MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #6 - Chauvin Trial Day 3

[Tippy Lynn]

Civil rights attorney identifies man in fatal Minneapolis incident; FBI, BCA investigation underway

'Completely And Utterly Messed Up': Video Of Fatal Arrest Shows MPD Officer Kneeling On Man's Neck For At Least 7 Minutes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/26/minneapolis-police-death-custody-fbi/

MN - George Floyd, 46, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 **Media & Timeline - NO DISCUSSION

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4 - Opening Statements and Trial Day 1
Thread #5 - Trial Day 2

 

[Sillybilly]

This thread is to discuss the case of George Floyd. It is not a thread to discuss racism in general.

Unless your post relates to this case specifically, it is off topic and will be removed.

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey everyone,

Please be respectful by discussing the trial and the testimony without trashing witnesses, lawyers, or any other officers of the Court.

Thanks.

 

[Niner]

and again @JerseyGirl - please move this post to the new Trial Day 3 thread when it opens. I know - I'm early on here but it is almost 10am here.


Wednesday, March 31st:
*Trial continues (Day 3) (@ 9:30am CT) - MN – George Perry Floyd, Jr. (46) (May 25, 2020, Minneapolis, arrested for forgery & killed in police custody) - *Derek Michael Chauvin (44/now 45) police officer who held his knee on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes & 46 seconds (Note: on 10/14/20 this has been changed to 9 minutes & 30 seconds) (& non responsive for 2 minutes & 53 seconds before officer took his knee off his neck; from 8:19pm to 8:28pm his knee was on Floyd’s neck; has been fired (5/26/20) & arrested & charged (5/29/20) with 3rd degree murder & 2nd degree manslaughter. Charges changed (6/3/20) to 2nd degree murder-unintentional-while committing a felony, 3rd degree murder-perpetrating eminently dangerous act (3rd degree charge was dismissed on 10/22/20 & reinstated on 3/11/21) & evincing depraved mind & 2nd degree manslaughter-culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk. $500K bond, reset (6/8/20) @ $1.25M & $1M with conditions. Posted non-cash $1M bond (10/7/20) & has been released from jail.
Trial began on 3/8/21 with jury selection. Jury selection ran through March 23, 2021. Trial with opening statements & the commencement of the State’s case began on March 29, 2021. Experts anticipate the trial could last 2-4 weeks. Jurors: 12 & 2 alternates (9 women & 5 men). Jurors will be sequestered during deliberations. None of the other officers will be testifying at Chauvin’s trial.
Jurors’ info reference post #6 here:
MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #4 - Trial Day 1
Bond conditions & court info & jury selection (3/9 thru 3/23) from 12/19/20 thru 3/23/21& Day 1 of Trial (3/29/21) reference post #3 here:
MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #5 - Trial Day 2
3/30/21 Tuesday Trial Day 2: Each morning of the trial the judge has set aside 9am CT/10am ET for any motions/issues with attorneys. Earlier than usual @8:30am CT motion hearing was held this morning regarding filming minor witnesses that will testify today. State filed a motion to not only have no video but to also have no audio. Court already said no video is OK, but State motion wants audio nixed for 4 of the witnesses they plan on having) 2 of the 4 were minors at the time, but are now adults. Media coalition spokesperson addressing the judge asking to allow audio at the least for minor witnesses saying it's important for public access. She agrees using initials or first names only. Judge denies State's motion & will allow audio broadcast of minor witnesses, he says with one exception, that when they state & spell their names, that will be no audio. Judge rules: ID of ALL FOUR of them will be off audio. Then audio comes back on. Can be referred to as to their first name. He will continue to suppress all 4 for video feed. He said that media will hear their names (assume that media will honor not publishing names, although judge didn't admonish them not to). He talked about the power surge problem to the server yesterday as to why they ended early. Media has kindly offered up a backup to the court so this doesn't happen again, court accepted the offer.
State witnesses: 3) Donald Wynn Williams III continues testimony on direct. Played 911 call (Exhibit #20) made by Williams after police had left. Cross-examined by Nelson. And re-direct by State. And re-cross-examined. And re-re-direct by State. Next 4 witnesses will not be shown on video. Prosecutor Blackwell asked questions. 4) Darnella, bystander & took a viral video. And cross-examined. And re-direct. 5) 9 year old cousin of Darnella, bystander. Prosecutor Erin Eldridge questions: 6) Alyssa, 17 at the time, bystander, also took video. Cross by Nelson. 7) Kaylynn, 17 at the time, bystander. No cross. Questioned by Frank: 8) Genevieve Hansen, bystander a MN. firefighter/EMT. Also took video which is played to jurors & 911 call she made. Cross by Nelson. Judge asks jury to leave. Instructs witness to remain. Tells witness not to argue with lawyers & court. Judge dislikes witness response. Judge angry. Tells state whoever has cell phone in court to come forward. Tells witness to come back tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Tells lawyers to meet him in chambers. Judge on bench. Questioning owner of phone. Apparently she is a witness "representative" & took a photo of DA or AG or one of those guys. Judge gives her a little talking to. No cameras allowed in courthouse. And Judge lets her go. Trial continues on 3/31/21.
*Charged (7/22/20) with 6 counts of aiding & abetting taxes-false or fraudulent returns-filed with commissioner & 3 counts aiding & abetting taxes-failure to file return, report, document. – Omnibus hearing on 6/30/21.

