what happens if he is convicted and appeals, but I suspect that the verdict (if it is a conviction) will not be overturned on this basis.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,465
1
For murder 2?
It depends on what the Minnesota statutes for Murder 2 and Murder 3 require in terms of the defendant's state of mind at the time the homicide was committed. (I haven't studied up on them.)

There is an area in between absolute intent to kill and a wholly negligent homicide, and there are various legal buzzwords that are used to describe it. "Willful indifference," "malicious indifference," "wanton disregard," etc. Another often used term, and one that is apparently in the Minnesota statutes given how prevalent it has been in news coverage of this trial, is the term "depraved mind." The term can be confusing to non-lawyers, since it is more commonly used to describe sexual deviance or proclivities, but it is essentially equivalent to the three terms used above, and describes someone who manifests an absolute disregard as to whether his or her actions might result in death. I think the Chauvin jury will conclude Chauvin had that particular mental state. And if that is the requirement for Murder 3 in Minnesota, then that is where I think they will go in convicting him.

Chauvin's best shot is in convincing the jury that Floyd's health issues or ingestion of drugs played a significant role in causing his death, and hoping they can create "reasonable doubt" as to cause of death. But there is that video of Chauvin and his fellow officers kneeling on Floyd for minutes on end, even after one of them says "I can't find a pulse." Hard to get around that.
 
Last edited:

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
17,561
9,617
1
It depends on what the Minnesota statutes for Murder 2 and Murder 3 require in terms of the defendant's state of mind at the time the homicide was committed. (I haven't studied up on them.)

There is an area in between absolute intent to kill and a wholly negligent homicide, and there are various legal buzzwords that are used to describe it. "Willful indifference," "maliicious indifference," "wanton disregard," etc. Another often used term, and one that is apparently in the Minnesota statutes given how prevalent it has been in news coverage of this trial, is the term "depraved mind." The term can be confusing to non-lawyers, since it is more commonly used to describe sexual deviance or proclivities, but it is essentially equivalent to the three terms used above, and describes someone who manifests an absolute disregard as to whether his or her actions might result in death. I think the Chauvin jury will conclude Chauvin had that particular mental state. And if that is the requirement for Murder 3 in Minnesota, then that is where I think they will go in convicting him.

Chauvin's best shot is in convincing the jury that Floyd's health issues or ingestion of drugs played a significant role in causing his death, and hoping they can create "reasonable doubt" as to cause of death. But there is that video of Chauvin and his fellow officers kneeling on Floyd for minutes on end, even after one of them says "I can't find a pulse." Hard to get around that.

Can't find a pulse. Unless the guy was a trained medical professional or EMT, I'd say most people would have an issue finding they own pulse let alone some elses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,465
1
Can't find a pulse. Unless the guy was a trained medical professional or EMT, I'd say most people would have an issue finding they own pulse let alone some elses.
Could be. My experience over the years is that it is REALLY hard to predict with any level of confidence what a jury is likely to do. I posted above what I THINK the Chauvin jury may do, but I certainly would not put money on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DandyDonII

DandyDonII

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2002
6,164
4,401
1
Could be. My experience over the years is that it is REALLY hard to predict with any level of confidence what a jury is likely to do. I posted above what I THINK the Chauvin jury may do, but I certainly would not put money on it.

I couldn't agree with this more. I have had juries asking the best questions for me during deliberations only to get a not guilty verdict. I have had juries also ask crazy ass questions only to convict (they were just trying to convince one juror).... I have a couple of funny stories on this
 

CDW3333

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2010
12,653
3,108
1
Chauvin's best shot is in convincing the jury that Floyd's health issues or ingestion of drugs played a significant role in causing his death, and hoping they can create "reasonable doubt" as to cause of death. But there is that video of Chauvin and his fellow officers kneeling on Floyd for minutes on end, even after one of them says "I can't find a pulse." Hard to get around that.
I agree with this, but Chauvin's defense on this issue was amazingly weak. They had one guy, a former medical examiner, say he didn't know what the cause of death was. This after the prosecution put on an array of impressive witnesses to say that the cause was Chauvin pressing his knee on Floyd's neck. Hard to beat something with nothing, as they say.

That being said, I agree there's no way to tell what a jury will do. You can eyeball them for two weeks from 10-15 feet away and not know what they're going to do.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,758
1
I think they went with the strategy that is was so obvious everybody agrees, even people who never examined the body.
That's not why, they wanted to get a cumulative effect from the testimony.

It's duplicative testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
2,259
4,891
1
The prosecution lawyers would have had a field day with him on cross examination, and his best defense focuses on cause of death rather than his conduct or mindset. Wise move by his lawyers.

I'm not sure it was a wise move. It was the conventional, predictable move...and well justified on technical and tactical grounds.

But this is an extraordinary situation. The deck is stacked against Chauvin. The tape looks bad. The jury is under tremendous pressure to convict. And the relentless media narrative, to which all these jurors have been exposed, is that Chauvin's a bad cop...and guilty of murder. Moreover, realistically speaking, the defense is probably not ahead on points at this late stage of the fight.

Therefore, I think Chauvin's one best shot might be to look the jury in the eye and tell his side of the story...separating himself from the picture of villainy that the media has spent a whole year painting.

Yes, it's a high-risk move, and he would be exposed to a withering cross-examination. But assuming he did not intend to kill Floyd and regrets that it happened, in his shoes, I'd want to finally have a chance to tell the other side of a story that has been framed and reported in one-sided fashion.

I don't know, maybe that's a naive view of things on my part. Maybe he has more to lose than to gain by testifying. It's just that at this point, I'm trying to figure out exactly what he has to lose. As things stand, does anyone seriously think this jury, rightly or wrongly, will not be voting to convict?
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,465
1
If the prosecution's witnesses were so great, they wouldn't have needed 7 of them to say the exact same thing.
The prosecution had a strong case in terms of medical experts' testimony, but you are correct in noting that they overdid it with the number of witnesses. I'm sure they started to bore the jury with the repetition. That's not the best trial strategy.

I thought the Irish (Irish-American?) medical expert gave the strongest prosecution testimony. Hie testimony that kneeling on the neck of even the most healthy person for that long would cause a fatal attack of hypoxia (sp?) was, IMHO, pretty compelling It essentially tells the jury that Floyd's health issues and/or drug ingestion wouldn't have mattered; he would have died anyway. The defense should have gone after that testimony with hammer and tongs on cross examination. Not sure why they didn't at least make the attempt.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,465
1
I'm not sure it was a wise move. It was the conventional, predictable move...and well justified on technical and tactical grounds.

But this is an extraordinary situation. The deck is stacked against Chauvin. The tape looks bad. The jury is under tremendous pressure to convict. And the relentless media narrative, to which all these jurors have been exposed, is that Chauvin's a bad cop...and guilty of murder. Moreover, realistically speaking, the defense is probably not ahead on points at this late stage of the fight.

Therefore, I think Chauvin's one best shot might be to look the jury in the eye and tell his side of the story...separating himself from the picture of villainy that the media has spent a whole year painting.

Yes, it's a high-risk move, and he would be exposed to a withering cross-examination. But assuming he did not intend to kill Floyd and regrets that it happened, in his shoes, I'd want to finally have a chance to tell the other side of a story that has been framed and reported in one-sided fashion.

I don't know, maybe that's a naive view of things on my part. Maybe he has more to lose than to gain by testifying. It's just that at this point, I'm trying to figure out exactly what he has to lose. As things stand, does anyone seriously think this jury, rightly or wrongly, will not be voting to convict?
You could be right, Jerry. If he is in fact well behind on points right now, a Hail Mary (i.e., taking the stand) may be Chauvin's best chance. But it is highly risky. The jury may already have concluded (whether rightly or wrongly) that he is a bad dude, and regard his testimony as self serving and not worth crediting, and he opens himself up to a cross examination that could significantly weaken the positive effect of whatever he says on direct examination. Who knows?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry