The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (7 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

That's where I'm a little confused. As I understand it, one of the defense witnesses brought up this particular bit of evidence, saying that Floyd may have died from carbon monoxide from the tailpipe of the vehicle he was laying behind. I don't understand why the prosecution isn't allowed to have a witness rebut that testimony.

I fully understand that the prosecution isn't allowed to present new evidence on redirect, but I would think they would be allowed to address something specific that a defense witness testified to.

Apparently it was because the prosecution had not offered that rebuttal evidence in time, according to the judge. There are pretty strict rules about how experts testify and are rebutted. Apparently the tailpipe testimony was noted in the pre-trial filings and the prosecution did not state its intention to rebut it. During the trial the coroner’s office notified the prosecution that they had checked carbon monoxide levels in Floyd’s blood - but the judge ruled that this rebuttal evidence had not been properly prepared and was therefore inadmissible. He instructed the prosecution not to elicit that testimony on the stand.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I have not followed the whole trial, based on what I have heard, I have heard nothing that shows the officer had and specific criminal intent to murder the suspect. The what most people don't understand about a murder charge, the act in and of itself is secondary to weather or not you INTENDED to kill the person intentionally.

here are the legal details of the changes for Minnesota criminal code..

Second degree murder

To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault.

I don't think the prosecution proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third degree murder

For this count, jurors must find Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through an action that was “eminently dangerous” and carried out with a reckless disregard for and conscious indifference to the loss of life.

As with the second degree charge, this comes down to use of force training and standards and the interpretations of them.

Second degree Manslaughter

Prosecutors had to show that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through culpable negligence that created an unreasonable risk, and that he consciously took the chance of causing severe injury or death.

Probably the one charge that applies to the situation the least.

Trials are not about proving people innocent, nor are they about making up for grievances of the past or present. If the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the officer intended to kill the suspect, he's not guilty of murder, and (for better or worse) criminal definitions of these crimes don't apply very well at all when a person in law enforcement can came (either legitimately or falsely) that he was using the "reasonable but necessary force" to either restrain the suspect and/or prevent harm to others.

If a verdict of not guilty is returned, it by no means there are serious issues to address with how law enforcement is utilized, which is why the 4 th and 5th amendment to the Constitution are probably the most important ones that exist, and two that most people know next to nothing about.

We shall see what happens soon.

 

[superchuck500]

Two of the three charges you cite expressly don’t require an intent to kill.

 

[Xeno]

I have not followed the whole trial, based on what I have heard, I have heard nothing that shows the officer had and specific criminal intent to murder the suspect. The what most people don't understand about a murder charge, the act in and of itself is secondary to weather or not you INTENDED to kill the person intentionally.

here are the legal details of the changes for Minnesota criminal code..

Second degree murder

To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault.

I don't think the prosecution proved this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third degree murder

For this count, jurors must find Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through an action that was “eminently dangerous” and carried out with a reckless disregard for and conscious indifference to the loss of life.

As with the second degree charge, this comes down to use of force training and standards and the interpretations of them.

Second degree Manslaughter

Prosecutors had to show that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death through culpable negligence that created an unreasonable risk, and that he consciously took the chance of causing severe injury or death.

Probably the one charge that applies to the situation the least.

Trials are not about proving people innocent, nor are they about making up for grievances of the past or present. If the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the officer intended to kill the suspect, he's not guilty of murder, and (for better or worse) criminal definitions of these crimes don't apply very well at all when a person in law enforcement can came (either legitimately or falsely) that he was using the "reasonable but necessary force" to either restrain the suspect and/or prevent harm to others.

If a verdict of not guilty is returned, it by no means there are serious issues to address with how law enforcement is utilized, which is why the 4 th and 5th amendment to the Constitution are probably the most important ones that exist, and two that most people know next to nothing about.

We shall see what happens soon.

It was explained during openings and again today during closings that intent is not necessary in this case, even for the second degree murder charge. The main thing that prosecution had to prove was that Chauvin's actions were a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death. Not the only factor or even the predominant factor. From what I understand this is a (relatively) unique quirk with Minnesota law.

For argument's sake, had the case been that Floyd had what appeared to be a heart attack while Chauvin's knee was on his neck, the question becomes whether or not it can be reasonably established that Floyd would have had the heart attack regardless of Chauvin's actions. If it's found that Chauvin's actions were a causal factor then that meets the requirements for the charges, regardless of intent.

With regards to interpreting use of force training and standards, the chief of police and officers responsible for actually training other officers in use of force have all testified that nothing Chauvin did was part of how he was trained and that his actions were, at the very least, use of excessive force. It's hard to argue there's any other interpretation to be had there.

 

[Xeno]

Second degree murder:

See more

Third degree murder:

See more

Manslaughter:

See more

You may have to go back or forward a few seconds to see everything. I tried to get timestamps as close as I could.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Not to get too political here, but Waters is completely out of her mind for saying what she said. If a conviction is thrown out on appeal, look her way...

Judge in Derek Chauvin trial says Rep. Maxine Waters' comments may be grounds for appeal

The judge overseeing former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

Not to get too political here, but Waters is completely out of her mind for saying what she said. If a conviction is thrown out on appeal, look her way...

Judge in Derek Chauvin trial says Rep. Maxine Waters' comments may be grounds for appeal

The judge overseeing former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict.

www.cnn.com

Agreed, although this isn't the first time she's said something like that. But, the timing and the place couldn't have been worse.

That said, I'm not convinced that would be enough to throw out the case on appeal. I definitely can see how that might happen though.

 

[Xeno]

Agreed, although this isn't the first time she's said something like that. But, the timing and the place couldn't have been worse.

That said, I'm not convinced that would be enough to throw out the case on appeal. I definitely can see how that might happen though.

Considering the jury had already been instructed they shouldn't be consuming news media of any kind it's not unreasonable to assume none of them have heard her remarks. So unless it comes out that one or more of them did in fact hear what she said then I don't think it really has any legs.

 

[superchuck500]

Not to get too political here, but Waters is completely out of her mind for saying what she said. If a conviction is thrown out on appeal, look her way...

Judge in Derek Chauvin trial says Rep. Maxine Waters' comments may be grounds for appeal

The judge overseeing former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict.

www.cnn.com

I think the judge is (justifiably) angry or disappointed about what she said and where/how she said it, but I don't think his comment about grounds for appeal is terribly important. Just about anything can be grounds for appeal, saying something is potentially grounds for appeal isn't the same as saying it's grounds for setting aside a verdict. If a jury is properly sequestered and charged, rhetoric from a politician (who has no local government role) isn't likely to be seen as influential on the jury in any reasonable way. And beyond that, it doesn't matter for the trial, so there's no need (for the court) to get into the content or intent of her statements.

 

[Xeno]

I think the judge is (justifiably) angry or disappointed about what she said and where/how she said it, but I don't think his comment about grounds for appeal is terribly important. Just about anything can be grounds for appeal, saying something is potentially grounds for appeal isn't the same as saying its grounds for setting aside a verdict. If a jury is properly sequestered and charged, rhetoric from a politician (who has no local government role) isn't likely to be seen as influential on the jury in any reasonable way. And beyond that, it doesn't matter for the trial, so there's no need (for the court) to get into the content or intent of her statements.

I'm much more curious about this supposed fictional show that made direct mention of the trial. Like.. COVID put a serious damper on anything getting filmed for the last year, so I'm finding that claim by the defense to be very suspect.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I'm much more curious about this supposed fictional show that made direct mention of the trial. Like.. COVID put a serious damper on anything getting filmed for the last year, so I'm finding that claim by the defense to be very suspect.

I wondered abut that as well.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the judge is (justifiably) angry or disappointed about what she said and where/how she said it, but I don't think his comment about grounds for appeal is terribly important. Just about anything can be grounds for appeal, saying something is potentially grounds for appeal isn't the same as saying it's grounds for setting aside a verdict. If a jury is properly sequestered and charged, rhetoric from a politician (who has no local government role) isn't likely to be seen as influential on the jury in any reasonable way. And beyond that, it doesn't matter for the trial, so there's no need (for the court) to get into the content or intent of her statements.

But the jury hasn't been sequestered until now for deliberations right? Were they not at home over the weekend?

 

[DaveXA]

Considering the jury had already been instructed they shouldn't be consuming news media of any kind it's not unreasonable to assume none of them have heard her remarks. So unless it comes out that one or more of them did in fact hear what she said then I don't think it really has any legs.

Yeah, I don't really think so either, but when you're at home for an entire weekend, unless you lock yourself away in the house, it's gonna be hard to avoid it entirely. Stuff happens. But hopefully nothing that affects the integrity of the trial.

In any case, it's just something else the defense can try to point to regarding whether the trial was truly fair. It was an idiotic comment by the Congresswoman. And she has to be aware what she was saying was going to get a lot of attention.

 

[superchuck500]

But the jury hasn't been sequestered until now for deliberations right? Were they not at home over the weekend?

Yes but they’re heavily instructed and reminded daily that they aren’t to talk about the trial with anyone or to take in any news or analysis of the case.

 

[Xeno]

Yeah, I don't really think so either, but when you're at home for an entire weekend, unless you lock yourself away in the house, it's gonna be hard to avoid it entirely. Stuff happens. But hopefully nothing that affects the integrity of the trial.

In any case, it's just something else the defense can try to point to regarding whether the trial was truly fair. It was an idiotic comment by the Congresswoman. And she has to be aware what she was saying was going to get a lot of attention.

I agree, particularly in regards to Maxine Waters' comments. But considering the state of technology and media in 2021 we're going to have to seriously rethink our idea of a fair trial.

Anything that rises to a certain level is going to garner national, and very likely international, attention and it just isn't reasonable to expect to find people who aren't exposed to a lot of pretrial news and commentary.

Even sequestration from day one can't give any more of an expectation that jurors won't be exposed to something, short of taking their phones and computers and locking them in a room with no television and never letting them leave unless it's to go to court. I don't find that particularly reasonable, and I would say the judge in this case saw it the same way.

As we become more and more connected it's going to be more and more difficult to find people who have no exposure to high profile cases. Sooner or later we're going to have to accept the idea that somebody can be exposed to a high profile case, and even hold an opinion about that case, but still be capable of being impartial when presented with evidence and witness/expert testimony. The alternative is our current system fails sooner rather than later.