The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (1 Viewer)

Actually I haven't heard the distinction made before. Well, actually, I'd never heard the term Wypipo until yesterday when I was mentioned and I didn't really think about it. Maybe we need a thread. :9:
Please, no.
 
it's literally impossible for it not to be
does not have to be the only thing the trail (and thus thread) is about but there exists no venn circle about this that does not overlay with race esp systemic racism

even more precisely, trying to force the trial/thread to NOT be about race is more disingenuous than an open discussion

"Let's have a national discussion on police accountability."
"No, its always racism."
 
"Let's have a national discussion on police accountability."
"No, its always racism."
how do you imagine they are separate discussions?
modern policing has roots in slave patrols and jim crow enforcement
the FBI has demonstrated for decades that white nationalists have infiltrated polices forces of all sizes across the country
how do you imagine police reform is a separate conversation from race relations?
 
Seventeen complaints filed with Minneapolis police about Derek Chauvin. Six times in which prosecutors say Chauvin used force against arrestees. George Floyd's 2007 arrest for aggravated robbery.

The jury considering murder and manslaughter charges against Chauvin won't hear about any of them. And their verdict may be influenced as much by what they don't know as what they do.

In the run-up to the trial, both sides sought to introduce evidence about Chauvin and Floyd's past actions. Prosecutors wanted to introduce eight incidents for Chauvin. Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill allowed two of them.

The defense wanted to bring up two arrests of Floyd, including one in Harris County, Texas in 2007 that resulted in a conviction for aggravated robbery. Cahill allowed only a portion of Floyd's 2019 drug-related arrest in Minneapolis..............

Prosecutors argued these incidents showed Chauvin regularly resorted to force, even when it wasn't necessary.

"In the State's view," they wrote, "Chauvin operates in disregard for the particular circumstances of a given situation in determining appropriate reasonable force and simply fully restrains the suspect with no regard for their well-being until he can turn them over to someone else."

Cahill disagreed.

"The real purpose for which the State seeks to introduce evidence of eight prior incidents ... is simply to depict Chauvin to the jury as a 'thumper,' an officer who knowingly and willingly relishes 'mixing it up' with suspects and routinely escalates situations and engages in the use of unreasonable force," the judge wrote.

Cahill ruled that any value of introducing those six incidents to prove Chauvin's guilt in Floyd's death would be outweighed by the potential to unfairly prejudice the jury..............



Derek Chauvin used force against suspects before George Floyd. The jury won't hear about 6 of them. (msn.com)
 
I think the difference is his approach. I think approach to the subject does matter and 2884 is more thorough in stating why he thinks that way.

But ultimately hindsight is indeed 20/20. But even with hindsight, I still think there was no good way for bystanders to intervene. If they intervene, we have a worse catastrophe, with multiple people possibly being shot/killed and Chauvin probably gets away with this.
Understood , I can't speak for what my emotions would be at the time .
 
there's always the guy that would have done something if he was there

every time

Yep

do you know how harshly people are penalized in this country for assaulting police officers in the line of duty? That’s assuming they make it to trial and aren’t all shot once the cops radio for the cavalry to come help.

Also yep, it's like some haven't been paying attention recently and fail to realize that trying to physically intervene with cops with bad intentions may not turn out to be a disaster for all involved....had that happened the murderous cop and those complicit would have likely been martyred....
 
Who is "their" side? Who is the "they" to whom you refer?
The media's side, however they/reporters choose to "provide information" to us. Or whatever side gets the most people riled up.
 
Seventeen complaints filed with Minneapolis police about Derek Chauvin. Six times in which prosecutors say Chauvin used force against arrestees. George Floyd's 2007 arrest for aggravated robbery.

The jury considering murder and manslaughter charges against Chauvin won't hear about any of them. And their verdict may be influenced as much by what they don't know as what they do.

In the run-up to the trial, both sides sought to introduce evidence about Chauvin and Floyd's past actions. Prosecutors wanted to introduce eight incidents for Chauvin. Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill allowed two of them.

The defense wanted to bring up two arrests of Floyd, including one in Harris County, Texas in 2007 that resulted in a conviction for aggravated robbery. Cahill allowed only a portion of Floyd's 2019 drug-related arrest in Minneapolis..............

Prosecutors argued these incidents showed Chauvin regularly resorted to force, even when it wasn't necessary.

"In the State's view," they wrote, "Chauvin operates in disregard for the particular circumstances of a given situation in determining appropriate reasonable force and simply fully restrains the suspect with no regard for their well-being until he can turn them over to someone else."

Cahill disagreed.

"The real purpose for which the State seeks to introduce evidence of eight prior incidents ... is simply to depict Chauvin to the jury as a 'thumper,' an officer who knowingly and willingly relishes 'mixing it up' with suspects and routinely escalates situations and engages in the use of unreasonable force," the judge wrote.

Cahill ruled that any value of introducing those six incidents to prove Chauvin's guilt in Floyd's death would be outweighed by the potential to unfairly prejudice the jury..............



Derek Chauvin used force against suspects before George Floyd. The jury won't hear about 6 of them. (msn.com)



can a resident attorney explain why a judge would not allow evidence at a criminal trial as to the mindset of the defendant and any prior history that would show a pattern of behavior that is ON TRIAL?

Im so confused.
 
can a resident attorney explain why a judge would not allow evidence at a criminal trial as to the mindset of the defendant and any prior history that would show a pattern of behavior that is ON TRIAL?

Im so confused.

So, it likely comes down to this rule of evidence. And the general rule is that prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the current alleged act is consistent with prior bad acts. The law in Minnesota might not be exactly the same, but it is likely very similar:

"Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Primary tabs
(a) Character Evidence.
(1)
Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice."

So, the basic rule is that evidence of prior wrong acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. But, it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, or that it wasn't by accident. Likely in this case it came down to whether or not the Judge thought that the particular evidence of prior wrong doing could be used to show intent rather than being used to show that he had bad character and acted in accordance with his bad character. Ultimately it's a Judgement call that will depend on very specific facts and the very specific wording of this rule of evidence in Minnesota.
 
So, it likely comes down to this rule of evidence. And the general rule is that prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the current alleged act is consistent with prior bad acts. The law in Minnesota might not be exactly the same, but it is likely very similar:

"Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Primary tabs
(a) Character Evidence.
(1)
Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice."

So, the basic rule is that evidence of prior wrong acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. But, it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, or that it wasn't by accident. Likely in this case it came down to whether or not the Judge thought that the particular evidence of prior wrong doing could be used to show intent rather than being used to show that he had bad character and acted in accordance with his bad character. Ultimately it's a Judgement call that will depend on very specific facts and the very specific wording of this rule of evidence in Minnesota.


thank you - because when i apply this to what i do ( insurance) i have been ( early in my career ) ROUTINELY hammered by E & O counsel about "patterns"( documenting/notes etc ) - but then again, and suit against me would be civil vs criminal....so does that make a difference?

i think thats what was confusing me because i remember our attorney post Katrina laying down EXACTLY what we need to do, how to do etc to avoid ANY appearance of mistake. ( if that make sense )
 
thank you - because when i apply this to what i do ( insurance) i have been ( early in my career ) ROUTINELY hammered by E & O counsel about "patterns"( documenting/notes etc ) - but then again, and suit against me would be civil vs criminal....so does that make a difference?

i think thats what was confusing me because i remember our attorney post Katrina laying down EXACTLY what we need to do, how to do etc to avoid ANY appearance of mistake. ( if that make sense )

It would be different in criminal and civil, but only in that the exceptions only apply in criminal cases.

I'm no E & O expert and I'm not sure exactly what that attorney meant, but I think that probably has more to do with creating a defense that you follow a specific pattern for every client doing the same things over and over to protect their interests. That way if things go sideways, it's evidence that you weren't negligent because you followed a policy that was designed to make sure that mistakes aren't made. Basically, you would need to show that you were following a system that is accepted by the people in your field to show that you were not negligent. Kind of like the rule for Med Mal where a defense is that the doctor was following the best practices of a doctor in their region in their field.

So while evidence of a pattern of prior bad acts would not be admissible to show that you did something wrong in a later particular instance, you might have a defense to negligence by showing that you had a system designed to stop mistakes from happening and that you followed that system. I know that there are laws in place for businesses for slip and falls where if you can show that you had a policy to clean and inspect the floors and you followed that policy you are not negligent if someone slips and falls on water, a piece of merch, etc.
 
Yep



Also yep, it's like some haven't been paying attention recently and fail to realize that trying to physically intervene with cops with bad intentions may not turn out to be a disaster for all involved....had that happened the murderous cop and those complicit would have likely been martyred....
You're delusional if you think the crowd intervening physically would have had a higher probability of a peaceful ending than not.

In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to live in reality.
 
It would be different in criminal and civil, but only in that the exceptions only apply in criminal cases.

I'm no E & O expert and I'm not sure exactly what that attorney meant, but I think that probably has more to do with creating a defense that you follow a specific pattern for every client doing the same things over and over to protect their interests. That way if things go sideways, it's evidence that you weren't negligent because you followed a policy that was designed to make sure that mistakes aren't made. Basically, you would need to show that you were following a system that is accepted by the people in your field to show that you were not negligent. Kind of like the rule for Med Mal where a defense is that the doctor was following the best practices of a doctor in their region in their field.

So while evidence of a pattern of prior bad acts would not be admissible to show that you did something wrong in a later particular instance, you might have a defense to negligence by showing that you had a system designed to stop mistakes from happening and that you followed that system. I know that there are laws in place for businesses for slip and falls where if you can show that you had a policy to clean and inspect the floors and you followed that policy you are not negligent if someone slips and falls on water, a piece of merch, etc.

precisely right regarding what he meant.


ok so it would be for mounting a defense - as opposed to the plaintiff using to mount an offensive against you .

i think i understand now. I was applying from a "defendant" mindset vs a "plaintiff" one and they arent interchangeable in regards to how that is used.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom