Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?

Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.

The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.

How can you not get someone to testify it could be relevant?? There is a ton of research showing covid causes damage to heart and lungs particularly in the short term (months) following. At the time of the event, that was all just beginning to be studied so it’s no surprise the autopsy said no reason to be linked. But without a doubt based on what we know now it can be related. Heck, they say that athletes cannot return to practice for certain number of weeks after a case or unless passing a battery of tests because the residual effects on the heart make exercising/extreme exertions dangerou

Whether or not he had a past case of covid is irrelevant to having a grown man kneel on your neck cutting off your air supply for 9 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was the defense prohibited from mentioning or arguing re his COVID?

Not if he couldn't get an expert to testify that it was relevant - which it wasn't.

The defense lawyer needs to stop - he's just rambling now and the jury hasn't had lunch.

How can you not get someone to testify it could be relevant?? There is a ton of research showing covid causes damage to heart and lungs particularly in the short term (months) following. At the time of the event, that was all just beginning to be studied so it’s no surprise the autopsy said no reason to be linked. But without a doubt based on what we know now it can be related. Heck, they say that athletes cannot return to practice for certain number of weeks after a case or unless passing a battery of tests because the residual effects on the heart make exercising/extreme exertions dangerou

Whether or not he had a past case of covid is irrelevant to having a grown man kneel on your neck cutting off your air supply for 9 minutes.

However, the ME said asphyxiation wasn’t the cause of death....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

And the prosecution was more flashy and tight. The rebuttal was excellent but also showy and seemed manipulative to me, which makes me think they don't have a rock solid case. The defense called them out. But let's see what the jurors think.

[Anonymous]

However, the ME said asphyxiation wasn’t the cause of death....

Sigh..... can’t argue with stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge had no business even saying that. Wow.

Cant watch. what was said?

This thread has the video. Maxine Waters is disgusting.

There’s no guarantee the jurors even knew about that without the judge saying something. They’ve been instructed repeatedly not to watch TV etc.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge had no business even saying that. Wow.

Cant watch. what was said?

This thread has the video. Maxine Waters is disgusting.

There’s no guarantee the jurors even knew about that without the judge saying something. They’ve been instructed repeatedly not to watch TV etc.

But at least one juror has had her MIL text her about the trial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

Many other people have got off with far more evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge had no business even saying that. Wow.

Cant watch. what was said?

This thread has the video. Maxine Waters is disgusting.

There’s no guarantee the jurors even knew about that without the judge saying something. They’ve been instructed repeatedly not to watch TV etc.

The jury was out of the room when the judge said it.

[Anonymous]

Former prosecutor and defense attorney here; the state’s case was far more compelling, as one would expect given the much better evidence favoring their version of events. That said I never put anything past a jury - they’re unpredictable. An acquittal would surprise me, but a hung jury would not.

I hope they convict on at least one count of murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

What are you talking about? He never took the stand. Also, you sound like a stupid person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However, the ME said asphyxiation wasn’t the cause of death....

Sigh..... can’t argue with stupid.

You’ve got that right!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.insider.com/george-floyd-non-responsive-before-officer-took-knee-off-neck-2020-5%3famp

[Anonymous]

I don’t know if Chauvin’s end goal was to kill Floyd, but it is very clear Chauvin didn’t care if he did.

Floyd did not die from covid, or heart disease or heart attack, or drugs or a benign cyst or exhaust from the car. If he would have been left in the car he would be alive. If he were left sitting on the curb, he’d be alive. If he was left kneeling outside the car, he’d be alive. If he would have been laid prone and nothing else, he’d be alive. If not for the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes, he’d be alive. Chauvin did not follow protocol and put him in the recovery position. Even after another officer said Floyd had no pulse and was not breathing, he “stayed the course” and did not put him in the recovery position nor did he provide medical care as the protocol states. He is guilty and God help us if the jury does not come to the same conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.