Derek Chauvin trial: The murder of George Floyd

[p0rtia]

He was the senior officer on-scene -- who was he showing off for? It's still daylight, with a growing crowd begging him to help Floyd, with cellphone vid cameras rolling. What "showing off" would he think would accomplish?

Showing all the peeps in the neighborhood who is “boss.”

But I think I saw a closeup and he was wearing black nitrile gloves and his hand really wasn’t in his pocket.

Yeah, it's hard to tell if it was in his pocket or on his thigh. Either way, if he hasn't leaning on the truck he was making no effort to distribute his weight any place other than Floyd's neck.

Reporting last summer said he had his hand in his pocket. Which was upsetting to bystanders, who found it a cruel display of nonchalance.

[sad-cafe]

if he isn't convicted=the USA is going to rock and not in a good way

[Kendra]

While not as dramatic as last week, the police chief's testimony (so far), is compelling.

MSNBC reported that the one visitor chair reserved for family of Chauvin has been removed for now from the court since no one is using it.

[Fortinbras]

Here's a hypothetical question:

Suppose a black man kneels on a white man's neck long enough to kill him and suppose there's a videotape of this incident.

Question: How many minutes would pass between the beginning of the trial and the black man being delivered to Death Row?

[neeneko]

Here's a hypothetical question:

Suppose a black man kneels on a white man's neck long enough to kill him and suppose there's a videotape of this incident.

Question: How many minutes would pass between the beginning of the trial and the black man being delivered to Death Row?

Trick question! It would probably never make it to trial. Plea bargain of some type if it was a civilian, 'suicide by shooting himself 5 times in the back of the head' if it was a cop.

[filly]

Listening on the radio driving from Dallas to Houston the foundation this prosecutor laid with the police chief was kind of mind numbing. I could've whittled that down by 50% and still hit the salient points. Maybe it was different on TV.

[sterngard friegen]

Agreed. The prosecutors have obviously been reviewing the OJ Simpson trial with envy and have started to emulate Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.

[Frater I*I]

Agreed. The prosecutors have obviously been reviewing the OJ Simpson trial with envy and have started to emulate Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.

Any bets if they're on orders from Olympus to tank the case...?

[sterngard friegen]

Agreed. The prosecutors have obviously been reviewing the OJ Simpson trial with envy and have started to emulate Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.

Any bets if they're on orders from Olympus to tank the case...?

Management wants Chauvin to be convicted. But word may not have filtered down to the prosecutors.

I have never heard so many leading questions from prosecutors. The witnesses are generally left to answering yes to questions. Convenient if you're a prosecutor since you get the answers you want (by definition), but maddening to a jury which wants to hear what the witnesses have to say on their own.

We are talking here about the professional witnesses, cops who have testified on numerous occasions. It's not like they are going to wander off and testify surprisingly. But the prosecution should let them testify.

Jeebuz.

(As for the civilian witnesses, why did the prosecutors ask over and over how the witnesses felt? It's irrelevant. But Sleepy Joe defense attorney didn't seem to have any problem with this evidence, utterly irrelevant to guilt but relevant to getting revenge against Chauvin.)

[Uninformed]

Found this a bit surprising.

“George Floyd: Minneapolis police chief says Chauvin violated policy”:
“Analysis by Tara McKelvey, BBC News, Minneapolis”
“Even with Mr Arradondo's testimony, though, the odds are against the prosecutors.
Jurors understand that police use force routinely, and it is hard to convince them that an officer has crossed a line.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56642582

[sad-cafe]

Did defense really imply that Mr. Floyd put drugs up his butt?

[filly]

Did defense really imply that Mr. Floyd put drugs up his butt?

Yes. While maybe George Floyd did that before, I have no idea when he would've had the opportunity to do that once they pulled the gun on him while he was in the driver's seat of his friend's car. If he took the drugs that way earlier in the day, it's going to be harder to believe he died of a Fentanyl overdose.

[sad-cafe]

do we know why the dogwatch SGT that testified last week is on leave?


is it because of this?

[sad-cafe]

wonder how much chauvin hated his Chief of Police -who happens to be black

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

How will the defense get past the amount of time Floyd was subdued with a knee on his neck as the cause of death. I'm a lay person. Not in the medical field and not trained in law enforcement. But as a person who has no underlying medical conditions and no drug abuse history or current use, nine minutes would kill me.

The "He OD'd on Fentenyl" has gotten a lot of traction amongst a lot of people. Tucker Carslon, who made that up, has way too much influence in society.

It makes as much sense as saying that if I shoot somebody who was having a heart attack that it was the heart attack, and not me shooting him, that was the cause of death, is it not?

[Suranis]

You laugh, but a lot of Covid deniers say exactly that - that victims die of pneumonia or clots, not Covid

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

You laugh, but a loy of Covid deniers say exactly tat - that victims die if pneumonia or clots, not Covid

They are a cynical bunch, aren't they?

[filly]

Agreed. The prosecutors have obviously been reviewing the OJ Simpson trial with envy and have started to emulate Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.

One of the pool reporters says one of the jurors has been dozing off!

[sugar magnolia]

A procedural question for the lawyers among us....

Listening to a defense attorney parsing the trial testimony from today, he said several times that the judge had made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to make objections during cross-examination of their own witness, because they had "opened the door" by putting her on the stand, and the judge was wrong for allowing side bars for (some of?) the objections. I did not see that part of the testimony so I have no opinion on how it came across to viewers.

Is that a legitimate complaint against the judge? Should he have given the defense attorney free reign (within reason, of course) when cross examining the witness? Is it acceptable for the prosecution or defense to object to testimony from their own witnesses?

[Dr. Caligari]

A procedural question for the lawyers among us....

Listening to a defense attorney parsing the trial testimony from today, he said several times that the judge had made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to make objections during cross-examination of their own witness, because they had "opened the door" by putting her on the stand, and the judge was wrong for allowing side bars for (some of?) the objections. I did not see that part of the testimony so I have no opinion on how it came across to viewers.

Is that a legitimate complaint against the judge? Should he have given the defense attorney free reign (within reason, of course) when cross examining the witness? Is it acceptable for the prosecution or defense to object to testimony from their own witnesses?

It doesn't matter who called the witness; it's always permissible to object to an improper question.

[fierceredpanda]

A procedural question for the lawyers among us....

Listening to a defense attorney parsing the trial testimony from today, he said several times that the judge had made a mistake by allowing the prosecution to make objections during cross-examination of their own witness, because they had "opened the door" by putting her on the stand, and the judge was wrong for allowing side bars for (some of?) the objections. I did not see that part of the testimony so I have no opinion on how it came across to viewers.

Is that a legitimate complaint against the judge? Should he have given the defense attorney free reign (within reason, of course) when cross examining the witness? Is it acceptable for the prosecution or defense to object to testimony from their own witnesses?

I missed today's testimony, but objections are usually made to questions rather than answers. And it's completely normal to object when your witness is being cross-examined. It's how you protect the witness from cheap or improper questions. At trial, you also might make an objection tactically, knowing it will likely be overruled, to signal to the witness that they should take care how they answer the question and buy them some time to think about their answer while the lawyers are arguing over the objection. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Certainly there re times when a party will "open the door" to certain lines of questioning, but generally the door is opened by a question asked or an answer elicited on direct examination. The reason for that is that typically cross-examination is limited in scope to whatever was covered on cross unless you're impeaching the witness' credibility. A skillful litigator can choose their lines of questioning on direct to narrow the potential scope of cross to some extent to avoid opening the door.

Also: News reporting today indicated that one witness who was in the car with Floyd was going to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to certain potential questions on cross, likely having to do with drug use. The defense is desperate to put forward the theory that Floyd died of an overdose (as if Chauvin wouldn't still be responsible for administering Narcan and rendering aid to a person in his custody who was overdosing, rather than continuing to press his knee into his neck), and it appears that witness was going to invoke the privilege with respect to questions about drug use. The judge can conduct a colloquy outside the presence of the jury and the media to see if the witness really does have grounds to invoke and determine if a line of questioning can be composed to both allow the defense to mount their case while not incriminating the witness, but generally judges are extremely deferential when this happens. And since that testimony isn't something the State needs to put on its case, the State isn't going to grant the witness immunity for it. I'm not sure how that situation is going to resolve itself, because that was just what I was hearing on my CNN Sirius feed a couple hours ago.

[Maybenaut]

Also: News reporting today indicated that one witness who was in the car with Floyd was going to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to certain potential questions on cross, likely having to do with drug use. The defense is desperate to put forward the theory that Floyd died of an overdose (as if Chauvin wouldn't still be responsible for administering Narcan and rendering aid to a person in his custody who was overdosing, rather than continuing to press his knee into his neck), and it appears that witness was going to invoke the privilege with respect to questions about drug use. The judge can conduct a colloquy outside the presence of the jury and the media to see if the witness really does have grounds to invoke and determine if a line of questioning can be composed to both allow the defense to mount their case while not incriminating the witness, but generally judges are extremely deferential when this happens. And since that testimony isn't something the State needs to put on its case, the State isn't going to grant the witness immunity for it. I'm not sure how that situation is going to resolve itself, because that was just what I was hearing on my CNN Sirius feed a couple hours ago.

I read this morning that the judge was considering allowing the guy to testify to things that would not require an invocation, and limiting questions on both sides. According to the article I read (Washington Post?), the judge wanted to see the questions in writing, would require the parties to ask the questions exactly as they had been written, with no follow-ups. That was this morning. I don’t know what actually ended up happening.

[LM K]

Showing all the peeps in the neighborhood who is “boss.”

Exactly. I've thought this all along. Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck even after Floyd had lost consciousness because he wanted the crowd to understand who was in charge.

The more the witnesses begged Chauvin to get off Floyd, the more defiant Chauvin became.

[LM K]

While not as dramatic as last week, the police chief's testimony (so far), is compelling.

MSNBC reported that the one visitor chair reserved for family of Chauvin has been removed for now from the court since no one is using it.

I'm surprised that no one is in court for Chauvin. I understand that fellow officers want to distance themselves from Chauvin. But no family or friends will sit in support?

[sugar magnolia]

While not as dramatic as last week, the police chief's testimony (so far), is compelling.

MSNBC reported that the one visitor chair reserved for family of Chauvin has been removed for now from the court since no one is using it.

I'm surprised that no one is in court for Chauvin. I understand that fellow officers want to distance themselves from Chauvin. But no family or friends will sit in support?

His wife divorced him almost immediately. If he has any friends, we haven't heard anything out of them.