Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

[filly]

Judge Cahill denies defense motion to have Maurice Hall (the male passenger in Floyd's vehicle) testify.

[filly]

This is from the NYT reporter providing trial updates:

Stoughton, the use-of-force expert, is saying a lot of things that other witnesses have said, including that officers are not supposed to put weight on people’s necks. A prosecutor, Steve Schleicher, said this morning that Stoughton's role was to help counteract “the Goldilocks syndrome” — a concern that the jury might not like one expert witness or another for random reasons.

[sugar magnolia]

This is from the NYT reporter providing trial updates:

Stoughton, the use-of-force expert, is saying a lot of things that other witnesses have said, including that officers are not supposed to put weight on people’s necks. A prosecutor, Steve Schleicher, said this morning that Stoughton's role was to help counteract “the Goldilocks syndrome” — a concern that the jury might not like one expert witness or another for random reasons.

When there was a defense objection to him testifying, the prosecution has said they put him on to tie everything together with "generally accepted practices" of departments nationwide, and to give the perspective of the "reasonable officer" in the scenario. It doesn't strike me as just giving them someone else to like. He's actually giving pretty good testimony on what a reasonable officer would be seeing and hearing in real time. His testimony was limited to a certain extent, but I'm not sure what the parameters were the judge put on him.

You can tell he's a law professor because he starts all his answers with "Sure, so...." instead of the plebeian "So, ...." that we heard from the other witnesses.

[filly]

This same prosecutor bored me exactly one week ago. I have no idea why he decided this was a good thing to do a week in. I just started to listen to the cross and it is true that this cop-turned-law-professor might have an air of authority on what the law is, the Judge will ultimately instruct the jury on the legal standard they need to apply.

The Goldilocks thing is just a bit cray cray as far as trial procedure goes.

[LM K]

j. Defense Experts (contact information and C.V. previously disclosed)

i. David R. Fowler, MB, ChB. M.Med. Path.
ii. William R. Oliver, M.D., M.S., M.P.A
iii. Brian L. Peterson, M.D.
iv. Ljubisa Jovan Dragovic, M.D., F.C.A.P., F.A.A.F.S.
v. Kanthi DeAlwis, M.D.
vi. Kimberly Ann Collins, M.D.
vii. Gary W. Kunsman, PH.D., F-ABFT
viii. Aahraf Mozayani, PHARM.D., PH.D., F-ABFT
ix. Lionel Raymon, PHARM. D., PH.D.
x. Sara J. Schreiber, MS
xi. Dr. Michael Welner
xii. Dr. Kai Sturmann
xiii. Dr. Ronald Goldenberg
xiv. Dr. Mary Sheppard
xv. Dr. William Anderson
xvi. Barry Brodd

From https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/ ... 082021.pdf

As court concluded for the day, the Judge informed the jury that he didn't expect to have trial on Fri and expected closing arguments on Mon, April 19.

Because he's sequestering the jury during deliberations, he doesn't want to sequester them over the weekend.

The defense will be going through a lot of experts in a 3 day period.

[sad-cafe]

I can not stand Mr. Nelson

I hate his way of questioning

his bumbling/fumbling agreed shit

I hate the way he talks

but I REALLY hate the way he rubs his nose like one of my PBS kids that do not know any better. He is a lawyer, on TV and he rubs his nose like a dirty boy

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

j. Defense Experts (contact information and C.V. previously disclosed)

From https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/ ... 082021.pdf

As court concluded for the day, the Judge informed the jury that he didn't expect to have trial on Fri and expected closing arguments on Mon, April 19.

Because he's sequestering the jury during deliberations, he doesn't want to sequester them over the weekend.

The defense will be going through a lot of experts in a 3 day period.

Keep in mind, those are the experts they have retained. They might not have all of them testify. Some may simply be acting in an advisory role for the defense lawyers.

[LM K]

From https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/ ... 082021.pdf

As court concluded for the day, the Judge informed the jury that he didn't expect to have trial on Fri and expected closing arguments on Mon, April 19.

