(April 9, 2021 at 6:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 9, 2021 at 6:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But what you DID say is that Nelson is a ‘fucking idiot’ for not advising Chauvin to plead to a lesser charge, when you have no way of knowing whether he did or not. You may want to be more careful throwing that term around.

Boru

No, I didn't say that. I said I'd advise him to plea out, and I also agreed that that may have happened.


What I am objecting to specifically is the amount of questioning he is doing on cross, and some of the questions blew up in his face. He is an idiot for what I have seen so far. Maybe he'll do better with his own witnesses. But if I were a juror, so far, he isn't helping.

Yeah, you did say that:

Quote:I swear, Chauvin's defense lawyer is a fucking idiot. I'd have advised Chauvin to plea out to the lowest charge. 

Boru

If I were  the prosecutor in the closing argument, I might put it something like the following.

"Lets take a hypothetical argument. Lets say a bank robber goes into a bank, has never met the 65 year old overweight teller who is an alcoholic with a heart condition. Lets say he doesn't have a gun, but hands the teller a note that reads "I have a gun, fill a bag with money". That threat is going to raise anyone's adreniline and could cause a heart attack based on the mitigating health issues. Did the bank robber shoot the teller? No, but the interaction greatly contributed to the teller's death."

I think the M.E.'s assesment of homicide is correct. I don't see how one can get arround that and all the videos and witnesses. The medical witnesses are in agreement that the state of his health and drug use was not the majority factor, but in that the interaction with police was a major factor. 

Bottom line the officers were on him for over 9 minutes, with Chauvin's knee on his neck, and for at least 3 minutes of which George was motionless, no pulse. And he didn't get any real aid until he was in the back of the ambulance. 

We'll have to wait for the defense witnesses, but I really don't see how the defense gets past what has been presented so far.

Chauvin wanted to plea to the lesser charge of third degree murder. When the DOJ declined, Chauvin's lawyers were successful in getting the lesser charge taken off the table, giving Chauvin better odds of an acquittal. The defense strategy made sense in that light. The third degree murder charge was reinstated at the last hour.

(April 9, 2021 at 6:53 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Chauvin wanted to plea to the lesser charge of third degree murder.  When the DOJ declined, Chauvin's lawyers were successful in getting the lesser charge taken off the table, giving Chauvin better odds of an acquittal.  The defense strategy made sense in that light.  The third degree murder charge was reinstated at the last hour.

Thats news to me. Got a link? 

If so, why did the DOJ decline the plea? I'd guess maybe because of Floyd's family's wishes? I can only guess, but a plea would have put George's death out of the news cycle, and putting him on trial would be something in the news cycle for a long time so that police actions could be put in the spotlight? This case really does represent the enquality of minorities and interaction with police and the courts. I think it is good that the world can watch this trial.

---

(April 9, 2021 at 6:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 9, 2021 at 6:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, I didn't say that. I said I'd advise him to plea out, and I also agreed that that may have happened.


What I am objecting to specifically is the amount of questioning he is doing on cross, and some of the questions blew up in his face. He is an idiot for what I have seen so far. Maybe he'll do better with his own witnesses. But if I were a juror, so far, he isn't helping.

Yeah, you did say that:

Quote:I swear, Chauvin's defense lawyer is a fucking idiot. I'd have advised Chauvin to plea out to the lowest charge. 

Boru

YES, I did say that, but you left out the part in a later post where I had thought about it and agreed he may have.

---

(April 9, 2021 at 4:25 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 9, 2021 at 4:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Wait - how you know he DIDN’T advise Chauvin to plead to a lesser charge?

Boru

I guess I didn't clarify that well. I'd bet he did advise him to plea out, but Chauvin insisted to plea not guilty. That is why we are having to go through this trial.

I agree though, from everything I have seen from his defense lawyer he has to be hating to have to do this. And he isn't that good at all.

Did you forget this post?

(April 9, 2021 at 7:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If so, why did the DOJ decline the plea? 

Cynically?  To feed one to the plebs and stick it to the libs at the same time. They were still leaving him room to breath, hilariously.

So, here's an excerpt from an article in the New York Times about why the plea bargain failed:

Quote:But at the last minute, according to new details laid out by three law enforcement officials, the deal fell apart after William P. Barr, the attorney general at the time, rejected the arrangement. The deal was contingent on the federal government’s approval because Mr. Chauvin, who had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, wanted assurance he would not face federal civil rights charges.

An official said Mr. Barr worried that a plea deal, so early in the process and before a full investigation had concluded, would be perceived as too lenient by the growing number of protesters across America. At the same time, Mr. Barr wanted to allow state officials, who were about to take over the case from the county prosecutor who has had tense relations with Minneapolis’s Black community, to make their own decisions about how to proceed.

(April 9, 2021 at 9:48 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: So, here's an excerpt from an article in the New York Times about why the plea bargain failed:

Quote:But at the last minute, according to new details laid out by three law enforcement officials, the deal fell apart after William P. Barr, the attorney general at the time, rejected the arrangement. The deal was contingent on the federal government’s approval because Mr. Chauvin, who had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, wanted assurance he would not face federal civil rights charges.

An official said Mr. Barr worried that a plea deal, so early in the process and before a full investigation had concluded, would be perceived as too lenient by the growing number of protesters across America. At the same time, Mr. Barr wanted to allow state officials, who were about to take over the case from the county prosecutor who has had tense relations with Minneapolis’s Black community, to make their own decisions about how to proceed.

Thanks for the link.

I'm a day behind and need to get caught up. About to start watching Friday's happenings.

Very interesting what Mark Geragos is saying about the trial. He seems to be leaning towards reasonable doubt and perhaps an acquittal, and right now, the work Mark is doing is all about punishing police for misconduct.

Does anyone else have a problem with the prosecution not wanting Floyd's dealer, Morries Hall, to testify? He's one of the most important witnesses, but they won't give him immunity and therefore he's refusing to testify. Not a good look for the prosecution pulling this crap. If I'm a juror, I definitely take into account that the prosecution prevented him from testifying.

It's looking like Floyd did not die of a drug overdose. The drugs still played a part in it though, at least according to Dr. Baker, along with his heart disease. How much of an impact did the drugs, heart disease, adrenaline, stress, etc have on his death? We can't really know. The autopsy itself didn't really find anything. No damage to the back or neck, but apparently that damage shouldn't necessarily be expected, but neutral findings like that still may hurt the prosecution. The autopsy isn't what's important, they say. It's the combination of the autopsy and the video. I understand that, but their demonstration of what would happen to the average 46 year old of Floyd's height and weight was theoretical in a way (Mark Geragos called it junk science), and there is still perhaps room for reasonable doubt to come in since the drugs he was on can cause serious breathing issues.

I'm still on the fence and waiting to see how the rest of the trial plays out. It's good to see that one of the biggest lawyers and legal experts who has defended all the biggest bad guys in Mark Geragos, has a similar take on this case as I do. At times I have felt a bit crazy being one of the few people who saw this case as not so clear cut, and I've gone back and forth in my mind wondering if I was doing the right thing, but now at least I know that if I was wrong, one of the top legal experts in the US was wrong with me, and that's not such bad company to be in.

A top legal expert, in this backwards country, will defend any obviously guilty person.