Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exhibit 240: The expert witness for the defense (?) testifies to the jury that yes, you can believe your eyes. And yes, Chauvin did in fact have his left knee on Floyd’s neck, right knee on the back of his chest.
This defense witness is getting destroyed by the cross’s review of the exhibits, circle by circle.
Not sure I'd want to be paying this expert to testify. This was a bad investment for the defense.
For the first part? I think it’s a combination of underreporting & the fact that very few police officers are ever even charged with crimes, & fewer still convicted.
George Floyd is not alone. 'I can’t breathe' uttered by dozens in fatal police holds across U.S.
Police restraint tactics do more than stop people, they put them at risk of dying.
Is this the first big case that the defense attorney has tried? This is getting embarrassing.
He has a decent track record for getting his clients completely exonerated. Interesting attorney .
He defended Amy senser. . She was charged with vehicular homicide.
High profile case.
I respect his tenancy. I dislike his questions in his presentations . Too overgeneralized. Abstract.
Is this the first big case that the defense attorney has tried? This is getting embarrassing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
Not sure I'd want to be paying this expert to testify. This was a bad investment for the defense.
The problem with the defense is that they approached this case with a flawed strategy.
1. Eric Nelson did not have an understanding of the pharmacology of the fentanyl and is resting one of the three main tenets of his defense on fentanyl overdose. This got destroyed by medical experts. And the medical experts who will testify for the defense will similarly get destroyed when called to recite the clinical presentation of an opioid overdose. Never use a defensive strategy that rests on a concept you don’t fully grasp.
2. Eric Nelson wanted to introduce doubt about Chauvin’s unreasonableness. To do that, you cannot have several different videos collected from different viewpoints clearly showing Chauvin’s excessive use of force. You end up with a strained expert witness who gets destroyed one circle at a time during the cross exam, and reinforce the images of Chauvin murdering Floyd in the jury’s mind.
3. Eric Nelson wanted to implicate the crowd. After he saw the bodycam footages, he should have given up on this. The officers had complete control, there was never a call for more backup by the officers out of fear that the crowd was an imminent threat.
So far, he has only annoyed the jury with his witnesses, especially this last one who is evasive, self-contradicting, and actually agreed that Chauvin’s use of force was unjustified in exhibit 117.
The problem with the defense is that they approached this case with a flawed strategy.
1. Eric Nelson did not have an understanding of the pharmacology of the fentanyl and is resting one of the three main tenets of his defense on fentanyl overdose. This got destroyed by medical experts. And the medical experts who will testify for the defense will similarly get destroyed when called to recite the clinical presentation of an opioid overdose. Never use a defensive strategy that rests on a concept you don’t fully grasp.
2. Eric Nelson wanted to introduce doubt about Chauvin’s unreasonableness. To do that, you cannot have several different videos collected from different viewpoints clearly showing Chauvin’s excessive use of force. You end up with a strained expert witness who gets destroyed one circle at a time during the cross exam, and reinforce the images of Chauvin murdering Floyd in the jury’s mind.
3. Eric Nelson wanted to implicate the crowd. After he saw the bodycam footages, he should have given up on this. The officers had complete control, there was never a call for more backup by the officers out of fear that the crowd was an imminent threat.
So far, he has only annoyed the jury with his witnesses, especially this last one who is evasive, self-contradicting, and actually agreed that Chauvin’s use of force was unjustified in exhibit 117.
Given the evidence, a good attorney would have counseled Chauvin to take the plea like he originally had. A great attorney would have gotten less time served on that plea.
Given the evidence, a good attorney would have counseled Chauvin to take the plea like he originally had. A great attorney would have gotten less time served on that plea.
I agree!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
