Guilty or Not Guilty? The George Floyd trial...

[Jon]

That increases his chances of walking free rather than being found guilty of using excessive force.

What if Chauvin had police training to restrain a suspect until emergency services arrived? What if he had training to put the knee on the back or neck when dealing with a combative larger suspect? Who gets the blame then, Chauvin for following his training, or the police training program?

 

[Jon]

The drugs were enough. The coronary artery disease is icing on the cake.

The drugs suppress breathing and oxygen to the brain. And so does a 90% occluded artery. And so does a violent struggle with the police. Each increases the probability of death by lack of oxygen. Perhaps that is what you mean, and if so, we are in agreement.

 

[moke123]

Saddest part of the whole case is passing a bad bill is a misdemeanor which doesn't require an arrest.
Do you check every bill you get?

 

[Jon]

The whole case is tragic. Floyd genuinely looked scared when in the back of the squad car. He was behaving very erratically, and looked panicky. The whole thing is a mess.

Why did they arrest Floyd if it doesn't require an arrest? I don't know the law on this over there or over here in the UK. I've given coins for payment for things in the past and they were fakes, but I had no idea. Just a pocketful of change and then the shopkeeper says one of them is not a valid coin. Perhaps the amount of the money increases the probability of being arrested. Paying a $10,000 bill with fake money gets more jail time than $0.01 fake coin.

 

[Isaac]

I guess maybe if you pay for something with fake money, it could be argued you haven't actually paid for it and thus shoplifted.

Sadly drugs ruin lives, too. That cannot possibly be overstated. When is the defense going to start?

 

[Jon]

I think they start this week. I thought it was today, but it looks like the prosecution has yet more witnesses. They have so many lawyers on their team, it seems a bit one-sided!

 

[moke123]

The whole case is tragic. Floyd genuinely looked scared when in the back of the squad car. He was behaving very erratically, and looked panicky. The whole thing is a mess.

Why did they arrest Floyd if it doesn't require an arrest? I don't know the law on this over there or over here in the UK. I've given coins for payment for things in the past and they were fakes, but I had no idea. Just a pocketful of change and then the shopkeeper says one of them is not a valid coin. Perhaps the amount of the money increases the probability of being arrested. Paying a $10,000 bill with fake money gets more jail time than $0.01 fake coin.

Depends, federal and state law differ. Generally it falls on intent. Paying with a $20 for a pack of cigarettes as opposed to Paying for a computer at walmart with a stack of bad $20's.

 

[Isaac]

One more thing I'll be curious about is whether or not there is any truth to this "he was trained to do that" argument. I have no idea one way or the other.

I just know that both sides have plenty of motivation & reason to lie.

1) The defense obviously wants to argue that Chauvin was following his training - even if it's not true.
2) The police chief and other training staff used as prosecution witnesses, the last thing they would admit in public (at this stage with the trial world-famous), is that the MN police dept was trained to do that, so they have every motivation in the world to say "Heck, no - we don't train them to do that!" (now in hindsight with all the negative publicity etc).

I don't believe either one, frankly. And would like to get to the bottom of that issue, if such a thing were possible

 

[moke123]

The Cardiologist who testified this morning did a good job of negating the heart disease, artery blockage argument. Again defense attty did no damage on cross.

 

[Isaac]

Interesting. @moke123 to your knowledge has the window of time for any potential for plea deals for Chauvin passed? That just occurred to me for the first time. Or do you see this as, their case is so strong and the desire to see it through is so strongly mandated that that never was/won't be a possibility? I wonder what Chauvin & his attorney think? Or what they'll think next week?

 

[moke123]

You can plead right up until the jury comes in with a verdict. I've heard that Chauvin had already considered a plea before trial.

 

[Jon]

The cardiologist seemed unequivocal, although we know medics disagree. An example of this is disagreement between pathologists on the cause of death. But one thing he said stuck in my mind, which I found odd. He said if you have a 90% occluded artery, the body can have an adaptive response and grow multiple vessels around the damaged area and this can reduce your risk of heart attack.

So, I would like to ask him this: "Are you arguing that the more severe someones blocked coronary artery is, the less your chance of having a heart attack?" His answer just seems wrong. It suggests you want severe heart disease to reduce your risk of a heart attack! He said the vessels can grow for a blockage that happens over time. But what about a blockage that happens more rapidly? Can the body adapt fast enough? Does the body always adapt enough? What about the testimony of previous medics that say 70% or above blockage can lead to sudden death?

Under cross examination, he would not directly answer a question. He was asked that if Floyd willfully got into the back of the cop car, would he be alive today. Instead of yes or no, he answered, "He would be alive had he not been subjected to the prone position etc etc." So the defence asked again, " So if he had gotten into the squad car, he would be alive." He replied, "I think my answer remains the same." It seemed to me that the medic was thinking that if he answered "Yes" to that question, it would somehow implicate responsibility towards Floyd and he would therefore be culpable for his outcome. That was my impression anyway, but I read the tea leaves so may see things that others don't!

 

[Isaac]

I guess there is a lot of public sentiment to weigh too. Like the prosecutors probably feel their mandate is not to be seen as compromising unless it were absolutely necessary. (which I'm fine with - I mean that makes sense, it's their job). It will be interesting to see what happens!

Let's face it though, it may not really be that interesting. The defense will emphasize the things we already know and it probably won't be enough. The jury will probably return one of the top 2 charges. Most likely no surprises coming? Your thoughts?

 

[Jon]

You can plead right up until the jury comes in with a verdict. I've heard that Chauvin had already considered a plea before trial.

That is speculation. No one has any hard evidence. Some are suggesting he wanted a plea deal but no one can provide any evidence.

 

[Jon]

Let's face it though, it may not really be that interesting. The defense will emphasize the things we already know and it probably won't be enough. The jury will probably return one of the top 2 charges. Most likely no surprises coming? Your thoughts?

I think many jury members will fear for their lives. They expressed concern at the beginning of the trial about this. It was discussed in court today, because the defence was asking for the judge to speak to the jury due to the undue influence of the riots yesterday in Minneapolis, and the effect this could have on them making a verdict.

However, what I did find interesting is that Floyd's pusher, who was in the car with him on first police contact, gave a statement to an officer. I hadn't heard about this up until now. Apparently, it was said (either by him or the woman in the back seat) that they had difficulty rousing Floyd from sleep in the front seat of the car. Surely that will help the defence? She also said he took some Percocet opiods, which is the first time I have heard about this.

The jury hasn't heard this information, as it was a discussion between lawyers and judge.

 

[Jon]

Floyd's pusher will be on the stand tomorrow. The prosecution does not want him to testify, and did not give him immunity and so he wants to plead the 5th. They claim he is an unreliable witness and so therefore does not meet the standard, or something like that. Well, most of the defences witnesses will be contradicting the prosecutions witnesses, so what about that aye?!

Essentially, it is likely that the pushers testimony is likely to damage the prosecutions case. He was with Floyd all day, I believe, and so telling the jury he was difficult to rouse from sleep in the car suggests a high level of drug usage. Plus the woman said she phoned to get someone else to take her home because of the difficulty they were having with Floyd asleep at the wheel.

However, if he pleads the 5th, it depends on the judge to make the decision to allow a recording of the interview the pusher had with the officer. He is making a call on that one today. I hope he allows the testimony, because the pusher will say nothing on the stand and I want to hear what he said to the cops.

 

[Isaac]

Floyd's pusher will be on the stand tomorrow. The prosecution does not want him to testify, and did not give him immunity and so he wants to plead the 5th. They claim he is an unreliable witness and so therefore does not meet the standard, or something like that. Well, most of the defences witnesses will be contradicting the prosecutions witnesses, so what about that aye?!

Essentially, it is likely that the pushers testimony is likely to damage the prosecutions case. He was with Floyd all day, I believe, and so telling the jury he was difficult to rouse from sleep in the car suggests a high level of drug usage. Plus the woman who said she phoned to get someone else to take her home because of the difficulty they were having with Floyd asleep at the wheel.

That's another very difficult situation. I can understand the viewpoint of all sides. When your own life is in legal jeopardy, you obviously can't be counted on to be objectively truthful. (Although really, nobody can, everyone has their angles and reasons). On the other side of that coin, if he were granted immunity, he might feel some loyalty to the prosecutors, and that could also lead to selective truth telling.

How to handle that situation fairly? I mean the argument that his knowledge of Floyd's using situation is relevant is a pretty strong one. But I can see reasonable people even on both sides of that question.

As Alan Dershowitz's book (I can't remember which one - I read it before attending law school many years ago, I think 1L) so eloquently argued, our criminal justice's advocacy/adversarial system is a treasure that must be preserved. The beauty of it is that each side has a competent advocate who tirelessly seeks to thoroughly exercise ALL of their rights and protections, and thoroughly makes their finest arguments - thus giving Truth its best chance to come out at the end. It was actually after I read that particular chapter that I understood why many people's viewpoints on defense attorneys are so ignorant and awful, and mine had been a bit too until I read that. Only with a legal process that is the fairest of the fair can you then wield enforcement or punishment with any degree of confidence.

 

[Jon]

When your own life is in legal jeopardy, you obviously can't be counted on to be objectively truthful.

When the pusher was interviewed, he was with a lawyer who let him answer the questions put to him. They have a job of protecting their clients and so would not allow them to put themselves in legal jeopardy through those answers. Many of the questions are things like, "What was Floyd like on that day?" etc.

On the other side of that coin, if he were granted immunity, he might feel some loyalty to the prosecutors, and that could also lead to selective truth telling.

Why would he feel some loyalty to the prosecutors if he had immunity from prosecution for what he says, if he is pleading the 5th anyway? What difference does it make?

 

[moke123]

She also said he took some Percocet opiods,

The cardiologist I think testified about this in relation to floyds tolerance for drugs.

Floyd's pusher will be on the stand tomorrow.

I think the judge ruled he wont be testifying due to his 5th Privledges.

However, if he pleads the 5th, it depends on the judge to make the decision to allow a recording of the interview the pusher had with the officer.

Typically you can only use "excited utterances" such as a 911 call. You can use the recording to impeach a witness if they change their story on the stand. There are very complicated rules of evidence.

 

[Jon]

They are putting him on the stand, but he will plead the 5th, as I understand it. His lawyer said he won't be answering any questions at all, however unrelated they may be.

The judge said he would give a decision on the recording at 1pm. It gets more complicated in the US, because there are lots of 1pm's over there!