 

[margarita25]

Exhibit 1: Map
Exhibit 11: Video taken from camera across the street
Exhibit 17: Photo of DC/his knee on George Floyd’s neck
Exhibit 20: Williams’ 911 call
Exhibit 24- GH’s cell video
Exhibit 25- GH’s 911 call
Exhibits 26, 27, 28- 3 videos taken by minor with her friend’s cellphone
Exhibit 184- Photo showing bystanders/witnesses

 

[JerseyGirl]

Firefighter blocked from helping Floyd returns to stand

A Minneapolis firefighter who wept as she recalled being prevented from using her EMT training to help George Floyd will be back on the stand (today) Wednesday.

Genevieve Hansen, one of several bystanders seen and heard shouting at Derek Chauvin as he pinned Floyd facedown outside a convenience store last May, described her desperation Tuesday as she recounted how she was unable to come to Floyd’s aid or tell police what to do, such as administering chest compressions.

 

[happyday]

I just finished watching GH’s full testimony.

IMO the judge was rather harsh there at the end, his “tone”. JMO. I could elaborate but I’ll pass for now (but certainly taking note of this).

FTR: I hardly see GH as “combative”. I’ll leave it at that.

—

Eta:

?: So who did call for the ambulance at 8:21 then, as alleged by Nelson? Do we know? If so, what are the details of that report? @dixiegirl1035

—

Eta2: Wait a minute, did I just hear that right? (Rewind) Williams didn’t know about the other two officers being there until they were flipping GF over at his feet and loading him onto the gurney when the paramedics arrived? So, until that time he thought it was only DC on top of GF? Going back in for a second listen.

Eta3: Yep, sure enough, 53:00ish here. Interesting.

I agree that the judge was very harsh with her, and I also thought as I was watching it that the attorney asked her a question and wouldn’t let her answer completely past the point that he wanted to be the answer on record. I felt like I also would have tried to complete my answer, and I would have been very irritated with how he was talking to her. I wish she could have just held in her irritation, but I thought both of the men were unnecessarily harsh with her.

I don’t think it will matter in the end. The point is that she was yet another witness to a horrific wrong being done by police.

 

[Weki]

Good morning all - I’m curious to see how Ms. Hansen will perform this morning. Someone on Twitter commented that she was adamant that a threatening/yelling crowd would not impact her job performance as a firefighter/medic and that she’d be able to focus on the task at hand but she was easily rattled and lost her cool under a pretty tame, relatively speaking, cross exam.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like this was a prep failure by the prosecution. Even with Williams. Being a witness in a criminal case is so rare for most people let alone on such a high profile, highly political, emotionally charged publicized case. People need to be prepped on how things go and what a leading question is and how to answer it. It protects the witness emotionally and it also makes the state look better. State has 11 lawyers, no one sat down with Ms. Hansen? I can’t imagine she would’ve been so unnerved if she was prepped properly.

Again, broken record, but this further illustrates how prosecutors can perform so poorly on these cop trials. And these are experienced prosecutors but something happens during these cop trials. Maybe too many cooks? Too many ppl with say so - breathing down their necks? Is it really necessary to have 4 different attorneys questioning bystanders? This should be the easy peasy part. One attorney can’t handle all of this testimony bc it’s basically the same thing over and over?

