George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[missy1974]

Entire document is on point, and more specifically pages 20-21/47

Definitely one I didn't realize which is a landmine/trap for an appeal. (A reason that the defense didn't want the nurse kicked?) I was amazed at all the examples given in that paper. I was also intrigued that they had learned what had happened during deliberations for all those jury examples.

Lots of stuff on the internet about it if you want to venture down the rabbit hole I went into.

"beyond the ken"!

Interesting. I had the same thought this morning. She is going to have to walk a very very fine line in jury room.

 

[MsBetsy]

So the prosecution gets a final rebuttal in closing arguments? I had no idea! Blackwell would not be my first choice but he's not a bad choice. <Modsnip>

Aren't they entitled to make a closing argument since the burden of proof is on the State?

 

[missy1974]

I also canot quite believe the alleged connection between one of the witnesses to a recent local news story. My brain is truly frazzled

What witness? What connection?

 

[wasnt_me]

I think Thao did a good job standing guard and watching the bystanders. He said he never noticed Floyd was in distress or that he had stopped breathing so he must have been focusing all of his attention on them. I heard him tell them to get back two times and each time they did. That was around the time Chauvin threatened them with mace. It appeared to me they had the situation under control.

If those officers couldn't manage that crowd and GF at the same time, it's no wonder they don't have jobs.

 

[wasnt_me]

Thank you. I think that answers my question. I couldn’t figure out what the jury might find to be a superseding cause.

My understanding of a superceding cause is something so big that couldn't be predicted that is or could be the major contributor to the death.

For example, someone on the road directing traffic onto a dirt road. You turn onto the dirt road and a helicopter falls from the sky and crushes your car. That helicopter is the superceding event that no one could have seen coming.

 

[MsBetsy]

It matters because it's disingenuous. No need for it. If it takes that you've got more problems than you bargained for.

I think there is definitely a need for a strong closing argument after the red herrings the defense came up with at the last minute. The picture of what "looked like a pill" in Floyd's mouth and the suggestion of carbon monoxide being a contributing factor in his death were disingenuous. Imo

 

[bluebird69]

What witness? What connection?

Hope this is okay to post, mods please delete if not
George Floyd's girlfriend was Daunte Wright's TEACHER as both killed by cops

 

[Legally Bland]

Paul Blume
@PaulBlume_FOX9

TRIAL NEWS: Prosecution confirms their closing arguments lineup. Steve Schleicher to deliver closing arguments. Jerry Blackwell will handle rebuttal. Meaning the final voice this jury wil hear from aside from Judge, will be Blackwell. Monday, 9am.

I'm guessing the prosecution are expecting the rebuttal will need to focus on the medical evidence, as that seems to have been Blackwell's remit.

 

[magnolia]

Yes, I can see why too. But likely not for the same reason that you do.

I think that Chauvin thought that big, strong men like George can take anything that is dished out. But surprise, surprise, they can't.

Not when they are in a prone position, their hands are locked behind their back, their own weight is pushing down on their lungs, they are being held down, others weight is pushing down on their lungs, and someone is kneeling on their neck.

I don't think Chauvin thought that George would die, but George did die. And now Chauvin has to face the consequences for his wrong decisions.

I don't know Chauvin. I have no idea what he thought.

But we have testimony about what "reasonable" officers should think and do.

Let's put my post you quoted in context.

That reply was in response to the comments bolded by me in the post I replied to.

 

[kittythehare]

I wonder if the defense "goal" was not to give the prosecution any more ammo than they already had...after all, anyone the defense called, could easily have become valuable for the prosecution case after cross examination.

Also there is a vast difference between active resistance and involuntary resistance.
A panic attack and claustrophobia are both involuntary body processes.

 

[SouthAussie]

@PaulBlume_FOX9

DEVELOPING: #Mpls public schools announce ALL schools will close to in-person learning next Wednesday-Friday (4/21-23) in anticipation of #DerekChauvinTrial verdict. All grades will do distance learning those days. Schools will operate under normal #COVID schedules Monday-Tuesday

Other more far-reaching places are ramping up for the verdict as well.

Philly to Ramp Up Police, Leaders Call for Peace as Nation Awaits Chauvin Verdict

Boston Braces For Protests In Response To Chauvin Trial, Police Shootings


Police departments across the country are preparing for the potential unrest that could follow the Chauvin trial verdict.
Cities On Edge Tonight Over Fatal Police Incidents

 

[Algo214]

Paul Blume
@PaulBlume_FOX9

TRIAL NEWS: Prosecution confirms their closing arguments lineup. Steve Schleicher to deliver closing arguments. Jerry Blackwell will handle rebuttal. Meaning the final voice this jury wil hear from aside from Judge, will be Blackwell. Monday, 9am.

BBM.
Conviction is guaranteed.

