Chauvin Murder Trial

[Brian37]

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.

Then you should retract calling the lawyer ‘a fucking idiot’.

Boru

He is a fucking idiot. Holy shit, I get that it one's job to cross examine. But everytime he does the witnesses contradict him. I'd limit that risk, and simply wait to put my own defense witnesses on. He's had his ass handed to him over and over.

---

So after almost two hours of cross by the defense, the prosicuter asked one question of Dr Baker(M.E), basically if he stood by his conclusion that the mannor of death was homicide.  Answer, "Yes".NOTHING FURTHER.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Then you should retract calling the lawyer ‘a fucking idiot’.

Boru

He is a fucking idiot. Holy shit, I get that it one's job to cross examine. But everytime he does the witnesses contradict him. I'd limit that risk, and simply wait to put my own defense witnesses on. He's had his ass handed to him over and over.

---

So after almost two hours of cross by the defense, the prosicuter asked one question of Dr Baker(M.E), basically if he stood by his conclusion that the mannor of death was homicide.  Answer, "Yes".NOTHING FURTHER.

He isn’t, not really. He’s a very good lawyer in a very bad position. If defense doesn’t cross examine at all, it tends to prejudice the jury against the defendant and - almost as importantly - tends to piss off the judge. In fact, most trial lawyers who get admonished or fined do so for not acting in the best interest of their client. Consistently declining to cross examine falls into that category.

You’d make a lousy lawyer.

Boru

[Brian37]

He is a fucking idiot. Holy shit, I get that it one's job to cross examine. But everytime he does the witnesses contradict him. I'd limit that risk, and simply wait to put my own defense witnesses on. He's had his ass handed to him over and over.

---

So after almost two hours of cross by the defense, the prosicuter asked one question of Dr Baker(M.E), basically if he stood by his conclusion that the mannor of death was homicide.  Answer, "Yes".NOTHING FURTHER.

He isn’t, not really. He’s a very good lawyer in a very bad position. If defense doesn’t cross examine at all, it tends to prejudice the jury against the defendant and - almost as importantly - tends to piss off the judge. In fact, most trial lawyers who get admonished or fined do so for not acting in the best interest of their client. Consistently declining to cross examine falls into that category.

You’d make a lousy lawyer.

Boru

I get that, but this guy is overdoing it. I've seen plenty of points in his cross where I thought he should have dropped it.

---

You don't want to hear answers of the likes of, "That's not the word I would use", or "That's not exactly what I mean", or "Your question is vauge". I heard far too much of that.

[Rev. Rye]

It seems like he’s fighting like a cornered beast. He’s in a very awkward position: the evidence against his client is damning, said client refuses to plead guilty for it, and the lawyer can’t plead guilty for his client when he protests his innocence. And since half-assing the case is going to be in nobody’s best interest (for one thing, it’ll help raise questions even among the less tinfoil-batty pro-Chauvin crowd about whether or not the conviction was fair), making it look like he’s doing everything he can, even if it’s clearly belaboring the point, is really the best option.

[Brian37]

It seems like he’s fighting like a cornered beast. He’s in a very awkward position: the evidence against his client is damning, said client refuses to plead guilty for it, and the lawyer can’t plead guilty for his client when he protests his innocence. And since half-assing the case is going to be in nobody’s best interest (for one thing, it’ll help raise questions even among the less tinfoil-batty pro-Chauvin crowd about whether or not the conviction was fair), making it look like he’s doing everything he can, even if it’s clearly belaboring the point, is really the best option.

The lawyer can't plea anything the client doesn't want to plea, they can only advise. Sometimes a lawyer will step off a case if they think the client is asking him to do something unethical, or has a conflict of interest. But of course the lawyer can't plea for the client. I never claimed they could. Chauvin chose to plea not guilty, so that is why the lawyer is in the position he is in now. I simply think he's stepping on too many land mines.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems like he’s fighting like a cornered beast. He’s in a very awkward position: the evidence against his client is damning, said client refuses to plead guilty for it, and the lawyer can’t plead guilty for his client when he protests his innocence. 

Just think, they tried to plead out lower and Billy Barrs DOJ said fuck you.  They could have had this piece of shit for murder in the first, imo.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It seems like he’s fighting like a cornered beast. He’s in a very awkward position: the evidence against his client is damning, said client refuses to plead guilty for it, and the lawyer can’t plead guilty for his client when he protests his innocence. And since half-assing the case is going to be in nobody’s best interest (for one thing, it’ll help raise questions even among the less tinfoil-batty pro-Chauvin crowd about whether or not the conviction was fair), making it look like he’s doing everything he can, even if it’s clearly belaboring the point, is really the best option.

The lawyer can't plea anything the client doesn't want to plea, they can only advise. Sometimes a lawyer will step off a case if they think the client is asking him to do something unethical, or has a conflict of interest. But of course the lawyer can't plea for the client. I never claimed they could. Chauvin chose to plea not guilty, so that is why the lawyer is in the position he is in now. I simply think he's stepping on too many land mines.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

On a personal level, it's pretty straightforward. Chauvin wants to come out of the other end of this with his life. Not just his freedom or his reputation. He wants things to go back to the way they were the day before he decided to murder someone. He certainly was advised and did think it would be worthwhile to bargain down to a crime that qualified immunity would zero out.

Anything more than that, well, the only way out is through.

[Brian37]

The lawyer can't plea anything the client doesn't want to plea, they can only advise. Sometimes a lawyer will step off a case if they think the client is asking him to do something unethical, or has a conflict of interest. But of course the lawyer can't plea for the client. I never claimed they could. Chauvin chose to plea not guilty, so that is why the lawyer is in the position he is in now. I simply think he's stepping on too many land mines.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's called fishing Brian. Nothing can blow up worse than your client being very obviously guilty of the charge. If the questions blow up in your face, no change. If, otoh, You've got somebody like IA in the jury...well.......the thread stands as evidence of effect.