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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Saying him/Chauvin could not see four jurors at all and had obstructed views of witnesses, particularly their faces, due to the courtroom set-up due to covid and that he and three other people went to the same school - relationships etc.

I haven't heard the closing arguments, but how could that have not come out in the jury selection?!?!?!

Two of the people were Chauvin's lawyer and the chief of police. They went at different times. How could you possibly avoid this?

And it seems unreasonable to think that no one would have gone to the same HS if everyone lives in a similar geographical area; there are only so many HSs around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Saying him/Chauvin could not see four jurors at all and had obstructed views of witnesses, particularly their faces, due to the courtroom set-up due to covid and that he and three other people went to the same school - relationships etc.

Why would those be grounds for appeal? I still don't understand.

If that is a problem wouldn't the lawyer be required to make that known to the judge as soon as he realized/knew this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Saying him/Chauvin could not see four jurors at all and had obstructed views of witnesses, particularly their faces, due to the courtroom set-up due to covid and that he and three other people went to the same school - relationships etc.

I haven't heard the closing arguments, but how could that have not come out in the jury selection?!?!?!

I am enjoying Joyce Vance’s tweets:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Saying him/Chauvin could not see four jurors at all and had obstructed views of witnesses, particularly their faces, due to the courtroom set-up due to covid and that he and three other people went to the same school - relationships etc.

Why would those be grounds for appeal? I still don't understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

And why is that surprising? Don’t defense lawyers always cover that base?

Of course! I was actually impressed with how he slyly incorporated the points into his speech. Seemed very organic but got it all on the record

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Saying him/Chauvin could not see four jurors at all and had obstructed views of witnesses, particularly their faces, due to the courtroom set-up due to covid and that he and three other people went to the same school - relationships etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

And why is that surprising? Don’t defense lawyers always cover that base?

Anonymous wrote:Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

What makes you say that? I'm not an attorney.

Oooooooo he is setting up stages for an appeal!!! So clear to an attorney but quite subtle otherwise

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After the Casey Anthony NG verdict, nothing surprises me. I do hope he is convicted of something.

Anthony walked because she was overcharged based on the evidence they had. Had they tried her for lesser charges she could have been convicted.

She was tried on lesser charges, and was convicted on four of the lesser ones (for lying to investigators). Two were later overturned on the argument that they were related to the same interviews as the other two, basically. She was found not guilty of: first degree murder, aggravated manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse.

The investigation missed a crucial piece of evidence that likely would have been very convincing at trial. Not having that evidence really weakened the prosecutor’s case with respect to “how” it happened. Most likely in 2020 the digital forensics would have yielded a much better case. The last 10-15 years that has come a long way especially with the amount of GPS tracking that people have on their person and don’t fully understand.

Jury was also sequestered for weeks.

To bring it back to the Chauvin trial, I don’t think the same conditions exist. There is a lot of video evidence about “how” it happened, and while there might have been some things here and there that were missed in the investigation and/or the prosecution arguments, I think they ended up being incidental rather than crucial. The jury will only be sequestered during deliberations (so if they don’t reach a verdict by 7pm tonight).

If they reach a verdict that late the judge has already indicated that it would be read tomorrow, and that there will be a 2-3 hour delay in between notification of the verdict and the public reading.

He just wrapped up. They are taking a 20 minute break and then the defense will go.

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone watching closing arguments?

How long do they usually last?

I'm watching. I have no idea, but I assume each side will want to take their time. Steve Schleicher (prosecution) is still giving his closing statements, but he may be wrapping up. He's going over each charge now.