Totally agree! It was sloppy and then they claimed it was "newly discovered." I think that is what annoyed the judge the most. It wasn't new--they just hadn't gotten it or turned it over.
The DA had it, he clearly either forgot or didn't recognize it would be brought up. We all know the CO levels are always clearly marked in the autopsy report. Silly move.
Exactly. Precisely why the judge got testy. I do class action defense at an AMLAW 50 firm and I know CO results exist
I do think the DA didn’t have it but to be shocked it existed is a stretch. Thank goodness they kept the line and didn’t walk into a mistrial
Post by basilosaurus on Apr 19, 2021 6:15:39 GMT -5
Aliciabella my fil spent decades as a public defender. I've heard every story there is to tell. He's defended for real criminals but believed in their right to a defense. And I love the guy for it. But when he gets angry about the cops and justice system in going to listen to him. He's really fucking pissed off this and thinks it makes his profession look bad. These are underpaid people who help the helpless. They're being maligned right now. I'm not saying you're doing this at all. But I will always defend defense lawyers especial those under paid by city and state.
He appears to have left South Africa in the 1980s at the height of it. As someone whose family also left SA in the same timeframe, I would take an educated guess that he was an objector and didn’t want to work for the SA police system at a time when all kinds of human rights violations were taking place.
In fact seeing the consequences of extreme white supremacy and a fascist police state up close can make people more committed to justice. Certainly he may be a racist but in general the folks who moved over in the 1970s and 80s took a good hard examination of what was really going on in SA beyond the propaganda they were being fed, decided they were unhappy living under that system and [tried to]immigrate to a less racist country. Not sure America was the best choice....
If anyone is listening/listened to closing arguments- care to Comment for those who couldn't or can't?
I started late, but Steve Schleicher went through the evidence and the elements. Washington Post has summed it up as asking the jury to believe what it has seen, which is a description. Apparently Blackwell will be doing rebuttal after the defense. I suspect that will be more emotional.
The in-court portion of the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged with the murder of George Floyd while kneeling on his neck in May, wraps up Monday. Prosecutor Steve Schleicher, delivering the closing argument for the state, told the jury to “Believe your eyes. What you saw happened, happened. It happened. The defendant pressed down on George Floyd so his lungs did not have the room to breathe.”
Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson is expected to give his closing arguments later in the day, to be followed by the prosecution’s rebuttal by Jerry Blackwell. Jury deliberations would begin afterward.
My office is downtown and they are closing early today, there's a demonstration at 5pm. The next week i think a lot of us will be holding our breath to see what happens- with the verdict, our community, and the fucking cops.
My office is downtown and they are closing early today, there's a demonstration at 5pm. The next week i think a lot of us will be holding our breath to see what happens- with the verdict, our community, and the fucking cops.
Heads up- I think the high school walk out has plans to head to US Bank Stadium. Walk out starts at 1-1:47. Not sure of timing for gather at usb though.
He appears to have left South Africa in the 1980s at the height of it. As someone whose family also left SA in the same timeframe, I would take an educated guess that he was an objector and didn’t want to work for the SA police system at a time when all kinds of human rights violations were taking place.
In fact seeing the consequences of extreme white supremacy and a fascist police state up close can make people more committed to justice. Certainly he may be a racist but in general the folks who moved over in the 1970s and 80s took a good hard examination of what was really going on in SA beyond the propaganda they were being fed, decided they were unhappy living under that system and [tried to]immigrate to a less racist country. Not sure America was the best choice....
His Linkedin said he left in 91 if that matters but thank you for sharing perspective.
I was just looking over the testimonies up until now / Googling who he was, and that’s what I found.
Post by thedutchgirl on Apr 19, 2021 14:44:04 GMT -5
Nelson had been going for more than two hours till the Judge finally actually stopped him to let the jurors have 30 minute for lunch at 2:10 or so. Completely ridiculous.
He appears to have left South Africa in the 1980s at the height of it. As someone whose family also left SA in the same timeframe, I would take an educated guess that he was an objector and didn’t want to work for the SA police system at a time when all kinds of human rights violations were taking place.
In fact seeing the consequences of extreme white supremacy and a fascist police state up close can make people more committed to justice. Certainly he may be a racist but in general the folks who moved over in the 1970s and 80s took a good hard examination of what was really going on in SA beyond the propaganda they were being fed, decided they were unhappy living under that system and [tried to]immigrate to a less racist country. Not sure America was the best choice....
His Linkedin said he left in 91 if that matters but thank you for sharing perspective.
I was just looking over the testimonies up until now / Googling who he was, and that’s what I found.
Purely anecdotal as just my impression, but Nelson's tone is really off-putting so far.
As is this filibuster of a closing argument.
Completely. One of the jurors is diabetic! And he is totally rude in going on for FOREVER. If you thought you were going to go for 2.5 hours and counting, warn the Court so they could have taken early lunch and then do some breaks in your lame argument. Just outrageous.
Post by thedutchgirl on Apr 19, 2021 17:09:35 GMT -5
I'm so disheartened by Judge Cahill's comments that Maxine Waters' statements over the weekend here in MN may have created a basis for appeal that could overturn a verdict, if Chauvin is convicted.
