Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former defense attorney and prosecutor here. Watched most of the trial thus far, did have an appointment this afternoon so missed a couple of hours.

The admonishment by the judge at end of day was standard, as she *was* being argumentative with the defense attorney. It’s understandable, defense attorneys can be assholes and this one isn’t doing a very good job. Also, she’s a prosecution witness because she believes she witnessed at the least a negligent killing.

Witnesses sometimes bring attitude or sometimes try to get cute or more often just don’t understand the process of testifying at trial. As the judge pointed out, the prosecution will have redirect and can flesh out the things she wants to say IF it helps their case. What I’m seeing is that the prosecution hasn’t done the best job of prepping some of these witnesses for trial. But overall their case is going well because IT WAS A STRAIGHT UP MURDER so it always helps when the facts are in your corner.

I know from watching The Good Wife that when you are being cross-examined, you answer yes or no and do not elaborate. Every single one of these witnesses was elaborating. I kept wondering if they received that basic instruction when they were prepped.

That instruction is easier said than done. You can prep a witness as thoroughly as possible, and many will still feel the need to defend themselves when they feel their testimony is being misrepresented by cross-examining counsel.

I've prepped plenty of witnesses, and I always told them to just answer the question (if they can), etc., etc., etc. Sometimes it sticks and sometimes it doesn't. Witnesses are amateurs. They usually have never testified before, and they get nervous or stressed and they forget what you told them. And if the testimony is emotional, or they are being accused (or feel like they are), or feel their words are being twisted or misstated, etc. -- they react. It happens all the time, even to properly prepped witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Mpls jury found it easy to convict the Somali-American rookie who killed the white lady who rapped on the squad car when they were investigating a reported rape in progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the prosecution while have a tough battle to obtain convictions for the two rookies. Officer Tao and Chauvin will receive a conviction. I just do not know what conviction a jury will render. Tai looks pretty culpable of something based on the testimony of the firefighter/EMT. He failed to allow her to render medical assistance.

PP, while I suspect Thao knew what he was doing, he’s charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder/manslaughter and the prosecution will need to meet the elements of that statute. I think there can be reasonable doubt about allowing someone who verbally identified themselves to enter the scene. If he prevented the dispatched EMT (who were delayed due to going to the wrong address) from entering the scene, that’s another story. His defense will likely be able to show that they are trained to secure the scene until dispatched EMTs arrive. They had (twice I believe) asked for an ambulance to be dispatched, unknown to some bystanders.

The MFD witness circled the scene and did see Lane and Keung. So I guess we’ll see her again. Other crowd witnesses so far interacted with Thao as well.

To meet the elements of the statute, he has to know the crime is being committed and intentionally aid, conspire etc with the person committing it. I think his defense could probably sow reasonable doubt. He is not a sympathetic character (“don’t do drugs” comment) but I still think his defense counsel has more to work with. Maybe even more than Lane and Keung.

The unruly crowd narrative has so far been a part of Chauvin’s defense. But the different angles of video so far show a crowd gathering but generally not trying to enter the scene so not really convincing. Still I’m guessing they may have other witnesses testify that these scenes can evolve quickly. Again they were looking at a plea deal and have to create some defense strategy. If/when it comes to Thao’s trial, defense will say that as an experienced officer, he knew that too and was successful at keeping people from entering because he was so focused on what was in front of him etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now it’s the fault of the bystanders that Chauvin killed George Floyd? This is disgusting. It’s amazing how the goal posts keep moving. First, it was - I was threatened or I feared for my life. Now, it’s - the crowd made me do it. Okay.

That was my reaction too

This is key for the defense because Chauvin clearly kept Floyd in a hold - a hold that is allowable at least momentarily to subdue someone - long past the point when Floyd had stopped struggling. They have to have some excuse for why he stayed on him like that. I don’t think “the crowd distracted me” will fly but clearly they think it will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a college wrestler. It would never occur to me that a much smaller wrestler could ever cause a 6’6” man to die by kneeling on top of him face down, even for an hour. So maybe a juror will have reasonable doubt that Chauvin had any idea that Floyd under him was dead vs. quiet/passed out — he obviously was acting with zero concern for Floyd’s well being, which was hugely stupid of him, and should/will be convicted of a serious felony, but generally this is not a way to kill someone. I’m just writing this to suggest how reasonable doubt can creep into the jury deliberations, and people should not assume that a murder conviction will emerge. However you define “murder” legally, it seems that it is a very loaded word (murder most foul, etc,), and a jury member might resist attaching it to a cop for stupidly/recklessly killing a suspect.