 

[margarita25]

?: So who did call for the ambulance at 8:21 then, as alleged by Nelson? Do we know? If so, what are the details of that report? @dixiegirl1035

—snipped by me

RSBM
The dispatch times were listed on the CAD report (I think that's what it's called) that was entered as Exhibit 151 during the 911 Operator's testimony on Day 1. It shows that EMS was initially dispatched as Code 3 at 20:20:11. Then upgraded to Code 2 at 20:21:35. EMS requested Fire Dept. assistance at 20:28:36.

ETA: Oops... I didn't answer your question. I didn't see anything logged on that report which indicated that the dispatch was requested from a call taker, just the dispatcher's log. So, I'm not certain, but I think that the request was made via radio conversation between dispatcher and officers on scene.

I'm still unclear as to the first call for assistance, and then what led to it getting upgraded to code 3. And then yesterday, we learn the codes didn't bring the normal folks in the normal order etc.

Instead of giving an opinion here, I'm too iffy to do even that so will await testimony.

@Factoria has the times in post above "The dispatch times were listed on the CAD report (I think that's what it's called) that was entered as Exhibit 151 during the 911 Operator's testimony on Day 1. It shows that EMS was initially dispatched as Code 3 at 20:20:11. Then upgraded to Code 2 at 20:21:35. EMS requested Fire Dept. assistance at 20:28:36." but they differ from my notes? Dunno why. Would need a rewind. I have 8:21:00... 8:26:29 etc.

If I have time... I'll go back to the Youtubes and see if I can find in the transcripts.

Lane called for an ambulance after Floyd’s mouth started bleeding. Lane told investigators it was likely when Floyd banged his face on the glass inside of the squad car.
Lane then upgraded that ambulance request, from a less-serious “code 2” to a more serious “code 3,” after Floyd had repeatedly said he could not breathe and the officers discussed whether he could be high on drugs.
George Floyd told Minneapolis police officers he couldn’t breathe more than 20 times, new transcripts show


(Note: incident report mentioned is no longer available)
The decision to “load and go,” rather than triage at the scene, was likely based on their race against the clock, Scheerer said. Unloading all the equipment can often take much longer than treating a patient from inside the ambulance.
“I don’t think the paramedics knew what was going on. They just saw a split second of what was happening,” he said in reference to Chauvin’s prolonged knee restraint on Floyd’s neck. “Ultimately, if the police have somebody in custody, we have to get permission from them to work with on the patient.”

The initial call started as a Code 2 to assist EMS on a scene, not the more urgent Code 3, indicating a life-threatening situation. Preliminary information given to firefighters said only that Floyd had “trauma to his mouth,” according to an incident report.
Dispatch recordings: George Floyd was in cardiac arrest when EMS arrived

So, where is this “incident report“ then?

Eta: I think I may have found something (not sure, haven’t read it yet / sorry if repost):

Minneapolis Fire Department Report on George Floyd
https://www.scribd.com/document/463...-Report-on-George-Floyd#fullscreen&from_embed

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I suspect they’ll have a hard time selling that it was just a simple drug overdose that happened to happen at the exact same time someone kneeled on his neck for nearly 10 minutes. But I’m sure they’ll try. What else are they supposed to do with video of the entire incident out there for all the world to see.

Back to my stabbing victim... if they happened to have a potentially lethal dose of drugs in their system, and it took a long time for the ambulance to arrive while they bled out, I doubt I’m off the hook for stabbing them.

I agree with you, but I think the defense will bring into evidence that George ingested these drugs right around the same time all of this was occurring.

Jmho

 

[happyday]

Good morning all - I’m curious to see how Ms. Hansen will perform this morning. Someone on Twitter commented that she was adamant that a threatening/yelling crowd would not impact her job performance as a firefighter/medic and that she’d be able to focus on the task at hand but she was easily rattled and lost her cool under a pretty tame, relatively speaking, cross exam.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like this was a prep failure by the prosecution. Even with Williams. Being a witness in a criminal case is so rare for most people let alone on such a high profile, highly political, emotionally charged publicized case. People need to be prepped on how things go and what a leading question is and how to answer it. It protects the witness emotionally and it also makes the state look better. State has 11 lawyers, no one sat down with Ms. Hansen? I can’t imagine she would’ve been so unnerved if she was prepped properly.

I’m sure she was prepped, but it’s just that this was a very emotional situation. She was obviously VERY nervous at first, and she was having to relive something that was upsetting to her while expecting to be torn apart on cross examination. I really think her nerves were raw and she was rattled by both the defense attorney and the judge. We have to remember these witnesses just happened upon a scene that was so out of the ordinary and upsetting that several of them called the police at that moment. They are probably traumatized by something that they had no part in and had no way of stopping. They are not on trial. To have to testify in front of the world when you already have so much guilt and on top of that have to stay composed while being cross examined by an attorney who is just trying to get you rattled would be awful. I understand her irritation and frustration and I think this is probably just her nature. To stand up to people. I doubt any amount of prepping can fully keep that under control.

It’s not like she jumped up and strangled the defense attorney. She just tried to complete her answer and was shut down and got snappy. I would have been snappy too. I hate people not letting me speak—especially when they ask me a question. Like my answer or not, let me finish it!

 

[Weki]

I’m sure she was prepped, but it’s just that this was a very emotional situation. She was obviously VERY nervous at first, and she was having to relive something that was upsetting to her while expecting to be torn apart on cross examination. I really think her nerves were raw and she was rattled by both the defense attorney and the judge. We have to remember these witnesses just happened upon a scene that was so out of the ordinary and upsetting that several of them called the police at that moment. They are probably traumatized by something that they had no part in and had no way of stopping. They are not on trial. To have to testify in front of the world when you already have so much guilt and on top of that have to stay composed while being cross examined by an attorney who is just trying to get you rattled would be awful. I understand her irritation and frustration and I think this is probably just her nature. To stand up to people. I doubt any amount of prepping can fully keep that under control.

It’s not like she jumped up and strangled the defense attorney. She just tried to complete her answer and was shut down and got snappy. I would have been snappy too. I hate people not letting me speak—especially when they ask me a question. Like my answer or not, let me finish it!

Well, she’s not just an average citizen. She’s a firefighter so she’s used to being in high stress situations to say the least. She also may testify in court at times as part of her job. LE, medics, firefighters testify all the time. My point is it is fair to hold her to a different standard of professionalism. This may be her first time testifying but it’s certainly possible it won’t be her last as a firefighter.

Obviously this event was traumatizing and stressful and no one can deny that. Judge Cahill gave her a lot of latitude. He’s been very attentive with everyone in that courtroom and makes sure witnesses and jurors especially feel comfortable. He’s one of the most attentive judges I’ve seen.

It’s ok for her to be emotional. But she wasn’t answering the questions and was being argumentative. It was explained to her to wait for the question and give yes or no answers. She ignored that polite admonishment. She wanted to advocate for a certain perspective but that’s not her job as a witness. She got progressively argumentative. And then got got snippy with the judge too. She obviously got a lot wrong about the scene, which is normal as a bystander but she didn’t want to acknowledge that. Nelson quoted the times medics were called from the CAD report and she flat out said she didn’t believe it and it was wrong!! Those are official business records that have been introduced in evidence. At one point right after she was told not to interrupt, she literally interrupted after the first word of the question. So if she’s irritable at being interrupted then the judge and Nelson have a right to be irritable at HER interruptions as well. And her opinions are not relevant and the defense has a right to object and the judge to sustain and cut her off. If she was indeed prepped properly, then it’s even more inexcusable IMO.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

So, where is this “incident report“ then?

Eta: I think I may have found something (not sure, haven’t read it yet / sorry if repost):

Minneapolis Fire Department Report on George Floyd
https://www.scribd.com/document/463...-Report-on-George-Floyd#fullscreen&from_embed

These screenshots are from Day 1 video of Washington Post, beginning at 4:11:17 in the video. As is hard to see... I'll do a quicky read and do quick highlights here. Others can expound upon. I have much of this in transcription but thought too long to post here.

20:02:13 Call place from cashier to 911 call taker ID CT031779. Says counterfeit bill/blue mercedez/plz run plate/describes GF/says he appears under influence. This info goes to screen in police car.
...........getting back up requests... including park police
20:04:02 - Officers on site and asking to run plate
20:11:02 - Officers have removed him from patrol car
20:20:11 - Call in for EMS Code 2 non emergent for mouth injury
20:21:35 - 330 (LE folks) call for code 3 (get here quick)
20:27:21 - Information for EMS, PD has him restrained on ground
20:28:36 - Paramedic rig code 3 asking for fire - The EMS folks entered this information. (per her testimony, they are asking for additional support)
20:31:12 Per engine 412 firerig response, EMS is at Park and 36th as they have left the scene.
20:32:02 EMS would like the fire department for Pt condition at their new location. (per her testimony, this was because she didn't know what was going on so she asked her other agencies via METCOM radio.. she got info on radio and put into system)
20:34:10 - EMS paramedics reporting into system saying he is in full arrest
20:34:30 - EMS is saying working full arrest
20: She added fire dept is in route to park and 36th
20:36:07 Fire dispatch saying engine 17 fire is 2 minutes out to park and 36th
20:48:23 EMS says they are headed to hospital - (e.d. they had stopped resuscitation efforts
20:55:06 LE put directly into car computer they are headed to HCMC ... status of the AP


I wonder do these times of reports jibe with what the timing is on the street videos as to timely reports by LE etc? It looks like they didn't call for EMS until 9 minutes after he was on the ground??!! (20:11 ---. 20:20) Is this correct??? It appears they didn't even say restrained on ground for some time. I think I'm off here, help!

Screenshots are from below... starting about 4:12:43 Day 1 from dispatcher testimony (e.d. not to be confused with 911 call taker/operator.. they are in different rooms..)

 

[Marysmith]

Good morning all - I’m curious to see how Ms. Hansen will perform this morning. Someone on Twitter commented that she was adamant that a threatening/yelling crowd would not impact her job performance as a firefighter/medic and that she’d be able to focus on the task at hand but she was easily rattled and lost her cool under a pretty tame, relatively speaking, cross exam.

The more I think about it, the more I feel like this was a prep failure by the prosecution. Even with Williams. Being a witness in a criminal case is so rare for most people let alone on such a high profile, highly political, emotionally charged publicized case. People need to be prepped on how things go and what a leading question is and how to answer it. It protects the witness emotionally and it also makes the state look better. State has 11 lawyers, no one sat down with Ms. Hansen? I can’t imagine she would’ve been so unnerved if she was prepped properly.

Again, broken record, but this further illustrates how prosecutors can perform so poorly on these cop trials. And these are experienced prosecutors but something happens during these cop trials. Maybe too many cooks? Too many ppl with say so - breathing down their necks? Is it really necessary to have 4 different attorneys questioning bystanders? This should be the easy peasy part. One attorney can’t handle all of this testimony bc it’s basically the same thing over and over?

Totally agree that it seems like she was unprepped. I was a witness once for the State and the prosecution told the witnesses they wanted them to appear more natural and not “coached” and it was a hot mess honestly for the State. You need to be somewhat prepared for what could come and how to answer and compose yourself. IMO it’s not right to just let people fend for themselves in a very stressful situation like that. A lot of people when they get stressed and unsure start floundering and it becomes a cycle and very hard at that point to get ahold of themselves.

 

[MsBetsy]

I agree with you, but I think the defense will bring into evidence that George ingested these drugs right around the same time all of this was occurring.

Jmho

I'm sure they will. The pill fragments found in the back of the police vehicle suggest Floyd either tried to swallow or hide a pill/pills in his mouth.

The jury will have to decide whether Chauvin's actions played a significant role in contributing to his death.

They didn't appear to assess his condition or roll him on his side once they had him facedown on the ground. In fact Chauvin told them to leave him right where he was. Even after he lost consciousness they did nothing to help him. A person can suffer permanent brain damage after just four minutes of not breathing. Those last few minutes could have been crucial in saving his life.

 

[ilovewings]

Well, she’s not just an average citizen. She’s a firefighter so she’s used to being in high stress situations to say the least. She also may testify in court at times as part of her job. LE, medics, firefighters testify all the time. My point is it is fair to hold her to a different standard of professionalism. This may be her first time testifying but it’s certainly possible it won’t be her last as a firefighter.

Obviously this event was traumatizing and stressful and no one can deny that. Judge Cahill gave her a lot of latitude. He’s been very attentive with everyone in that courtroom and makes sure witnesses and jurors especially feel comfortable. He’s one of the most attentive judges I’ve seen.

