Justice and the George Floyd trial

@longjon,

1. To answer your question. In a fair trial, the jurors are screened and both legal teams have the ability to select fair jurors. You don't need to move a trial, in fact I think most judges are hesitant to move a trial because it goes against the principle of "jury of your peers"... the idea is that the people judging you should be people from your community.

2. If I were on the jury, I would follow the instructions and would consider all of the evidence and facts presented by both sides. All jurors swear on oath to do this. If you wouldn't be able to do this, then you shouldn't be on the jury.

3. I reject this narrow unthinking partisanship. Referring people on the left as "grievance mongers", even people in Black Lives Matter, shows that you are biased and unwilling to to consider the valid points on the left.

I hate both of narrow closed-minded ideological bubbles; the conservative bubble is at least as bad as the left one.

(It should be clear to anyone that I am not really writing this as a response to longjon... but he makes a nice foil).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Please provide a yes or no answer to this question.

Do you think that jurors who live in Minneapolis would give any consideration to the ramifications to their neighbors and families by black mobs if they deliver a verdict that displeases those mobs?

Yes or no?

1 Reply

@longjon,

No.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Ah, so you're completely unfamiliar with both human nature AND reality then?

Have you ever heard of an individual named "Rodney King"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King#:~:text=The%20jury%20found%20Officer%20Laurence,were%20acquitted%20of%20all%20charges.

Have you paid attention to any of the numerous cases in the past two years involving white officers and black criminals? I guess you must have not noticed any of that, or the ensuing riots and murders when those officers weren't convicted as the mobs had hoped.

1 Reply

@longjon,

You are speaking from within an ideological bubble, and you are conflating the issues.

1. I do not support protesting a fair trial. A trial is decided by 12 people who have patiently listened to all of the evidence presented and who aren't allowed to consider the protests... and besides by the time the protest happens the

2. The failure of the Black Lives Matter movement to control, or even consistently condemn violence has severely damaged their message.

3. I feel like the left is tacitly condoning violence in this trial. They seem to be preparing another round of excuses. There was a recent piece on NPR where someone was seriously arguing that throwing a molotov cocktail into a police car shouldn't be punished because it was a "protest", and no one contradicted her. This messaging from the left is irresponsible.

4. I don't see how anyone (but the most ideologically extreme) can condone or excuse the behavior of the police officer in this George Floyd case. It was unprofessional, savage and showed complete disregard for the life of the person in his care. Other police officers (including my son) are disavowing what he did.

5. In my opinion The complaints behind the Black Lives Matter movement are unquestionably valid. There is reason for anger. I raised two men of color and dealt with the racism they faced.

The angry protests you see are reflecting a real problem in our society.

0 Replies

Before you spike the ball (or shrink in despair). This is the Prosecution phase of the trial. They call the witnesses. They direct the questioning. They have the advantage. Of course the tide will turn when it is the Defense case

This is the best part of the trial for them. They told a good story through multiple witnesses of a callous cop who kept digging his knee in harder. They had some witness setting not only the facts, but the emotion of the event.

However, the defense is doing a pretty good job in cross-examination setting up the foundation for when it is time to make their case.

- The defense wants to look at more than just the 9 and a half minutes being portrayed by the prosecution. The defense clearly wants to talk about what happened before, and what was happening in the crowd while Chauvin was kneeling on the victim.

- A couple of times through the day, they asked "Do you know what happened before?". This was most effective with the MMA fighter when he asked "did you know an ambulance had been called". Of course MMA fighter didn't. This was an effective moment for the defense. The point is that you can't make a judgment based on limited information.

- The defense didn't cross-examine most of the minors. I heard an interesting discussion of this from Robert Gruler (a defense attorney analyzing this case). Defense attorneys realize there is little gain from doing so and hope that the the prosecution is penalized by the jury for putting minors in this situation.

- The MMA fighter had a bad moment (although the partisan left is cheering his testimony). When Eric Nelson was questioning him about how he was yelling vulgarity at the police officer ("F**** P***ssy Ass B*****"), it was uncomfortable.

- The Firefighter was interesting. She was privately taken aside and scolded by the judge for being combative toward cross-examination. Gruler thinks her combativeness may actually play well with the jury.

- Nelson also set a trap for the firefighter that she walked into unaware. He was asking about her professionalism... and the questioning kept escalating to "would you change what you were doing while fighting fires if there were 20 angry people shouting swears at you". She doubled down, and said she would do what she thought was right no matter who was yelling at her. I don't think she ever realized the importance of her statement.

It is important to remember that the only audience that matters are the 12 people on the jury. All of the high fives and groans from the partisan left and right are really irrelevant.

I would suggest to my ideological left friends who are dancing in the end zone know that they are prepared with a stiff drink when the Defense gets to set its case. Robert Nelson knows what he is doing.

0 Replies

I am getting as much information about this trial from non-biased sources with legal expertise.

I really like the Robert Gruler videos. He is a defense attorney who does a good job of explaining courtroom process and legal strategy.

0 Replies

I should stay here. I will leave the other thread to the ideological bubble. It is my concern that the political left is setting up a situation that could result in more violence, and that they are doing nothing to lessen the risk.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Surely you are not suggesting the jury decision should be based on the expected consequences of a not guilty verdict.

1 Reply

While we are looking at the arguments, we should remember that the the prosecution has the burden of proof. A lot of the things that cause outrage are really irrelevant to what the prosecution must prove.

1. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the police officer caused the death. I think that the medical testimony will be key. From what I am reading, this is not a slam dunk for the prosecution.

2. For the second degree murder charge the prosecution also has to prove that any reasonable person would have known that this action would likely lead to death. And you will hear testimony from medical people and police experts.

The prosecution testimony from witnesses about their shock on seeing what was going on was a powerful point in their favor on this issue.

3. The manslaughter charge has a lower bar than the second degree murder charge. They only have to prove that he took an "unreasonable risk".

I am just guessing, but if I were a juror this would be the "compromise" position and is 3-5 years in prison. When I was on a jury, one of the worst charges was ridiculous. I am pretty sure it was a psychological trick to get us to find him guilty on the "compromise" charge (which is what they wanted all along).

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Surely you are not suggesting the jury decision should be based on the expected consequences of a not guilty verdict.

Of course not! The jury decision should be based only on the facts and evidence presented to them.

I am suggesting that the political left should start acting responsibly now. They know that a "not-guilty" verdict is a possibility, and they should be prepared to lessen the possibility of violence.

0 Replies

I am curious to hear the defense narrative about why he was taken out of the police car. There was a video about an altercation inside the car.

I assume there is a story there. The defense will want to paint this as police procedure.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Is there evidence that he was in the back of a police car and the police removed him from the back of the police car??

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yes. I don't think this fact is contested, and there is video showing him being removed from the back of a police car.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

That's contrary to the narrative that was released to the public some months ago. They had said that he was being subdued because he would not allow the police to place him in the back of the police car.

I'll try to look for the video when I get time.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

2. For the second degree murder charge the prosecution also has to prove that any reasonable person would have known that this action would likely lead to death.

Where do you find this requirement??

I know that I once convinced you that the second degree murder charge was unlikely, but I now believe that I was probably mistaken.

I'm planning to post a correction to my earlier post when I get a chance (hopefully within the hour, but we'll see how my time goes).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The Heritage legal analysis believes that this was murder. However, they think the third degree murder charge was a mistake.
Their analysis is that in Minnesota Third Degree Murder can't be directed against a specific intended target... and that if this is the verdict, it will be overturned on appeal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/us/derek-chauvin-third-degree-murder.html

New York Times wrote:

Third-degree murder was the first charge Mr. Chauvin faced after he was arrested in the days following Mr. Floyd's death on May 25. At the time, the charge prompted an outcry from both activists and lawyers, who said that Mr. Chauvin should face a more severe charge and that a third-degree murder charge did not fit the circumstances of Mr. Floyd's death.

Third-degree murder in Minnesota, they noted, has long been understood as an act -- "evinced with a depraved mind," according to the statute -- that is dangerous to a group of people, rather than one person. An often cited example is a suspect who fires a gun randomly into a passing train, or someone who drives a car into a crowd. In addition, drug dealers have often been prosecuted with third-degree murder in Minnesota when one of their customers dies of an overdose.

Going by that interpretation of third-degree murder, Judge Peter A. Cahill, who is presiding over Mr. Chauvin's trial, dismissed the charge last fall and upheld the other charges.

But a recent decision by the Court of Appeals in a separate case appeared to reshape the interpretation of third-degree murder. Upholding a conviction of third-degree murder for Mohamed Noor, a former police officer who shot and killed a woman while on duty, the appeals court determined that third-degree murder could be applied in a case in which the suspect's actions were dangerous to a single person.

When prosecutors sought to reintroduce the third-degree murder charge in February, Judge Cahill rejected their arguments, saying that he disagreed with the appeals court ruling, and that it was not binding because the Minnesota Supreme Court could still overturn it. If Mr. Chauvin is convicted of third-degree murder and the Minnesota Supreme Court overturns the Noor decision, Mr. Chauvin's conviction on that count could also be overturned, and prosecutors would not be able to retry him.

An appeals court judge wrote in an 18-page decision on Friday that Judge Cahill had erred by saying he was not required to follow the precedent of the Noor case. The appeals panel of three judges ordered the lower court to reconsider the state's motion to add back the third-degree murder charge and said Judge Cahill could decide to hear additional arguments from Mr. Chauvin's lawyer against the motion.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

However, listening to phony moderates like oralloy, they too are working with "already proven" (not presumed) Innocence.

No one but me speaks for me or my beliefs.

My credentials as a moderate are just fine.

0 Replies

There was more emotionally devastating testimony today, and some pretty damning videos. The prosecution is focusing now on the shocking part of their case and the emotional impact on bystanders. This is the time the prosecution can run with the ball and the defense is ... well, on defense. Remember the defense will get to make its case later, and there will be a different story told.

I think this is the meat of the prosecution case.

The prosecution is going to get to the medical part of the case. They will make the case that it was Chauvin was the sole cause of death. That is going to be interesting, I think this is a key place where the defense can raise reasonable doubt. I wonder when they will start with this.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
2. For the second degree murder charge the prosecution also has to prove that any reasonable person would have known that this action would likely lead to death.

Where do you find this requirement??

Minnesota State Law wrote:

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting;

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

KTSP St Paul wrote:

this charge requires prosecutors to prove Chauvin caused Floyd's death while committing or trying to commit a felony -- in this case, third-degree assault. Prosecutors don't have to prove that Chauvin was the sole cause of Floyd's death -- only that his conduct was a "substantial causal factor."

https://kstp.com/news/explaining-the-charges-in-state-vs-derek-chauvin-trial/6039310/

1 Reply

Justice and the George Floyd trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know