Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

Would you let the protestors influence your decision if you were on the jury?

Protesters, probably not. Rioters, different story.

If I knew that the city I lived in was going to be smashed to bits if I gave a 'not guilty' verdict, then yes, it probably would have some influence on me. T'wud be hard for it not to have some sort of influence.

You don't think something like that would affect you?

Penn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Protesters, probably not. Rioters, different story.

If I knew that the city I lived in was going to be smashed to bits if I gave a 'not guilty' verdict, then yes, it probably would have some influence on me. T'wud be hard for it not to have some sort of influence.

You don't think something like that would affect you?

You'd send a man to prison even though you believed him to be innocent just because there may or may not be riots depending on the verdict?

Please don't ever do jury duty.

BattleCorp

Penn wrote: »

You'd send a man to prison even though you believed him to be innocent just because there may or may not be riots depending on the verdict?

Please don't ever do jury duty.

That's not what I said.

It doesn't have to be a conscious decision, it could effect you at a subconscious level. You wouldn't even realise that the events were influencing you.

briany

What we have, here, is a clear attempt to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the verdict, if that verdict is to convict Chauvin on any of the charges which he faces.

You can take the same line of reasoning to really underline the legitimacy of Chauvin being acquitted, if that's what happens, because the case of the defence must have been so airtight that the jurors had no choice but to acquit, even in the face of public unrest.

Maybe Chauvin will be convicted because he's guilty of a crime for which he's charged. That seems to be a notion too mad to handle for some on here.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a conscious decision, it could effect you at a subconscious level. You wouldn't even realise that the events were influencing you.

If it's a subconscious thing, that the jurors are unaware of, then its existence is unconfirmable, and its influence is unquantifiable. So, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I could just as easily say it had no bearing whatsoever.

osarusan

I think it's fair to say that public and BLM reaction is on their mind.


That said, in the one similarly high-profile case that comes immediately to my mind, the jury acquitted the officers who battered Rodney King even though they must have had similar impressions of what might happen.

MeMen2_MoRi_

osarusan wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that public and BLM reaction is on their mind.


That said, in the one similarly high-profile case that comes immediately to my mind, the jury acquitted the officers who battered Rodney King even though they must have had similar impressions of what might happen.

I've been think of that over the last few days, it seems that the prosecutions expert testimonies can make people pivot hard from previous opinions of the cause of death.

Dr Tobin (lungs)
Dr Rich (heart)
Seth Stoughtan (former officer now professor of criminology in the use of force, tactics)

The 3 key testimonies so far for me.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

There's only 1 manslaughter, FWIW.


If you think it's going to happen no matter what, then might as well just disregard. It has no bearing on the outcome, or the criminality of Chauvin's actions.




I'd ask you the same question. What are these outside influences that are rigging the trial?
The other poster couldn't come up with an answer. Feel this may be i nthe too hard pile.



Did anyone claim he held a gun to anyones head?
There bee na few other cases and videos mention in thread.



That would still mean that Chauvin is criminally responsible and should be found guilty on some of the charges.

Actually someone did post here that chauvan held a gun to floyd's head...

and yes unless you are a fool altogether not to believe some of these people sitting on that jury will be influenced by what is happening outside that courtroom ..ie black lives matter involvement /riots/looting/businesses in their home town destroyed/fear..someone finding out who they are/etc

I do believe even the prosecution in this case didn't want any of the witnesses to be seen (not just minors) to protect them ..but the judge rules against it..

Again you have countless experts giving their accounts for the prosecution (far too many imo) with differing stories.....I presume the defense will bring up their experts to do just the same thing... who does the jury believe??? the irish doctor who was allowed to give a lecture for a considerable time very eloquently/the forensic patholigist who disagreed that floyd had an enlarged heart...thought the prone position was dangerous or??????.fact is the only person anyone should pay heed to was the County medical officer Dr.Baker who the prosecution didn't even want to originally entertain because his autopsy report didn't suit...hence all the further experts brought in...

It's a mess of a trial one expert pitting their wares against another....the defense has done a good job....
I believe unless you are in a situation like those officers you don't know how you will act...you do what you think is right at the time......

Fyi ....Dr.Andrew Baker was re-elected as Hennepin County Medical officer in aprox june 2020 ...with a 5 for re-election against two members who brought the autopsy of floyd into their consideration/what Baker had said...

BattleCorp

briany wrote: »

What we have, here, is a clear attempt to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the verdict, if that verdict is to convict Chauvin on any of the charges which he faces.

If that's aimed at me, I'll accept whatever verdict is handed down.

You can take the same line of reasoning to really underline the legitimacy of Chauvin being acquitted, if that's what happens, because the case of the defence must have been so airtight that the jurors had no choice but to acquit, even in the face of public unrest.

Hopefully so.

Maybe Chauvin will be convicted because he's guilty of a crime for which he's charged. That seems to be a notion too mad to handle for some on here.

Again, I'd have no problem with that.

If it's a subconscious thing, that the jurors are unaware of, then its existence is unconfirmable, and its influence is unquantifiable. So, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I could just as easily say it had no bearing whatsoever.

If subconscious 'things' don't influence our decisions, why is there billions spent on advertising every year?

Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Our know and unknown biases, decisions and thoughts are continually influenced by external factors.

Second opinions from experts are common for pretty much anything so not seeing any reasons why it shouldn't be in this case. Do you object to it in all legal cases or just in this case?

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Protesters, probably not. Rioters, different story.

If I knew that the city I lived in was going to be smashed to bits if I gave a 'not guilty' verdict, then yes, it probably would have some influence on me. T'wud be hard for it not to have some sort of influence.

You don't think something like that would affect you?

Obviously I wouldn’t want to see damage or harm come to my city or it’s occupants. And there is always going to be an awareness of the risk of public backlash in a high profile case.
However, this is a murder trial. There is also an awareness that somebody’s life is on the line. Both figuratively and literally. The weight if that is not something I could dismiss lightly.
So no, I can honestly say that I don’t believe it would affect me.

Neither of those aspects are relevant to the trial. So they have to be actively put out of your mind. Just like any personal opinions or bias.
If a juror was to raise them during deliberation, they should probably be reported to the court.

penny piper

Does anyone find it odd that Floyd was continuously saying he couldn't breathe/was claustrophobic from when the police officer's approached him in the car...and along with when he was on the ground......called for mama (i presume that was his gf courtney ross) but never once said ......"get off my neck you are hurting me" or "get off my shoulder you are hurting me"....usually when people are hurting/ have hurt someone in a particular place ...people will generally say where they are feeling the hurt...it's just a comment that's all

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

So no, I can honestly say that I don’t believe it would affect me.

I'm not being smart here but you can't say that for sure. Everyone's subconscious mind is open to influence from outside influences. I doubt that you are different to everyone else.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

Second opinions from experts are common for pretty much anything so not seeing any reasons why it shouldn't be in this case. Do you object to it in all legal cases or just in this case?

I didn't say second opinions were not common...the amount of second opinions can ultimately confuse people that's just my opinion..

MeMen2_MoRi_

George Floyd... "My stomach hurts, my neck hurts, I can't breathe"

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

I didn't say second opinions were not common...the amount of second opinions can ultimately confuse people that's just my opinion..

You've said one medical opinion should be the be all and end all effectively... And I'd suspect you've never objected to it prior to this case. Same way you've objected to the fact it's a high profile case.

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

If subconscious 'things' don't influence our decisions, why is there billions spent on advertising every year?

Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Our know and unknown biases, decisions and thoughts are continually influenced by external factors.

Sounds like a part of the human condition to me. Until you can staff a jury with unfeeling AI, then this is where we are.

osarusan

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I've been think of that over the last few days, it seems that the prosecutions expert testimonies can make people pivot hard from previous opinions of the cause of death.

Dr Tobin (lungs)
Dr Rich (heart)
Seth Stoughtan (former officer now professor of criminology in the use of force, tactics)

The 3 key testimonies so far for me.

I've actually wondered about the tactic of questioning the cause of death in the Hennepin County autopsy, as they are effectively opening the door for the defence to do the same thing.


I wonder if they should not just have left it alone, rather than introducing the notion that it can be questioned.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

You've said one medical opinion should be the be all and end all effectively... And I'd suspect you've never objected to it prior to this case. Same way you've objected to the fact it's a high profile case.

The reason why the prosecution brought in ( I believe at one stage they wanted !6 medical experts) all these experts was to clearly undermine the autopsy result that dr.andrew baker performed.....and I personally think having too many witnesses especially medical experts will ultimately confuse the jury.

I honestly don't care what you "suspect".

I didn't "object" to the fact "it's a high profile case"....I asked why should it be one?

Can you answer me one question????? Do you believe Chauvan is a racist???

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not being smart here but you can't say that for sure. Everyone's subconscious mind is open to influence from outside influences. I doubt that you are different to everyone else.

Obviously I can’t say she sure. I’m not in that situation. None of us are.
So how is it that people were able to say the jury are affected? Surely “you can’t say for sure” goes both ways. Seems unfairly biased.

While, we’re on the topic. It’s also possible that people could overcompensate in the other direction, out Of fear they are being swayed. Again, we can’t know for sure.

However, I am confident that some people would not be affected either way. I wouldn’t rather the jury is made of people with that belief, than with those who know they would be influenced. Those people should be excluded without question.

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

The reason why the prosecution brought in ( I believe at one stage they wanted !6 medical experts) all these experts was to clearly undermine the autopsy result that dr.andrew baker performed.....and I personally think having too many witnesses especially medical experts will ultimately confuse the jury.

It’s entirely normal to have expert testimony.
Submitting just the report without an expert, would be uncommon and extremely incompetent.

Look how many people here misinterpreted simple aspects of the report.

I didn't "object" to the fact "it's a high profile case"....I asked why should it be one?

I don’t think there’s an answer to why it should be one.
The fact is, it is one.

MeMen2_MoRi_

osarusan wrote: »

I've actually wondered about the tactic of questioning the cause of death in the Hennepin County autopsy, as they are effectively opening the door for the defence to do the same thing.


I wonder if they should not just have left it alone, rather than introducing the notion that it can be questioned.

It was always going to be open to defence and prosecution to argue the cause of death because of the other factors involved.

"At the end of their press release, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner adds the following important reminder: "Under Minnesota state law, the Medical Examiner is a neutral and independent office and is separate and distinct from any prosecutorial authority or law enforcement agency." Regardless of whether experts agree with their interpretation of the evidence, they were the first to collect it, and because they did their job, that evidence is now available for public scrutiny in a court of law."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913

The defence on occasions has sought too hypothetically put forward that if we were to remove chauvin a d the other officer's from the equation in the medical experts opinion would the cause of death be from the heart condition..

Hypothetically speaking of course, but the facts of the case are that 3 cops used force on George that went beyond what was needed and resulted in a death by lack of oxygen.

Fandymo

briany wrote: »

What we have, here, is a clear attempt to sow doubt about the legitimacy of the verdict, if that verdict is to convict Chauvin on any of the charges which he faces.

You can take the same line of reasoning to really underline the legitimacy of Chauvin being acquitted, if that's what happens, because the case of the defence must have been so airtight that the jurors had no choice but to acquit, even in the face of public unrest.

Maybe Chauvin will be convicted because he's guilty of a crime for which he's charged. That seems to be a notion too mad to handle for some on here.



If it's a subconscious thing, that the jurors are unaware of, then its existence is unconfirmable, and its influence is unquantifiable. So, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I could just as easily say it had no bearing whatsoever.

The defence doesn't have to make their case airtight. They just have to plant a reasonable doubt into the jurors mind and they cannot convict.

Mellor

Fandymo wrote: »

The defence doesn't have to make their case airtight. They just have to plant a reasonable doubt into the jurors mind and they cannot convict.

In order to not convict on all charges. There may need to be multiple elements of doubt. They may doubt aspects critical one one charge but not another.

It’ll be interesting if the defence try to undermine charges individually or collectively.

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

The reason why the prosecution brought in ( I believe at one stage they wanted !6 medical experts) all these experts was to clearly undermine the autopsy result that dr.andrew baker performed.....and I personally think having too many witnesses especially medical experts will ultimately confuse the jury.

I honestly don't care what you "suspect".

I didn't "object" to the fact "it's a high profile case"....I asked why should it be one?

Can you answer me one question????? Do you believe Chauvan is a racist???

I have absolutely no idea if Chauvin is racist. I do think he crossed the line of what is safe and was negligent. I also do think the US police find it more acceptable to cross a line with black americans that they wouldn't with others and this happens to a disproportionate degree.

Medical experts countering one expert is standard. So basically you're getting annoyed by standard procedures being followed by the prosecution. The defence can object to lines of questioning if they so wish.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

It’s entirely normal to have expert testimony.
Submitting just the report without an expert, would be uncommon and extremely incompetent.

Look how many people here misinterpreted simple aspects of the report.


I don’t think there’s an answer to why it should be one.
The fact is, it is one.

I never said it wasn't normal to bring in expert testimony... I consider the amount which was previously suggested by the prosecution of16 experts to be excessive. It was previously noted that it was the prosecutions aim to undermine the medical examiner's finding...they didn't want the drug aspect used.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea if Chauvin is racist. I do think he crossed the line of what is safe and was negligent. I also do think the US police find it more acceptable to cross a line with black americans that they wouldn't with others and this happens to a disproportionate degree.

Medical experts countering one expert is standard. So basically you're getting annoyed by standard procedures being followed by the prosecution. The defence can object to lines of questioning if they so wish.

So would you consider chauvan had crossed the line with floyd if floyd hadn't have died or was Chauvan merely doing his job along with his other officers?

I have said before the amount of experts can also be confusing if it goes excessive.(not that there shouldn't be experts)..and the medical examiner was the one who examined floyd's body and gave the autopsy results...you did have at one point a forensic pathologist dr.thomas differing with baker on certain aspects...

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

So would you consider chauvan had crossed the line with floyd if floyd hadn't have died or was Chauvan merely doing his job along with his other officers?

I have said before the amount of experts can also be confusing if it goes excessive.(not that there shouldn't be experts)..and the medical examiner was the one who examined floyd's body and gave the autopsy results...you did have at one point a forensic pathologist dr.thomas differing with baker on certain aspects...

Yes, I would be inclined to say he crossed the line regardless of death. I imagine plenty do, in this case the worst case scenario occurred.

And the defence have every right to object to witnesses... Your grievance simply isn't very credible...

bazermc

Bizarre first witness for the defence.

cheezums

interesting take on the lawyer roster here. army of attorney generals office lawyers, and various high profile civil rights lawyers for the prosecution against the lone figure of the union appointed nelson.

this difference would work in the defense's favour. consistent messaging and tone, jurors familiarity with nelson over time etc.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/nation-world/2021/04/04/meet-the-many-prosecutors-in-the-derek-chauvin-case/

penny piper

bazermc wrote: »

Bizarre first witness for the defence.

Yes, I agree and the second lady was much the same.
Prosecution very fierce in her questioning to them as well.