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

[Isaac]

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.

I can only speak for myself. If it were me, the act of answering a question that also implied I'd committed a crime in trafficking a controlled substance, you definitely couldn't count on me to be 100% and completely truthful.

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?

Of course if he is pleading the 5th, and answers no questions at all, then none of what I said matters, because I was only referring to him answering questions. Again, I can only speak for myself. If the prosecution granted me immunity in exchange for testimony, I would probably be tempted to feel some loyalty to the person who made that deal for me, and there is a possibility it could (even unconsciously) bias my responses and reflect an extra level of cooperation with the prosecutor, potentially to their benefit.

I don't believe I am the only one, I think that is just human nature. We can't be sure when it comes to everyone's motivations and leanings. But we can be almost certain that they exist. Nobody is an influence-free vacuum, or oracle of pure truth. : )

 

[moke123]

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!

its 2:15 in Minneapolis. He ruled earlier. More housekeeping at 4pm.

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.

He's an unreliable witness. If you put him on the stand he would probably get shredded by his past criminal history which all comes into play.

The same reason it is risky to put Chauvin on the stand. He's had something like 18 complaints against him with a couple being sustained. He also has a reputation for using excessive force in the past.

 

[Jon]

If it were me, the act of answering a question that also implied I'd committed a crime in trafficking a controlled substance, you definitely couldn't count on me to be 100% and completely truthful.

Which is why his lawyer was there monitoring if he could answer the questions or not.

Of course if he is pleading the 5th, and answers no questions at all, then none of what I said matters,

That was my point.

I think they should allow the recording. I'm judge and jury in my own little world. Then you get around all of the issues discussed above.

 

[Jon]

its 2:15 in Minneapolis. He ruled earlier. More housekeeping at 4pm.

If he ruled earlier, did he say if he was allowing the recording?

 

[Isaac]

He's an unreliable witness

I don't disagree with that statement. However, I do like to point out that in real life, all witnesses come to the stand with their own beliefs, agenda, fears (defending P.D. policy, defending their employer, worried something they say might point out their own failings), etc. etc. It was more a philosophical observation that presumes all witnesses exist somewhere on the reliability continuum...the question is just where they fall and how bad is it.

Absolutely nobody in their right mind can watch videos of protest/riot-related violence and not wonder "what might happen to me, depending on which side people perceive me to be 'on' ?"....which then introduces more complex motives to their testimony.

 

[Jon]

Absolutely nobody in their right mind can watch videos of protest/riot-related violence and not wonder "what might happen to me, depending on which side people perceive me to be 'on' ?"....which then introduces more complex motives to their testimony.

I've said earlier in this thread, it is hard to get a fair trial under the circumstances. People revert to medieval times where you burn witches at the steak. No fair trial required, it is already decided at outset. I pity the jurors put in this predicament. If I was forced to go on the jury, I would clench my fist and shout "Black Lives Matter!" They would soon kick me off.

What can be define as an unreliable witness? Anyone care to explain that to me?

 

[moke123]

What can be define as an unreliable witness? Anyone care to explain that to me?

So you put a witness on the stand who gives great helpful testimony only to have the other side point out that he has been convicted for perjury 7 times in the past. An exageration but you get the point.

 

[Jon]

What about the police chief who says a knee on the neck is not in the training, while the training docs show knee on the neck? Does that make him an unreliable witness? I hope you get my point too. But yes, if someone is a compulsive liar, it doesn't help. But how do you know if anyone on the stand is telling the truth or not? Each side has a different story.

I'm not sure what the motive would have been for the pusher to say Floyd was difficult to rouse himself at the wheel of his car. Surely that would put him in more legal jeopardy than not saying that?

The jury has to decide which version of events is true. They have to try to work out how truthful or reliable is each witnesses testimony. Can they not do the same for Mr Sketchy?

 

[moke123]

However, I do like to point out that in real life, all witnesses come to the stand with their own beliefs, agenda, fears (defending P.D. policy, defending their employer, worried something they say might point out their own failings), etc. etc. It was more a philosophical observation that presumes all witnesses exist somewhere on the reliability continuum...the question is just where they fall and how bad is it.

A couple weeks ago I testified in a case where the State Trooper screwed it up royaly. I missed a few observations but testified truthfully that I just didn't think to look at one issue. The judge found me credible and blasted the Trooper for basically lying to cover his ass and she dismissed the case in total.

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!

He was answering in a way in which his words cant be twisted.

This reminded me a of something years ago. I was testifying in a case where I had taken some photgraphs. The issue was whether a witness was able to observe something from his backyard that happened across the street from him. Blocking his view were a corner of his house and a large tree in the neighbors yard. I took the picture with a color camera but the office color printer was broken and I could only print them out in black and white. The prosecuter and I went back and forth for about 20 minutes because he wanted me to say that the pictures entered into evidence were not accurate representations of the picture I took on the camera. I would only answer him that they were black and white prints of the color photos I took and that they accurately represented the scene.

 

[Isaac]

What about the police chief who says a knee on the neck is not in the training, while the training docs show knee on the neck? Does that make him an unreliable witness?

My thought on that is: the police chief specifically stated what Chauvin did was not sanctioned by training. The pictorial of a knee on the neck is a bit more vague. I have no idea of the context at all - just that a picture existed. For all I know, the picture came after a slide labelled "what not to do". (but I'm not sure).

I'm not sure what the motive would have been for the pusher to say Floyd was difficult to rouse himself at the wheel of his car. Surely that would put him in more legal jeopardy than not saying that?

We have no idea all of the things that might be running through this guy's mind. Anything he says, he's thinking to himself: "Will this statement lead to more discovery about the fact that I did _____? Will this be brought against me as evidence that I'd been doing ______ ? The possibilities and speculation are absolutely endless. I can make up a dozen scenarios going either way in my imagination of what's possible.

The jury has to decide which version of events is true. They have to try to work out how truthful or reliable is each witnesses testimony. Can they not do the same for Mr Sketchy?

I tend to agree with you on this. If it were me, I'd probably want to err on the side of allowing the testimony........let each lawyer do their full and un-inhibited examination, and let the jury take things into account?

 

[Jon]

I think there is an element of the movie "12 Angry Men" in all trials. The first version was the best, even though in black and white. If you haven't already seen it, you should. In IMDB, it is one of the top ranked movies of all time, often making the top 10. It shows about the deliberations and biases of jurors as they try to come to a decision. Human nature remains the same, so although the film is over 60 years old the motivations of people are the same.

 

[Isaac]

A couple weeks ago I testified in a case where the State Trooper screwed it up royaly. I missed a few observations but testified truthfully that I just didn't think to look at one issue. The judge found me credible and blasted the Trooper for basically lying to cover his ass and she dismissed the case in total.

He was answering in a way in which his words cant be twisted.

This reminded me a of something years ago. I was testifying in a case where I had taken some photgraphs. The issue was whether a witness was able to observe something from his backyard that happened across the street from him. Blocking his view were a corner of his house and a large tree in the neighbors yard. I took the picture with a color camera but the office color printer was broken and I could only print them out in black and white. The prosecuter and I went back and forth for about 20 minutes because he wanted me to say that the pictures entered into evidence were not accurate representations of the picture I took on the camera. I would only answer him that they were black and white prints of the color photos I took and that they accurately represented the scene.

I can imagine you've had some fascinating experiences in that line of work!

I was just thinking about even myself. I've had days in the past where I either was starting or stopping a medication, (or maybe I had lost sleep, or maybe had a real stressful situation with a spouse or at home)...... and it totally affected the way I came across to people that day. They may have thought me to be sketchy, nervous, hiding something, uncomfortable, agitated, too calm, and on and on and on.

You just never know what kind of a day someone's having - and whether the demeanor you are witnessing is significant, or insignificant to the merits of their story. Hence my diatribe about a single coroner having so much adjudicating power, vs. my imaginary dream of a more consensus-based system.

 

[moke123]

We have no idea all of the things that might be running through this guy's mind.

You left out the "If I tell them what they want to hear They'll go easy on me next time I'm caught doing something"

 

[Jon]

For all I know, the picture came after a slide labelled "what not to do".

Not the case. One of the trainers said they have used the knee on the neck themselves, at least I believe it was a trainer or use of force expert.

We have no idea all of the things that might be running through this guy's mind.

Agreed, although we could say that about the motivations of the accused in any trial. You just have to try to find the most likely motives. There is hard evidence of him throwing something away from the car while the police were dealing with Floyd. Drugs, no doubt. No reasonable doubt!

Let us hear the tapes! We can make up our own minds.

 

[Isaac]

You left out the "If I tell them what they want to hear They'll go easy on me next time I'm caught doing something"

Yeah ... that's basically part of what I meant when I said

If the prosecution granted me immunity in exchange for testimony, I would probably be tempted to feel some loyalty to the person who made that deal for me, and there is a possibility it could (even unconsciously) bias my responses and reflect an extra level of cooperation with the prosecutor, potentially to their benefit.

 

[Jon]

You left out the "If I tell them what they want to hear They'll go easy on me next time I'm caught doing something"

And you also left out "If I say anything that could lead to Chauvin found not-guilty, I am dead meat", which I think is a stronger motive. Same problem for the jurors.

 

[Jon]

Police brutality, or all in a days work? You tell me. Notice that it is a white female, not a black man. Hard baton on the neck.

More than 100 activists gather to protest 'White Lives Matter' rally

Hundreds of 'anti-fascist' protesters gathered in the Orange County, California town of Huntington Beach on Sunday to face off against a 'White Lives Matter' rally that saw heated scuffles and a heavy police presence.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Isaac]

You tell me

Couldn't possibly do that without a thorough study of the context. Every case is just that - a potential case!

 

[Jon]

I just thought I would throw that in there for kicks! There has been testimony that much of police work can look ugly, but necessary. And just to show that police are not just brutal on black men, but white women too.

 

[moke123]

Not the case. One of the trainers said they have used the knee on the neck themselves, at least I believe it was a trainer or use of force expert.

I think i heard part of that and what I believe he said was that it can be done but not in a sustained manner.