As a wrestler, once your opponent was passed out, did you continue to kneel on the opponent’s neck? As a wrestler, were you not informed of certain holds and chokes? I agree, people will find any excuse to do a jury nullification if they sympathize with the defendant. It happens frequently.

One of the witnesses is an MMA fighter and knows all about this stuff. He was the one on the video yelling at Chauvin to get off of him.

[Anonymous]

The 9-year-old witness testified that the medics had to ask Chauvin a couple of times to get off Floyd's neck even though he was clearly unconscious (and probably already dead). Hard to argue he was using reasonable force at that point.

I found the minor witnesses' testimony very compelling.

[Anonymous]

I had an appointment this morning and missed everything prior to the lunch break. Can anyone give me the cliff notes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how many don't understand how difficult and risky it is to be a cop.

Yeah, how difficult and risky it must be to kneel on a restrained man’s neck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how many don't understand how difficult and risky it is to be a cop.

No one is impressed into service as a police officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That said, murder requires intent. The defense is trying to paint a picture of Chauvin distracted by the crowd - all of the cops distracted by the crowd - to make this is a negligent killing - voluntary manslaughter - rather than murder. This is why I think it is entirely likely that the jury will convict on the second degree manslaughter charge but not the two murder charges. And that result will cause a lot of frustration and anger in the larger community.

Chauvin is charged with “second degree unintentional” murder, which as you can probably guess from the name does not require intent to kill. It is for an intentional assault that causes the death of another. The third degree murder charges were also recently reinstated after a Noor appellate decision, but I’m still kind of skeptical that will apply here better than 2nd degree unintentional.

After opening statements it doesn’t seem like there is a significant amount of previously unknown evidence that fundamentally alters a lot of the key questions about the already released evidence. There’s been a few revelations and several new angles of video, but I’m not sure it really fundamentally alters things.

The key parts:
1. Dr. Baker (Hennepin county med examiner) testimony on cause/mechanism of death - we already know the basic findings but this is probably going to be main focus of the defense and might sow reasonable doubt depending on what is unknown

2. Whether Chauvin’s use of force was reasonable or constituted intentional assault

The second part is tough for the defense unless they can get a bombshell revelation on the first. In my opinion the key to the 2nd is that Chauvin does not move to a recovery position despite a lack of active resistance or danger (which could justify a prone restraint). Not only that, he continues to use a prone restraint on a cuffed individual several minutes after another officer says he can’t find a pulse (which is clearly picked up in the body cam footage). It’s going to be difficult to argue that any training or situation would justify continuing to use a prone restraint and not render aid to someone who doesn’t have a pulse. I guess defense will try to say he didn’t hear that, and in opening they did set up a narrative of “distracted by unruly crowd forming.” I don’t think it’s a great defense, but they need to have some defense so that’s probably what they have to work with.

Also important to note that based on MN law, Chauvin’s actions don’t have to be the sole cause of death, just a substantial contributing factor, and constitute an assault a reasonable person would know could endanger the life of a vulnerable person.

Chauvin was going to take a plea deal at one point, so he and his defense are aware they don’t have an easy road. Still, there’s no guarantee in a jury trial. Sometimes juries return surprising verdicts. I would still say at this point the odds of conviction look pretty good on the murder charges, and strong on the lesser charges. The other three officers are a different story in my opinion, for a few reasons. The nature of their charges and what is needed to convict on those charges, there is more reasonable doubt from what we already know, and probably one of the main things we learned yesterday and today is that a lot of the eyewitnesses didn’t see Keung and Lane and didn’t know they were there based on their field of view and position of the police SUV. So the impactful emotional eyewitness testimony we saw today might not be a factor in their trials. This is not to imply they are out of the woods by any means, but their defense teams do seem to have more avenues to create reasonable doubt.

To close this out I would like to acknowledge how incredibly difficult the last few weeks and the upcoming weeks will be for George Floyd’s family. I don’t think there are any thoughts or words that can do that justice, and I can only hope they at least receive some closure.

Agree on all of what you wrote. Particularly your thoughts for the family. Hopefully the decision will help the witnesses find some peace too... I don't know if closure is possible in this case. Drug issues or not watching that tape ... There's no way that anyone can justify the length of time that the position was held.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former defense attorney and prosecutor here. Watched most of the trial thus far, did have an appointment this afternoon so missed a couple of hours.

The admonishment by the judge at end of day was standard, as she *was* being argumentative with the defense attorney. It’s understandable, defense attorneys can be assholes and this one isn’t doing a very good job. Also, she’s a prosecution witness because she believes she witnessed at the least a negligent killing.

Witnesses sometimes bring attitude or sometimes try to get cute or more often just don’t understand the process of testifying at trial. As the judge pointed out, the prosecution will have redirect and can flesh out the things she wants to say IF it helps their case. What I’m seeing is that the prosecution hasn’t done the best job of prepping some of these witnesses for trial. But overall their case is going well because IT WAS A STRAIGHT UP MURDER so it always helps when the facts are in your corner.

You seem knowledgeable. I heard something on a podcast discussion that said the prosecutor must feel confident that he can get a conviction because Chauvin was open to a plea but the prosecutor declined to have that discussion.

I thought at one time a plea had been on the table but maybe I misunderstood.

I'm guessing the prosecution thinks they'll get a conviction on at least the lowest charge so went to trial- what is your assessment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chauvin will be convicted. There is a video of the entire crime.End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You seem knowledgeable. I heard something on a podcast discussion that said the prosecutor must feel confident that he can get a conviction because Chauvin was open to a plea but the prosecutor declined to have that discussion.

I thought at one time a plea had been on the table but maybe I misunderstood.

I'm guessing the prosecution thinks they'll get a conviction on at least the lowest charge so went to trial- what is your assessment?

The prosecutor’s office did not decline. It was recently (within the last couple months) leaked that early on they were going to accept a plea deal with Chauvin that had potential sentencing of 10 years in prison, but it was contingent on dropping the federal investigation. AG Barr wouldn’t accept the deal, which is what led to the awkward press conference that started like two hours late and where the spokesperson said something cryptic like “we were hoping to have some news” or something along those lines. This was super early on in the investigation. I suspect that very very early on Chauvin realized it would be in his best interest to try not to draw too much attention to himself. By the time the plea deal was on the table, things had evolved rapidly. This case has some unprecedented elements to it. For example in the Tony Timpa case, if one of the cops accepted a plea deal with a potential 10 year sentence, that would have been significant. Their charges were dropped.

They obviously aren’t allowed to bring up the plea deal during trial, and during jury selection potential jurors were questioned and those who mentioned the plea deal were dismissed in every instance I can recall. Those who had heard about the settlement were not necessarily dismissed unless they said it would affect having an open mind about the evidence. A few of the seated jurors had heard the settlement news but said it wouldn’t affect their ability to follow jury instructions.

The prosecutors (it’s a team of several people handling the case in court) are going to work hard on this - as they should - but it is a jury trial and there’s no guarantee with juries. They have to know they have a strong chance of conviction, but they will need to address each element and break it down for jurors, who at times will be exposed to complex medical information, etc.

[Anonymous]

The prosecutors have some problem witnesses and they didn’t prepare them very well. Who dressed Mr. McMillan with his bright white glasses? He looks like he’s heading to the production set for Superfly.

This on top of the teenage kid and the plainclothes EMT whining about being ignored.

Fact is, the convenience store showed how enormous and powerful Floyd was. Now we’re supposed to think the drugs made him less dangerous?

Most of the jurors have seen movies where the thug looks like he’s subdued but was just playing possum. It’s too late when you’re taking the bullet or knife. Better to err on the side of safety.

And to think, all this could have been averted if Floyd had just used a real $20. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are you watching it? Recently dropped cable and struggle to find live news...

You can listen to msnbc in your computer (just audio)