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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.