Blackwell is SUCH a thorough Attorney, he won't leave any loose ties. IMO.

 

[Tom_Servo]

Aren't they entitled to make a closing argument since the burden of proof is on the State?

Of course hey are but I never knew they got the last word.

 

[Chelly]

Minnesota Stat. 631.07
Order of Final Argument

When the giving of evidence is concluded in a criminal trial, unless the case is submitted on both sides without argument, the prosecution may make a closing argument to the jury. The defense may then make its closing argument to the jury. The prosecution shall then have the right to reply in rebuttal to the closing argument of the defense.

Minn. Stat. § 631.07
Section 631.07 - ORDER OF FINAL ARGUMENT, Minn. Stat. § 631.07 | Casetext Search + Citator

 

[dixiegirl1035]

My understanding of a superceding cause is something so big that couldn't be predicted that is or could be the major contributor to the death.

For example, someone on the road directing traffic onto a dirt road. You turn onto the dirt road and a helicopter falls from the sky and crushes your car. That helicopter is the superceding event that no one could have seen coming.

"Second, the defendant, acting alone or aided by others, caused the death of George Floyd. “To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes that were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the defendant’s acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and produces a result that would not otherwise have occurred. An action that occurs before the defendant’s conduct and is not the sole cause of the death does not constitute a superseding cause."

Above from link at

Yes, the prosecution is trying to get the jury instructions clearer for this case specifically re "Depraved Mind" elements, and 2 weeks ago did a submission you can read here

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...20-12646/ProposedJuryInstructions04012021.pdf

NOTE: What is in RED below is what they want stricken and replaced with what is in GREEN for better jury understanding of what "Depraved Mind" elements are for wording in the jury charging instructions at the end of the trial prior to deliberations.

MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE—DEPRAVED MIND—ELEMENTS

The elements of murder in the third degree, as alleged here, are:

First, the death of George Floyd must be proven.

Second, the defendant, acting alone or aided by others, caused the death of George Floyd. “To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes that were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. However, the defendant is not criminally liable if a “superseding cause” caused the death. A “superseding cause” is a cause that comes after the defendant’s acts, alters the natural sequence of events, and produces a result that would not otherwise have occurred. An action that occurs before the defendant’s conduct and is not the sole cause of the death does not constitute a superseding cause.

Third, the defendant's intentional act that caused the death of George Floyd was eminently dangerous to other persons and was performed without regard for human life. Such an act may not have been specifically intended to cause death, and may not have been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred. But in order to find this element has been satisfied, [it must have been committed in a reckless or wanton manner with the knowledge that someone may be killed and with a heedless disregard of that happening] the defendant’s act must have been committed with an indifference to the loss of human life that the eminently dangerous act could cause.

Fourth, the defendant’s act took place on May 25, 2020 in Hennepin County.


The defendant is charged with committing this crime or intentionally aiding the commission of this crime. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty of this charge. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty of this charge, unless you find the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person according to the aiding-and-abetting instruction below



ETA: Forgot to do red/green

ETA: One could argue that GF was dead/no pulse/not breathing, and THEN the yelling and interference of the crowd happened also. Just a thought that just came to me.

 

[Leve]

Also there is a vast difference between active resistance and involuntary resistance.
A panic attack and claustrophobia are both involuntary body processes.

True but as someone that suffers from a major panic disorder (bad enough to cost me 2 really good jobs) you can still have control of yourself at least until you pass out from hyperventilating.

I would never yell out when panicking since I am trying my damnedest to conserve my breath, neither would I struggle.

I knie everyone is different but the whole panic/anxiety thing doesn't look right to me with my 30 years experience.

 

[magnolia]

To be fair, that was after they wouldn't let her help, and frankly, if cops are that thin-skinned, well, that's a problem. I can't imagine a cop needs to be on the force is bothered by someone calling them names or would refuse to let a responder help another person because of name-calling. That's low-rent trashy.

I don't believe Police officers can allow a person off the street to come into close contact with a person they have arrested and restrained. To do so would open the door for a liability case. IMO

 

[tara83]

I don't believe Police officers can allow a person off the street to come into close contact with a person they have arrested and restrained. To do so would open the door for a liability case. IMO

They should have given him medical help themselves as they were trained to do.I'll never understand why they chose not to.

 

[wasnt_me]

Let's put my post you quoted in context.

That reply was in response to the comments bolded by me in the post I replied to.

Yep, and that's what I was replying to in context.

 

[Gibbo214]

True but as someone that suffers from a major panic disorder (bad enough to cost me 2 really good jobs) you can still have control of yourself at least until you pass out from hyperventilating.

I would never yell out when panicking since I am trying my damnedest to conserve my breath, neither would I struggle.

I knie everyone is different but the whole panic/anxiety thing doesn't look right to me with my 30 years experience.

And if someone was impeding your ability to breathe, you wouldn't struggle?