It’s ok for her to be emotional. But she wasn’t answering the questions and was being argumentative. It was explained to her to wait for the question and give yes or no answers. She ignored that polite admonishment. She wanted to advocate for a certain perspective but that’s not her job as a witness. She got progressively argumentative. And then got got snippy with the judge too. She obviously got a lot wrong about the scene, which is normal as a bystander but she didn’t want to acknowledge that. Nelson quoted the times medics were called from the CAD report and she flat out said she didn’t believe it and it was wrong!! Those are official business records that have been introduced in evidence. At one point right after she was told not to interrupt, she literally interrupted after the first word of the question. So if she’s irritable at being interrupted then the judge and Nelson have a right to be irritable at HER interruptions as well. And her opinions are not relevant and the defense has a right to object and the judge to sustain and cut her off. If she was indeed prepped properly, then it’s even more inexcusable IMO.

Many of the talking heads on cable are stating that the witnesses so far have been very emotional and have given compelling testimony- One of the attorney commenters described being somewhat upset with the line of questioning by the defense, attempting to portray the crowd as "unruly" and hostile.

What I have learned from watching trials and listening to talking heads, is that what they think may be the total opposite from what the jury is thinking. We Simply don't know how the testimony from these witnesses is impacting them. I know this though, when a defense attorney can rile up a witness to a point where a judge has to admonish that witness, it is not a good thing for the prosecution.

I find the defense's relentless questioning of these witnesses troublesome- With their questions, they are planting the idea in the minds of the jurors that this crowd was so out of control that the police were unable to concentrate on the man they had in custody. While I find that theory ludicrous, it just might work. I've seen stranger theories in trials that I never thought would be successful, but in fact were successful.

 

[Weki]

Totally agree that it seems like she was unprepped. I was a witness once for the State and the prosecution told the witnesses they wanted them to appear more natural and not “coached” and it was a hot mess honestly for the State. You need to be somewhat prepared for what could come and how to answer and compose yourself. IMO it’s not right to just let people fend for themselves in a very stressful situation like that. A lot of people when they get stressed and unsure start floundering and it becomes a cycle and very hard at that point to get ahold of themselves.

Exactly! Yeah appearing rehearsed is not good either. I was thinking more along the lines of just explaining to these witnesses how witnesses are expected to answer questions and comport themselves. Especially when it’s a highly charged issue. You gotta have a grounding conversation. And maybe throw a few confrontational questions at them to give them a sense of it. It’s like an inoculation. Then once they’re in there, they’re not easily rattled.

I completely agree with you that once you start spinning it’s hard to reel yourself back in. I do have sympathy for her.

 

[turaj]

I agree that the judge was very harsh with her, and I also thought as I was watching it that the attorney asked her a question and wouldn’t let her answer completely past the point that he wanted to be the answer on record. I felt like I also would have tried to complete my answer, and I would have been very irritated with how he was talking to her. I wish she could have just held in her irritation, but I thought both of the men were unnecessarily harsh with her.

I don’t think it will matter in the end. The point is that she was yet another witness to a horrific wrong being done by police.

Strong woman really being talked down to by the judge. I lost a bit of respect for Peter Cahill. Personally I think he had received the info about the photo op with Ellison and knew he was going to have to deal with it and was in a very bad frame of mind when he addressed Hansen. She did not deserve that.

 

[MsBetsy]

Totally agree that it seems like she was unprepped. I was a witness once for the State and the prosecution told the witnesses they wanted them to appear more natural and not “coached” and it was a hot mess honestly for the State. You need to be somewhat prepared for what could come and how to answer and compose yourself. IMO it’s not right to just let people fend for themselves in a very stressful situation like that. A lot of people when they get stressed and unsure start floundering and it becomes a cycle and very hard at that point to get ahold of themselves.

I can't imagine that out of four state attorneys she wasn't well prepped. All the other witnesses seemed to be. Williams was very careful not to appear angry or paint the "crowd" as being angry. The dispatcher was careful not to cast blame at police.

As long as she doesn't make the same mistakes as she did yesterday, I think she will be fine. Hopefully prosecutors have reiterated to her how important this case is. If she wants justice for George, she should be able to control herself. Maybe today we will hear a couple of "no sirs," or "yes, your honor."

 

[shotgun09]

" This is a yes or no question". Trips you up either way. The attorney stating that ( from either side) is not wanting your 'yeah, buts' They are anticipating your answer....without additions.