Reply to Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]State proposed jury instructions for Chauvin trial: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/StateProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Defense proposed jury instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions02082021.pdf

Both sides submit a proposal, and then the judge will issue the final jury instructions. [/quote]

GREAT find, thank you for posting![/quote]

How did you find these? I tried looking at the MN court records, but they only show the docket entries, no actual documents. [/quote]

https://mncourts.gov/StateofMinnesotavDerekChauvin - click on documents.

The state filed these awhile ago of course. I noticed this document contained instructions for aiding and abetting charges which the other three officers were charged with.

I would guess there’s basically no chance the judge would include some of the stuff in the defense proposal.

One thing that I noticed is that the state avoided using “hindsight” in the reasonable use of force section. The defense included “20/20 hindsight.” These are jury instructions on that section from the Noor trial (this does included some clause about hindsight):

[quote]
“As to each count or defense, the kind and degree of force a peace officer may lawfully use is limited by what a reasonable peace officer in the same situation, without the benefit of hindsight, would believe to be necessary. Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive. To determine if the actions of the peace officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts known to the officer at the precise moment he acted with force. Giving due regard for the pressures faced by peace officers, you must decide whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to the officer’s own state of mind, intention or motivation.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Mohamed Noor was not authorized to use deadly force.”[/quote]

I would expect Judge Cahill would choose to use very similar language on this section.

Link to full Noor trial instructions: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-18-6859/JuryInstructions042919.pdf
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics