Discussion in 'Trials' started by Tippy Lynn, May 26, 2020.
That's what I thought but starting second guessing myself. Thanks for confirming.
His words."Don't talk to anyone and don't watch the news."
Don't get me wrong ... I don't like it, I didn't like it when I first watched it, I was even more horrified when a few days later we found out that there was 2 other officers behind the car that we didn't see in the initial video! But now I have watched the trial... when I look at the laws/policies, etc ... it's just not that easy.
One of the nagging questions that I have is...
If the law and the police policies that were in place at the time didn't allow for this type of restraint and lack of providing care for GF... then why did they need to be changed afterwards?
I know we might not completely agree on this case... but I do agree with you on this. I am at the point that in real life, I won't even discuss the case with anyone I know now... that's why I come here I can discuss it with people that have watched the majority of the trial and for the most part we understand or have each other to understand the charges/laws.
So if the policies have been changed and then the recent payout to the family?
You'd think they'd know better!
I stand corrected on my quote. I stated these jury instructions were given the last two days of the trial. It was on day 12. The last two days he didn't tell the jury anything.
In most high profile cases we've had polls. I've never seen one where it was all unanimous one way or the other.
So I don't expect this case to be any different.
It just shows people have differing views on the same evidence or in some cases they dont really follow it as closely as others.
Some like MW may even mistakenly believe DC has been charged with first degree which of course he hasn't or doesn't know what each charges means, and what must be proven BARD
I believe if humanely possible a jury should render an unanimous verdict, but I also know that each juror has the same legal right to go against the majority if they are unconvinced the case has been proven BARD to them. Even the judge told them this in his instructions.
Polls, blog sites, and trials show we are still individual people instead of being clones of each other. Thank God. That's why humans aren't identified by groups, but for the individuals all human beings are, and are intended to be.
I believe on this jury there are critical thinkers who will weigh all of the evidence analytically without emotion as instructed to come to the correct verdict.
I've said earlier I don't believe we will have one lone wolf holdout like we see at times.
Which reminds me of another case I saw recently on HLN. The first trial had only one lone holdout hanging the jury. She firmly believed he was innocent so much so she worked on his case afterwards. The defendant was found guilty in his retrial, and given the death penalty . I'm sorry I can't recall the gentleman's name at the moment. Anyway he was later fully exonerated, and was completely innocent.
It does show why having critical individual thinking is very important, and never a bad thing.
It would be frightening if all humans started thinking the very same way like robots can be programmed. Yikes!
agreed on the BBM. My Husband I are polar opposites in our views on this case. Here is my safe space to debate and discuss without it causing WWIII in my real life. I've greatly appreciated the civility I have seen from my fellow WS members, even those who I haven't agreed with.
Perhaps the judge felt that since the jurors were adults, not children, when he told them initially not to watch the news or discuss the trial, he gave them credit for knowing it was an all inclusive deal and they didn't need to be reminded every day?
One possibility, although I'm not married to it.
Over 8 hours in and nothing yet.. getting anxious.
What happens now that jurors in Derek Chauvin's murder trial are sequestered?
The group will then review audio and video evidence from the trial using a laptop provided to them and a large monitor to view the items. Under prior court rules, jurors had to return to court to play videos. But in this case, they will be able to view video evidence as they need to during deliberations.
Some of the evidence presented at trial, called demonstrative evidence, will not be provided. Those include items like legal definitions of terms brought up in court, or graphics used to explain expert analysis. But all other evidence, including the widely viewed bystander video, is fair game.
Jurors were also allowed to take notes during the trial, which may be used during deliberations to refresh their memories. They will not be provided a trial transcript and are told to rely on their collective memory.
I didn't realize the BBM portion.
I hope by this afternoon... we will have one... But I'm never right.
Sometimes you are right. At least IMOO.
I CAN NOT believe thePresident of the United States has made the comments he did yesterday and today. Totally inappropriate and in violation of the Constitution. Not to mention it adds even more fodder to the arguments for an overturn on an appeal.
I predicted sometime this evening.. but apparently they’re not doing late verdicts?
I dropped out of a lot of online interaction - including with family - because of this case last spring/summer.
My husband and I agree on the case 100% but I'm the only one following the legalities and the trial. Last night he tried to mansplain it to me. So cute.
Same with my boyfriend. We agree on what we think should happen with the verdict. But I can’t really talk about it in real life with anyone because I get SOOOOO heated over it.
I agree, and that's why I stated his admonishment was too vague, but those were his specific instructions.
If he stated for example" tomorrow we are going to start on time" would that mean 9 am? Would it mean after the discussions between the state and defense are over? It leaves it wide open for interpretation.
Most judges give admonishments before even allowing the jury to take a ten minute break. In this case, He let them go for a 3 day weekend without saying a word, and that's why I think Nelson made a good point. It just adds another reason to the long list for an appeal IMO, if Chauvin is convicted.