Because he's sequestering the jury during deliberations, he doesn't want to sequester them over the weekend.

The defense will be going through a lot of experts in a 3 day period.

Keep in mind, those are the experts they have retained. They might not have all of them testify. Some may simply be acting in an advisory role for the defense lawyers.

Excellent point. Thank you. That would be way too many medical experts testifying in 3 days.

[Patagoniagirl]

I can not stand Mr. Nelson

I hate his way of questioning

his bumbling/fumbling agreed shit

I hate the way he talks

but I REALLY hate the way he rubs his nose like one of my PBS kids that do not know any better. He is a lawyer, on TV and he rubs his nose like a dirty boy

Agreed!

I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I've realized that it seems like hes testifying for the witnesses, ending with his question of "Agreed?" Is this a new trial style/tactic? And yes, it was annoying to me right from the start.

It is also extremely annoying to watch CHAUVIN working on his tell-all book. Seriously, WTF is he non-stop writing?

[sugar magnolia]

And every time a witness says "No, I wouldn't agree with that" Nelson responds with "Fair enough." We heard a lot of that yesterday.

[fierceredpanda]

I can not stand Mr. Nelson

I hate his way of questioning

his bumbling/fumbling agreed shit

I hate the way he talks

but I REALLY hate the way he rubs his nose like one of my PBS kids that do not know any better. He is a lawyer, on TV and he rubs his nose like a dirty boy

Agreed!

I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I've realized that it seems like hes testifying for the witnesses, ending with his question of "Agreed?" Is this a new trial style/tactic? And yes, it was annoying to me right from the start.

It's literally how lawyers are instructed to question a hostile witness on cross-examination. You're allowed to ask leading questions, and it's an extremely good idea to only ask leading questions. One of the things we attorneys have slightly called down the prosecutors for in the Chauvin trial is that a couple of them have a habit of asking leading questions on direct, which is improper. I prefer to either begin my questions with "Isn't it true that..." or end with "correct?" but every attorney has their own way of phrasing questions on cross. But you hardly ever want to ask open-ended questions on cross, because that's how you give witnesses a chance to add more damaging testimony. Cross is literally a chance to put words in the witness' mouth and then make them agree or disagree. That's what it's for. Once the state rests and the defense start's its case-in-chief, you'll see the roles reverse during testimony, and the prosecutors will be the ones asking leading questions.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Nelson either. His "bumbling professor" routine doesn't appeal to me, and his attempts to build rapport with witnesses come off as contrived and irritating. (Also he ties his neckties like someone who just learned how very recently, and it annoys me.)

[Maybenaut]

I can not stand Mr. Nelson

I hate his way of questioning

his bumbling/fumbling agreed shit

I hate the way he talks

but I REALLY hate the way he rubs his nose like one of my PBS kids that do not know any better. He is a lawyer, on TV and he rubs his nose like a dirty boy

Agreed!

I couldn't put my finger on it. Now I've realized that it seems like hes testifying for the witnesses, ending with his question of "Agreed?" Is this a new trial style/tactic? And yes, it was annoying to me right from the start.

It is also extremely annoying to watch CHAUVIN working on his tell-all book. Seriously, WTF is he non-stop writing?

It’s not a new tactic. It’s how cross-examination is done. Some lawyers are better than others at not making it look like they’re the ones testifying. But to be effective, cross-examination usually involves the witness confirming what the lawyer says, rather than allowing the witness to simply repeat what they said during the other sides’s case.

This is done with leading questions. The prosecutor will do the same thing during the defense case. He might not use the word “agreed,” but he’ll ask leading questions of the defense witnesses.

Edit: Ninjaed by frp.

[Patagoniagirl]

Thank you for the explanation. I think I just despise Nelson for who he represents, even though I understand the whole right to a defense and in recent until proven guilty thing. It's just that I watched George Floyd die.

[fierceredpanda]

Thank you for the explanation. I think I just despise Nelson for who he represents, even though I understand the whole right to a defense and in recent until proven guilty thing. It's just that I watched George Floyd die.

It's an understandable human reaction. I can only speak for myself, but even I have that reaction to clients who are accused of doing horrible things. It's just that I have to set that aside and focus on the person and my job. And it's why my first rule of criminal defense is that, to be any good at criminal defense, an attorney must have the ability to simply respond "IDGAF" to almost anything, but most especially the opinions of others. ("You think my client's a piece of shit? I don't give a fuck.") Why? Because otherwise you won't be able to sleep at night or live with yourself. The client is a human being who has a right to zealous representation just like anyone else, and if you're busy worrying about the moralistic idle chatter of people whose opinions don't matter (i.e., non-jurors), you're not doing your job.

On the other hand, since I'm not Chauvin's lawyer, in this case, I agree with you. That video is awful, and just about the most obvious cold-blooded murder I've ever seen. Were it up to me, I'd put Chauvin under the jail. But I'm not his lawyer.

[Patagoniagirl]

I really do get it, FRP. My Mister was a criminal defense attorney and he edumacated me in these things. He was old school in many ways and extremely well suited to knowing his jury. We were Gideon v. Wainwright folks doing mostly Special Appointed Public Defender work. I take a good defense to heart, even in cases where someone is most likely bald-faced guilty. Motions to Suppress, all that, I know why those things are crucial and important. This case just knocked me on my ass.

[RVInit]

Does anyone else think Chauvin's attorney did him no favors by making a point of trying to get prosecution witness to admit they are hearing Floyd say "I took too many drugs"?

If prosecutors are paying any attention at all can't they ask him if that's what he believes he heard Floyd say?

What would be the answer to that? Yes, No? Both answers are terrible. No, makes his defense look sleazy. Yes would bring up the following question, if the prosecution is awake:

Prosecution: Why did you drop the subject completely if you believe you heard him say he took too many drugs? WE don't hear any additional questions about what kind of drugs, what time did you take them, do you feel as if you are having an overdose or in any danger of overdose, do we?

Prosecution: Why did you not bring out the Narcan if you believe you heard him say he took too many drugs?

Prosecution: Why didn't you mention anything about Floyd admitting he took too many drugs when EMT arrived and tried to save his life?

I think his attorney did him no favors on that one. Maybe other things too. I don't see how he takes the stand without those questions being asked. Unless the prosecutors are all asleep at the wheel. IMO.

[RVInit]

OMG. The defense believes that first clip makes them look good?

[Patagoniagirl]

Wow. The defenses first witness is terrible - I think.

[RVInit]

Wow. The defenses first witness is terrible - I think.

If things continue as they have progressed so far his only chance is jury nullification.

Which, sadly, could happen.

[RVInit]

The second witness supposedly completed an RN degree. And yet, she stayed employed as an EMT. Hmmm.

[RVInit]

I didn't think it possible, but she's a worse witness than the first.

[RVInit]

And......defense witness number two completely destroyed by the prosecutor that I think many of us think is not the best one on the team.

[Patagoniagirl]

Wow. This isn't looking good for the defense. Yes. Witness two was terrible.

[sugar magnolia]

My first question to the first witness, if he could hear it, would have been "are you the one who said "spit it out" in that clip?" And when he said no, my follow up would have been "who was that order directed at?" If the officer at the driver's door was doing what he was supposed to be doing, which is gaining control of the driver, the order would have been directed at him, not Floyd.

I've never been a PO in Minneapolis, but if they're drawing their weapons at a non-felony traffic stop with nothing more to go on than someone not instantly responding to verbal commands, I'm not surprised they shoot people on the regular.

The officer at the driver's door apparently thought the threat of a taser was enough, but the deaf (and dumb?) guy dealing with Floyd thought it warranted deadly force. Things that make you go 'hmmmm'.

[sugar magnolia]

The second witness supposedly completed an RN degree. And yet, she stayed employed as an EMT. Hmmm.

My paramedic friends in Jeff Parish make about 30% more as paramedics, with better schedules, than working as RNs at any of the hospitals. At least 3 of the main characters on A&E's Nightwatch show are RNs with a B.S. and still work as paramedics, so that didn't strike me as odd.