Daunte Wright, killing by Kimberly Potter

[RVInit]

You have to admit this jury is deliberating at least. Admirable during Christmas week.

[Dr. Caligari]

You have to admit this jury is deliberating at least. Admirable during Christmas week.

There is an old saying among criminal lawyers that a prosecutor never wants a jury to return a verdict on Christmas Eve.

[Kendra]

"Trial outcome" has been reached.

[RVInit]

I see that just now. I bet they will find not guilty.

I am very troubled by her changing of her reason for making the decision to pull out the "taser". She said one thing during the initial investigation and something different on the witness stand. There is a reason for her having done BOTH of those things, which I will try to explain in a different comment. And the reason for her saying one thing and then something different on the witness stand shows me she new full well she was lying when she gave the investigator her answer for why she believed she needed to use the "taser" on Daunte Wright. And because certain testimony came out during the trial that made her unable to give that same answer on the witness stand. I find that very troubling. So, her answer on the witness stand was "I dont' know" as she broke down crying. Obviously some of the jurors (at least one) is buying her BS.

[RVInit]

OK, I will explain something I learned during the trial.

Potter was asked by investigators why she made the decision to pull out her taser. She said she saw the look of terror on Officer Johnson's face as he realized he was going to be dragged away by the car when Daunte took off. So, she had to do something to protect the officer that was going to be dragged away.

Except - Johnson NEVER had a look of terror on his face, he never believed he would be dragged away by the car PRIOR to Potter pulling out her taser (or even after she pulled it out for that matter). Said officer had full control of Daunte's right arm by using his left hand, and he had full control of the gear shifter using his left hand. So, he NEVER believed or had a look of terror on his face, believing he would be dragged away by the car.

So, why did Potter tell that story to the investigator? Because she thought she had reason to believe officer Johnson would back up her story. Why? Because as she was distraught on the ground, he was trying to console her. After trying several things, he finally said "Kim, he was going to drag me away". The problem is, he was only saying that to console her. Not because it was actually true. And the body cam video shows that she never could have seen his face prior to her pulling out the taser and yelling "taser, taser, taser". And his testimony as well as body cam shows he had both Daunte and the shifter under control and was never in fear of being dragged. so she had to chanfe her story at the trial.

[sugar magnolia]

After trying several things, he finally said "Kim, he was going to drag me away". The problem is, he was only saying that to console her. Not because it was actually true.

Did he actually testify that he only said it to console her?

[Delarin]

Edit: Behind spoiler alert: video of verdict being read.

► Show Spoiler

Guilty of manslaughter in the 1st and 2nd degrees.

[Kendra]

Guilty.

[p0rtia]

Wow.

[RVInit]

After trying several things, he finally said "Kim, he was going to drag me away". The problem is, he was only saying that to console her. Not because it was actually true.

Did he actually testify that he only said it to console her?

You can hear that he is trying to console her and finally he makes that statement.

On direct questioning he admits that at no time during that stop did he believe he was going to dragged away. His actions on the body camera fit with his own testimony that at no time did he believe he was going to be dragged away. His demeanor on body camera shows him to have been completely calm and rational, no "look of terror" on his face.

He testified before she did. So, when she was asked on the stand why she pulled the taser, she could not say she saw a look of terror on his face, as she had originally stated during the investigation. Because both body camera and Officer Johnson testimony shows he was never in danger and never in fear.

[filly]

Have some faith in the juries! It’s helpful when the judge is not putting his or her ass in the scales of justice and when the prosecutor is competent. Juries don’t always get it right but they often do! I am surprised by the first degree manslaughter verdict. The pundits sure got that wrong.

[RVInit]

Have some faith in the juries! It’s helpful when the judge is not putting his or her ass in the scales of justice and when the prosecutor is competent. Juries don’t always get it right but they often do! I am surprised by the first degree manslaughter verdict. The pundits sure got that wrong.

I am also surprised. In part because I think the prosecutors could have done a little bit better job of summing things up. I do think that the jury may also have been bothered as much about her inconsistencies and the difference in her explanations of what happened during the initial investigation and then on the witness stand.

The one thing I mentioned above is the most troubling of her changing stories. When she told investigators she SAW the look of terror on Johnson's face, that was just an outright lie. And, since she clearly could not see his face, it's pretty clear to me that she answered that way BECAUSE of the comment that Johnson made while trying to console her. And that means she KNEW full well during the investigation that she did not have a legitimate reason for pulling out the taser/gun. Otherwise she would have given an HONEST answer as to why she made that decision instead of biting on the excuse Johnson had provided her, even though he knew it was not true at the time. You really have to actually watch the video to kind of understand why he did that. But here's the thing. Regardless of what excuse he gave her, SHE is the one who pulled out the weapon, so shouldn't SHE be the one to tell the truth about WHY she made the decision to pull the weapon?

