Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are saying that to really make a statement would be for the jury to announce their verdict at the 9 hours and 29 second mark.

I heard that on HLN. I thought it was pretty stupid. I think whatever verdict they come back with will seriously be plenty of drama on it's own.

Can someone please review that old adage with me— something like a quick decision is usually means a guilty verdict or is it vice versa. Just curious. Also, has the jury asked to review any evidence ?

I think it's more of an inverted u-shaped curve.

A super quick verdict would be a not-guilty.
A verdict in a day or two would be likely guilty (i.e. they have to go through the elements, the evidence, and then vote to find him guilty.
If the deliberations drag on for days and days, then you (as a lawyer) start thinking it is a hung jury or moving toward not-guilty b/c there are hold-outs.

So, as a prosecutor, I want to hear from a jury after a day or two.

You're gonna hear from them in a minute or two - verdict reached.

https://www.cnn.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are saying that to really make a statement would be for the jury to announce their verdict at the 9 hours and 29 second mark.

I heard that on HLN. I thought it was pretty stupid. I think whatever verdict they come back with will seriously be plenty of drama on it's own.

Can someone please review that old adage with me— something like a quick decision is usually means a guilty verdict or is it vice versa. Just curious. Also, has the jury asked to review any evidence ?

I think it's more of an inverted u-shaped curve.

A super quick verdict would be a not-guilty.
A verdict in a day or two would be likely guilty (i.e. they have to go through the elements, the evidence, and then vote to find him guilty.
If the deliberations drag on for days and days, then you (as a lawyer) start thinking it is a hung jury or moving toward not-guilty b/c there are hold-outs.

So, as a prosecutor, I want to hear from a jury after a day or two.

You're gonna hear from them in a minute or two - verdict reached.

https://www.cnn.com/

More like an hour. 3:30-4:00 local time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Announcing in one hour

I thought they'd work through the elements and evidence today and then agree to sleep on it overnight and announce Wed. morning. But, maybe they don't want to sleep on it.

I didn't think the defense put on much of a defense. I was open to hearing more from the defense and they underwhelmed me. So, I expect a conviction on all accounts.

There wasn't much of a defense to put on. I thought the prosecutor did a good job by just reassuring the jury that they saw what they saw. Something that has been all too rare in the last few years.

[Anonymous]

This is good news for justice.

[Anonymous]

4:30

[Anonymous]

That quick? Sounds like a conviction to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4:30

Our time? Or MN time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4:30

Our time? Or MN time?

Our time. 3:30-4 MN time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I fought the cops, I’d expect to be manhandled and face to the ground. There were even two blacks across the street watching, talking amongst themselves about him being stupid by not getting in the car and fighting. Does that mean he should be dead, no. But he may be alive today and he just complied.

Just curious, would you fight the cops?


This is the height of victim blaming. Nothing excuses what Chauvin did for over 9 minutes. Nothing.

use of force has to be objectively reasonably throughout the restraint. Was it reasonable when he was clearly succumbing? Or when he continued to be held in prone restraint after he likely was no longer breathing and had no pulse?

Because of work, all I've been able to watch are snippets and haven't seen the last few days (is there a link which has a compilation of witness testimony?). I noticed the debate upthread about signs like petechiae missing, don't know how that testimony went, but its absence does not have to mean death was not due to positional asphyxia. Just like being able to utter words does not mean breathing is not impaired.

No - this is a key point - the question of reasonableness is no longer relevant to the charges after he was dead, which was far earlier than the end of nine minutes. The charges are for CAUSE of death. What happened after he stopped breathing is not relevant, even though disgusting.

Has it been determined at what point he stopped breathing? Not that I have heard. And you can stop breathing without being dead yet. And even if you are (and if Chauvin should have known that was the case) that means that at some time prior to that he was in acute distress, unable to resist officers, and required immediate rescue attempts. Which then becomes the "depraved heart" in my book.

Yes, one of the prosecution’s witnesses testified re the exact second he took his last breath. It was only a couple minutes into being on the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That quick? Sounds like a conviction to me.

It has to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4:30

Our time? Or MN time?

Our time. 3:30-4 MN time

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That quick? Sounds like a conviction to me.

It has to be.

Please God.

[Anonymous]

whatever it is, it was unanimous quickly. if there were holdouts they usually take longer to try to get them to come around. so this actually suggests to me it could as easily be not guilty as guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That quick? Sounds like a conviction to me.

It has to be.

Please God.

I had the exact same thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That quick? Sounds like a conviction to me.

It has to be.

why? the only thing it suggests to me is that the jury reached a unanimous decision very quickly.