Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Court TV basically a Fox outlet? That's the impression I'm getting. It may be because I am, indeed, not a lawyer. So I can understand the state wanting to show multiple experts stating that this is not an appropriate use of force. Apparently, "cumulative" evidence is multiple people saying the same thing without adding to the discussion? So hence the defense objects to repeat experts all stating this is not an appropriate use of force. But, surely the multitudes of experts willing to testify to that, is itself evidence. It's not one person says this, but another person says that.

It’s an issue because it could bias the jury to lend credibility to the repeated testimonies rather than the content of the testimony.

This case is somewhat of an anomaly for a few reasons. But there are valid reasons for a judge to limit testimony to the most relevant experts or witnesses.

today's cardiologist expert wasn't particularly compelling either. his demeanor was odd if not condescending.

the same limitations will apply to defense witnesses when it is their turn.

[Anonymous]

what does that decision judge was just discussing re: cahill q&a mean? just that he'll be able to invoke 5th and cant be compelled?

[Anonymous]

sorry meant hall q&a. the alleged dealer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Court TV basically a Fox outlet? That's the impression I'm getting. It may be because I am, indeed, not a lawyer. So I can understand the state wanting to show multiple experts stating that this is not an appropriate use of force. Apparently, "cumulative" evidence is multiple people saying the same thing without adding to the discussion? So hence the defense objects to repeat experts all stating this is not an appropriate use of force. But, surely the multitudes of experts willing to testify to that, is itself evidence. It's not one person says this, but another person says that.

It’s an issue because it could bias the jury to lend credibility to the repeated testimonies rather than the content of the testimony.

This case is somewhat of an anomaly for a few reasons. But there are valid reasons for a judge to limit testimony to the most relevant experts or witnesses.

today's cardiologist expert wasn't particularly compelling either. his demeanor was odd if not condescending.

the same limitations will apply to defense witnesses when it is their turn.

Huh. I actually found the cardiologist to be very knowledgeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

+1 and this has been addressed over and over in this thread.

[Anonymous]

It is very hard to listen to this testimony; He was clearly tortured.

[Anonymous]

judge expects to start the defense's case tomorrow and for that to finish by Friday, maybe even thursday. prefers not to have closing startemmtns Friday so will be Monday either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

How could you possibly know this?

The medical examiner did not conclude that cause of death was asphyxia. And even if he did, asphyxia could be as a result of the crazy amount of drugs in Floyd's system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

How could you possibly know this?

The medical examiner did not conclude that cause of death was asphyxia. And even if he did, asphyxia could be as a result of the crazy amount of drugs in Floyd's system.

The pulmonologist explained what a death via opiate overdose would look like. It was the opposite of what happened.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty hard to call a policeman doing an arrest “... during the commission of a felony ...” That’s using 20/20 hindsight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty hard to call a policeman doing an arrest “... during the commission of a felony ...” That’s using 20/20 hindsight.

The question is whether the stated purpose of effecting an arrest deserves the latitude to cover 9 minutes of preventing someone from normal air exchange, during half of which the arrestee was dead. The answer is no, it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

How could you possibly know this?

The medical examiner did not conclude that cause of death was asphyxia. And even if he did, asphyxia could be as a result of the crazy amount of drugs in Floyd's system.

The pulmonologist explained what a death via opiate overdose would look like. It was the opposite of what happened.

he had methamphetamines, speedballs, AND opiates in his system. Along with a heart condition and high blood pressure. Months earlier he had a drug overdose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, what about the half eaten drugs found in the back of the police car with Floyd’s DNA on it? He took a bunch of additional drugs before his encounter with Chauvin.

Irrelevant. They did not cause his death.

How could you possibly know this?

The medical examiner did not conclude that cause of death was asphyxia. And even if he did, asphyxia could be as a result of the crazy amount of drugs in Floyd's system.

The pulmonologist explained what a death via opiate overdose would look like. It was the opposite of what happened.

he had methamphetamines, speedballs, AND opiates in his system. Along with a heart condition and high blood pressure. Months earlier he had a drug overdose.

You should watch the testimony. I’m not going to keep arguing with you about a claim that has been decisively refuted by more than one witness.

[Anonymous]

Here you go, cop fetishist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/12/derek-chauvin-trial/