I'm so disheartened by Judge Cahill's comments that Maxine Waters' statements over the weekend here in MN may have created a basis for appeal that could overturn a verdict, if Chauvin is convicted.
I'm so disheartened by Judge Cahill's comments that Maxine Waters' statements over the weekend here in MN may have created a basis for appeal that could overturn a verdict, if Chauvin is convicted.
but this? LOL “GOP lawmakers calling for Waters' expulsion from Congress.” They are just such awful, wretched, soulless fucking people.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would this give them grounds? The jury shouldn't be hearing or viewing anything about the case, correct? So if someone made remarks like this, it shouldn't affect the verdict.
but this? LOL “GOP lawmakers calling for Waters' expulsion from Congress.” They are just such awful, wretched, soulless fucking people.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would this give them grounds? The jury shouldn't be hearing or viewing anything about the case, correct? So if someone made remarks like this, it shouldn't affect the verdict.
This jury wasn't sequestered until today, when deliberations began. They were told to not watch the news, but there's no real policing that until they are sequestered. The idea is that it could have pressured them into convicting if they'd heard it, and there's no way to really guarantee they didn't.
Plus apparently Grey's Anatomy and Station 19 on Thursday night were both loosely based on George Floyd. And the jurors had no restrictions on that viewing.
but this? LOL “GOP lawmakers calling for Waters' expulsion from Congress.” They are just such awful, wretched, soulless fucking people.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would this give them grounds? The jury shouldn't be hearing or viewing anything about the case, correct? So if someone made remarks like this, it shouldn't affect the verdict.
All it will take is one person saying they heard XYZ from someone because they were home every day. Her comment easily could be construed a threat or pressure.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would this give them grounds? The jury shouldn't be hearing or viewing anything about the case, correct? So if someone made remarks like this, it shouldn't affect the verdict.
This jury wasn't sequestered until today, when deliberations began. They were told to not watch the news, but there's no real policing that until they are sequestered. The idea is that it could have pressured them into convicting if they'd heard it, and there's no way to really guarantee they didn't.
Plus apparently Grey's Anatomy and Station 19 on Thursday night were both loosely based on George Floyd. And the jurors had no restrictions on that viewing.
They mentioned George Floyd on law and order svu on Thursday as well.
Post by lemoncupcake on Apr 19, 2021 18:31:20 GMT -5
How is it determined if a jury is sequestered through a whole trial? In this case did neither side advocate for it?
Obviously it's a significant burden to the jurors and their families if they are away through a lengthy trial and unable to be home. But in modern times it seems impossible to avoid the news.
How is it determined if a jury is sequestered through a whole trial? In this case did neither side advocate for it?
Obviously it's a significant burden to the jurors and their families if they are away through a lengthy trial and unable to be home. But in modern times it seems impossible to avoid the news.
In MN the judge decides. Prior to the trial he denied motions to change venue and sequester throughout. He again denied after Daunte White was killed. It is a real hardship--no phones, no computers, no access to the outside world really. They try very hard not to sequester until deliberations for that reason.
How is it determined if a jury is sequestered through a whole trial? In this case did neither side advocate for it?
Obviously it's a significant burden to the jurors and their families if they are away through a lengthy trial and unable to be home. But in modern times it seems impossible to avoid the news.
The defense moved for it last week and the judge denied it. A mistake, IMO.
Why does it matter? I get that she's a public official, but lots of public officials have made off the cuff statements about this case. I feel like Biden did as well. "Let's get confrontational" doesn't seem like a big deal - that's not inciting anything, IMO.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Why does it matter? I get that she's a public official, but lots of public officials have made off the cuff statements about this case. I feel like Biden did as well. "Let's get confrontational" doesn't seem like a big deal - that's not inciting anything, IMO.
I'm not sure it does in the end. If Chauvin is convicted, no doubt he'll appeal. The burden to overturn a conviction is pretty high.
Why does it matter? I get that she's a public official, but lots of public officials have made off the cuff statements about this case. I feel like Biden did as well. "Let's get confrontational" doesn't seem like a big deal - that's not inciting anything, IMO.
I'm not sure it does in the end. If Chauvin is convicted, no doubt he'll appeal. The burden to overturn a conviction is pretty high.
That's what I was thinking and wondering if I missed something. Of course he'll appeal but it wouldn't be because of this.
"Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would this give them grounds? The jury shouldn't be hearing or viewing anything about the case, correct? So if someone made remarks like this, it shouldn't affect the verdict.
This jury wasn't sequestered until today, when deliberations began. They were told to not watch the news, but there's no real policing that until they are sequestered. The idea is that it could have pressured them into convicting if they'd heard it, and there's no way to really guarantee they didn't.
Plus apparently Grey's Anatomy and Station 19 on Thursday night were both loosely based on George Floyd. And the jurors had no restrictions on that viewing.
That makes sense. I just wasn't getting why the judge seemed to imply it for sure would be grounds to appeal.
Why does it matter? I get that she's a public official, but lots of public officials have made off the cuff statements about this case. I feel like Biden did as well. "Let's get confrontational" doesn't seem like a big deal - that's not inciting anything, IMO.
I think it matters *outside* the trial for a lot of reasons. The least of them is that I would be salty af if a GOP fucker popped off on the eve of deliberations.