I can answer that very easily. She can't explain why she made that decision because it's clear from body camera that she had NO REASON to do what she did. None. Zero. Zilch. Daunte was already under complete control. One hand held by one officer, the other officer had his other arm, and the other officer also had control of the gear shift. Daunte had NO ability to get that car going until AFTER she yelled "taser taser taser" which caused the other officers to let him go. That is the whole irony of what she did. Totally and completely unnecessary. And that is why when asked under oath "Why did you make the decision to pull out your taser?" she had to answer "I don't know". That is the truth. She did it "because". And because she knew that what she had originally told investigators was something she could not say to this jury because Officer Johnson had already said point blank in front of this same jury "at no time did I believe I was in any danger of being dragged by that car. I had complete control of Daunte and the gear shifter".

[filly]

Somewhere up thread I said the defense position that it was a mistake AND a justified shooting was ridiculous. And it was.

[sugar magnolia]

Body cam video is incredibly useful, but not the be all and end of the truth. It only shows whatever unobstructed view the officer's chest has, not what his eyes, 18" above the body cam, can see. I didn't follow the case or watch the body cam video so I can't speak to that, but I can speak to what the body cam can and can't show. Just because the other officer's face wasn't visible in the cam footage doesn't mean she couldn't see his face.

[LM K]

I'm surprised by both verdicts. I expected the jury to be swayed by the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument.

I do believe that Potter thought she grabbed her taser. But she had adequate time to notice that she wasn't holding her taser. She had plenty of time to pull back from Williams.

Everytime I start to fall for the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument, I remind myself that actions have consequences. William's family and friends will grieve Williams for the rest of their lives. William's lost his life. It's very appropriate for Potter to go to prison for killing a man.

I'm not sure that I believe that Potter was lying about her fellow officer's look of terror. The minute her colleague told Potter that Williams was going to drag him away, a cue that could facilitated the development of a false memory was given. But that goes into all kinds of shrinky stuff.

If I was a juror I would agree with fellow jurors who believed Potter lied. What I know about memory isn't evidence. The discrepancy between what Potter said before vs during trial are evidence.

Interesting and tragic case.

[RVInit]

Body cam video is incredibly useful, but not the be all and end of the truth. It only shows whatever unobstructed view the officer's chest has, not what his eyes, 18" above the body cam, can see. I didn't follow the case or watch the body cam video so I can't speak to that, but I can speak to what the body cam can and can't show. Just because the other officer's face wasn't visible in the cam footage doesn't mean she couldn't see his face.

She admitted she couldn't see his face. He was on the other side of the car. She was standing squarely behind the other officer who was taller and she admitted she couldn't see past him. The body cam shows her to be standing squarely behind Officer Luckey who is not "see through". Her lie concerning her reasoning for pulling out the taser/gun was exposed totally to this jury.

[pipistrelle]

A female juror in the trial of former Brooklyn Center police officer Kimberly Potter was seen crying following the reading of the verdict on Thursday, according to a pool reporter in court.

Juror No. 4 was "seen crying" as Judge Regina Chu thanked the members of the jury, saying she was proud of them and calling them heroes. Another juror sitting next to Juror No. 4 was seen reaching out and putting his hand on her arm, according to the pool report.

Minutes later Juror number 4 was observed still shaking and crying as the jury stood to leave the courtroom.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-po ... index.html

Potter didn’t look surprised.

[RVInit]

A female juror in the trial of former Brooklyn Center police officer Kimberly Potter was seen crying following the reading of the verdict on Thursday, according to a pool reporter in court.

Juror No. 4 was "seen crying" as Judge Regina Chu thanked the members of the jury, saying she was proud of them and calling them heroes. Another juror sitting next to Juror No. 4 was seen reaching out and putting his hand on her arm, according to the pool report.

Minutes later Juror number 4 was observed still shaking and crying as the jury stood to leave the courtroom.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-po ... index.html

Potter didn’t look surprised.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that at least one member of the jury is having trouble with having to find her guilty. Part of me understands that, but part of me also can't get past the fact that she had too many inconsistencies in what she said to investigators and what she said on the witness stand. I can see why at least some members of the jury would have seen her as a generally good person who made a mistake. For my part I was very troubled by the fact that she changed too many of her stories and how she answered questions to investigators and how she answered the same questions on the witness stand after seeing how the evidence was playing out in the courtroom. It wasn't just one thing I mentioned above either, it was multiple things. I would have found guilty, and I also would have done it with at least somewhat of a heavy heart. But I would have known it was the right thing to do as well.

[Maybenaut]

I'm surprised by both verdicts. I expected the jury to be swayed by the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument.

I do believe that Potter thought she grabbed her taser. But she had adequate time to notice that she wasn't holding her taser. She had plenty of time to pull back from Williams.

Everytime I start to fall for the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument, I remind myself that actions have consequences. William's family and friends will grieve Williams for the rest of their lives. William's lost his life. It's very appropriate for Potter to go to prison for killing a man.

I'm not sure that I believe that Potter was lying about her fellow officer's look of terror. The minute her colleague told Potter that Williams was going to drag him away, a cue that could facilitated the development of a false memory was given. But that goes into all kinds of shrinky stuff.

If I was a juror I would agree with fellow jurors who believed Potter lied. What I know about memory isn't evidence. The discrepancy between what Potter said before vs during trial are evidence.

Interesting and tragic case.

Caveat: I haven’t been following this case at all, so my comments are really just generic.

Discrepancy between her previous statements and in court testimony is evidence, sure. But is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? This is a problem I have with our system. I honestly believe that jurors don’t know what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” really means, despite a constitutional requirement that the judge explain it to them.

Here’s an example that I see in my work all the time (I’m sticking with the genders that I see in my cases). She testifies that they were making out, and she told him to stop and he didn’t stop and he ultimately penetrated her without her consent. He testifies in his own defense and says that she was into it, she never told him to stop, she actively participated in the acts, and he had no reason to believe she didn’t consent, that he honestly though she did consent. It was in a hotel/dorm/apartment and there were no other people present. There might be evidence that both people have good character for truthfulness, or evidence that the victim has a motive to testify falsely.

A conscientious application of the reasonable doubt standard should yield an acquittal because his version of events - that she consented or he reasonably believed that she did - is reasonably possible. But the jury always goes with who they believe “more.” And they don’t appear to understand that even if they find her more credible than they find him, that’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s lying.

Here’s me dealing with this sort of thing: It’s so frustrating.

[filly]

Good thing there was a lot more than her inconsistent statements to convict her.

[RVInit]

Good thing there was a lot more than her inconsistent statements to convict her.

[Maybenaut]

Good thing there was a lot more than her inconsistent statements to convict her.

Oh, for sure. I’m just ranting. I don’t know the facts of this case at all.

[andersweinstein]

Philosophical obsessive that I am, my puzzle is how the jury could possibly find first degree *reckless* manslaughter proved beyond reasonable doubt according to the (admittedly confusing) law in this case. As I understand it, recklessness requires a certain mental state, a type of mens rea, roughly of consciously knowing one's action creates a risk of harm but choosing to do it anyway. Jury instructions in the case said someone "acts recklessly if, under the totality of the circumstances, she commits a conscious or intentional act in connection with the handling or use of a firearm that creates a substantial or unjustifiable risk that she is aware of and disregards."

Well, though this is a confusing point, I can see her act was a conscious and intentional act under some description of what her intent was. But if she thought she was using her taser, she was not aware of and disregarding a risk, so not acting recklessly. So prosecution should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this taser belief did not exist to get to the mental state required for recklessness.

So what did the jury think was proved to be the risk she was aware of and disregarded? Did the jury just think the whole I-thought-it-was-a-taser story was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie?

[RVInit]

Philosophical obsessive that I am, my puzzle is how the jury could possibly find first degree *reckless* manslaughter proved beyond reasonable doubt according to the (admittedly confusing) law in this case. As I understand it, recklessness requires a certain mental state, a type of mens rea, roughly of consciously knowing one's action creates a risk of harm but choosing to do it anyway. Jury instructions in the case said someone "acts recklessly if, under the totality of the circumstances, she commits a conscious or intentional act in connection with the handling or use of a firearm that creates a substantial or unjustifiable risk that she is aware of and disregards."

Well, though this is a confusing point, I can see her act was a conscious and intentional act under some description of what her intent was. But if she thought she was using her taser, she was not aware of and disregarding a risk, so not acting recklessly. So prosecution should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this taser belief did not exist to get to the mental state required for recklessness.

So what did the jury think was proved to be the risk she was aware of and disregarded? Did the jury just think the whole I-thought-it-was-a-taser story was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie?

do you have a copy of the actual jury instructions that were given to the jury, or are you just getting something from a website? The prosecutor went thoroughly over the jury instructions and explained to the jury how the evidence applied to each element. Obviously, the jury was able to put the evidence to the test and come up with guilty verdicts.

[andersweinstein]

do you have a copy of the actual jury instructions that were given to the jury, or are you just getting something from a website? The prosecutor went thoroughly over the jury instructions and explained to the jury how the evidence applied to each element. Obviously, the jury was able to put the evidence to the test and come up with guilty verdicts.

I got that excerpt from the instructions in this case from this news article, which quoted several experts saying the instructions were confusing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 894989002/

You can read the full jury instructions here:

https://www.startribune.com/read-the-ju ... 600129506/