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.
Chauvin wasn't in an emergency room dealing with a patient. He was a white cop in the street subduing a black felon in the midst of a hostile crowd and running the risk of assassination in the current cop-hating, defund the police environment.
This is the thing Chenping, the jury needs to decide if the police officers' actions were objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the facts & circumstances.
Would a fair trial include a sequestered jury during the biggest most politicized trial in 25+ years and with politicians taking to the media saying we better convict this guy or else.
I don't think it's reasonable or plausible to get a jury of 12 or 14 (with the 2 alternates) people to commit to being sequestered for 2 or 3 or 4 weeks.
If that was a correct assessment of the prosecution's case, why did they bother providing the jury with the testimony of witnesses, & supporting evidence?
I think prosecution thought the testimony of the experts was going to match better than it did. They were going with all the experts saying asphyxiation, and they tried to keep the testimony of the actual medical examiner who did the autopsy very short.
The problem was when Nelson asked them questions where they admitted it could have easily been an OD or something else, and when the medical examiner came out and said it was most certainly not asphyxiation or blocking off the carotid artery. Once they looked back and saw how most of their experts own testimony didn't match and how their medical experts certainly didn't match the medical examiner, then they realized that they need to rely on the viral video and outrage to take up the slack.
In fact, one of their own medical experts, Thomas, said she didn't use the medical data at all and just made her decision based on watching the video. This is what they are hoping the jury will do.
The more the jury looks at the autopsy, the toxicology report, the testimony of the medical examiner, the March overdose Floyd had on similar drugs, and the other videos of Floyd before Chauvin got involved, the more likely it is that reasonable doubt is going to play a factor.
I don't think it's reasonable or plausible to get a jury of 12 or 14 (with the 2 alternates) people to commit to being sequestered for 2 or 3 or 4 weeks.
I think this Judge has been fair & reasonable.
yes it is reasonable. They should have been sequestered from day one and if not able they could have requested a dismissal from their jury duty. The judge is actually an idiot because now we know Chauvin is getting off on appeal. Then auntie maxine comes in and makes it even worse.
So when do you think the verdict will be in and what do you think it will be?
A reasonable question.
As I surmised before :2nd degree and manslaughter. Guilty.
They should come to a decision by Thursday. If it goes longer then that , it means one or more jurors are still processing their final decision.
The reality is: the jurors will follow the instructions. Due diligence in their decision.
Only to have the defense win appeal after appeals on technicalities :
So while I think this trial has closed and is awaiting the jury decision.
Mr chauvin will walk (after appeals)and be a poster child for: compliance to the death! I'm pretty sure he pulled that off with absolute disregard .
Chauvin took 'take a knee' to a hole' nother realm of annihilism.
His knee was on the back, Floyd was a violent felon, crowd was becoming agitated, police aren't medical professionals, there was testimony that people can fake being short of breath and then fight again, Floyd was screaming at the top of his lungs he "caint breeve" despite the fact he clearly was . There's just too much proof that this dude could breathe and wouldn't stop fighting.
One knee was on his back the other was on his neck. Look at the video and photographic evidence that was presented in court. When weight is applied to a prone persons back it makes it difficult to breathe.
I think prosecution thought the testimony of the experts was going to match better than it did. They were going with all the experts saying asphyxiation, and they tried to keep the testimony of the actual medical examiner who did the autopsy very short.
The problem was when Nelson asked them questions where they admitted it could have easily been an OD or something else, and when the medical examiner came out and said it was most certainly not asphyxiation or blocking off the carotid artery. Once they looked back and saw how most of their experts own testimony didn't match and how their medical experts certainly didn't match the medical examiner, then they realized that they need to rely on the viral video and outrage to take up the slack.
In fact, one of their own medical experts, Thomas, said she didn't use the medical data at all and just made her decision based on watching the video.
The more the jury looks at the autopsy, the toxicology report, the testimony of the medical examiner, the March overdose Floyd had on similar drugs, and the other videos of Floyd before Chauvin got involved, the more likely reasonable doubt is going to play a factor.
I have to leave in a bit but was wondering if you read the Instructions to the Jury?
The closing arguments of the defense & the prosecution are somewhat standard; each seeks to leave an impression on the jury.
The following is from a response upthread re: Dr. Thomas' testimony:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Agree. If the mere existence of a death certificate, or an autopsy report nullified the requirement to have a trial when one is charged with a crime, there would be no trial.
The forensic pathologist, & Assistant ME, Dr. Lindsey Thomas, alluded to this fact when she told the jury that while physically examining a body can be helpful in determining a cause of death, other records & inquiries can sometimes be even more illuminating.
She also explained to the Jury that the multiple videos taken by multiple people, from multiple vantage points, & over the long timeframe, made clear George Floyd was not a sudden death from a heart attack. The videos also did not show signs of a fentanyl overdose.
Dr. Thomas also showed the Jurors photographs of George Floyd's corpse. She explained the abrasions on the left side of his face & shoulder were wounds she stated were consistent with what it looks like on the video, that he was struggling to push himself into a position where he can breathe.
& this is from an earlier response re: Professor Seth Stoughton’s testimony:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I understand now why the defense sought to exclude Professor Seth Stoughton’s testimony from being heard by the jury. Defense filed a motion to exclude him, & State responded by essentially asking 'why?' & more specifically, 'why now?.
After hearing his testimony, I understand why defense sought to exclude him, & why so late.
Basically, Seth Stoughton was asked whether or not Derek Chauvin's conduct was "reasonable as viewed by a reasonable officer on the scene.”
He brought up Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which is analogous to the current case.
In Graham v. Connor, the Court held,
Quote:
Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
Seth Stoughton described what a reasonable police officer would do when arriving to a scene & restraining a suspect. He explained the differences between a threat & a risk when it comes to use of force.
Did Derek Chauvin do what a reasonable police officer would do?
Did Derek Chauvin fail to do what a reasonable police officer would do?
Police officers Cheung & Lane did not view Derek Chauvin's conduct as reasonable. The jury was presented with supporting evidence that his actions were not what a reasonable officer would do.
The prosecution doesn't have to prove that Derek Chauvin's actions alone caused George Floyd's death.
It will be the jury's job to understand the testimony & supporting evidence presented. They'll be given guidance in the form of jury instructions.
I assume there will be riots if he is convicted of manslaughter and not murder. If he is innocent of all charges riots will be brutal.
Really the verdict can come in at any moment. But can’t imagine it would be today or tomorrow.
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.
