The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

[Swerf'n'Terf]

Do you see the defense calling any one? Or simply arguing that the burden has not been met? I legit don't see who the fuck they could call that the prosecution will not.

I'd be hoping for any or all of the following:
-whoever conducted the state autopsy
-the sergeant who responded to the scene (can testify generally and specifically about police procedure)
-the medics who responded to the scene (to prove that CPR was administered and that they were delayed arriving through no fault of Chauvin)
-Any eye-witnesses that contradict the prosecution - i.e. was somebody watching security footage live, or did any witness see the initial struggle before what the pros. eye-witnesses.could see.

We know some of the evidence the defense will cite from opening statements so one of the above or someone else will testify:
-To introduce the full bodycam footage (I assume a LEO)
-To finding chewed-up fent-meth pills
-I might be wrong, but I thought I read that some of Floyd's criminal record was admitted, so someone to testify to that.

Dunno man. @AnOminous , how am I doing?

 

[ElAbominacion]

Oh yea, shes a huge Coal burner, 100%

She's a mulatto

 

[Pizza Munch]

Holy shit hes legit asking him, "Can you please give us the current history of Body cameras and where they come from"

Maybe I’d be a shit juror, but this level of detail would make my eyes glaze over. Just please tell me what you’re getting at. Maybe the defense is picking up on this with no cross and hoping the jury is thinking “thank god we’re done with that”? Lol

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not familiar with how the United States justice system operates, so I'll ask something basic - can a judge/jury choose to completely ignore a medical expertise if it doesn't fit their bias towards a given case?

They can assign it any weight they want, from completely believing it to thinking it's absolute bullshit. Also if an expert clearly isn't, you can move to exclude their testimony as "junk science" under the Frye or Daubert standards, depending which applies. (Minnesota has a variant of Frye called Frye-Mack, Mack being the Minnesota Supreme Court case adopting Frye.)

Daubert is sometimes called "Frye in drag" by people who believe it is essentially identical, but the standard in Frye for admissibility is whether something is "generally accepted" in the scientific community. As an example, Mack involved excluding "expert" testimony from some quack pushing hypnotic recovered memory nonsense, which would also be a quintessential example of "junk science" under Daubert.

Often, though, even bad expert testimony is allowed and the fact-finder (judge or jury) is simply expected to make up their own mind whether it's credible. For instance, in this case, Dr. Michael Baden will almost certainly be allowed to testify. He's entirely qualified. However, the defense can call his findings into question, and the very fact the prosecution and family hired a second doctor because they weren't happy with the actual performer of the autopsy's findings is suspicious. As is his past history of being a hired gun in a series of questionable cases, although bringing up O.J. might backfire in this case.

 

[Not Really Here]

Can the jury do it if they don't know it's an option? Like go through a series of actions that amount to a Jury Nullification. It'd be hard but not impossible to use if you filtered out anyone who was aware of it.

Or do they need to formally invoke it by name, so if they didn't know about it going in its impossible to use?

How would people get caught knowing about it anyways? Can you ask about it when doing Jury selection without mentioning it by name?

There is no "invoking it by name", that's just what they call it when a jury ignores the law and/or the evidence.

 

[luigismanslave]

I’m not 100% sure how juries work in this country, are they picked to be as neutral on the case as possible? I know a good portion of the jurors in this trial are black, is that a coinkydink or was that a purposeful move by the prosecution?

there's some amount of choice both saides have over it. in this case the prosecution picked a bunch of people who already hate chauvin

 

[Brahma]

If lawyers try to encourage it, I think they get debarred.

They're not even allowed to tell the jury about it. If they do the jury is spoiled and you go back to square 1. If it emerges that a potential juror knows of the concept, they're off and barred from jury duty.

Can the jury do it if they don't know it's an option? Like go through a series of actions that amount to a Jury Nullification. It'd be hard but not impossible to use if you filtered out anyone who was aware of it.

Or do they need to formally invoke it by name, so if they didn't know about it going in its impossible to use?

How would people get caught knowing about it anyways? Can you ask about it when doing Jury selection without mentioning it by name?

It's not impossible to use, it's just not allowed to talk about. It's basically just "jurors can't be held responsible for their decision, even if it was the wrong one".

Once you know that, with a bit of introspection you realize you can let someone go even if you knew they were guilty.

It doesn't have to be invoked by name or anything.

The way they try and wriggle around it is with all the questions during selection. Basically you're trying to establish if the juror in question would knowingly let the person go, or jail them for that matter, regardless of evidence presented.

 

[Celebrate Nite]

Maybe I’d be a shit juror, but this level of detail would make my eyes glaze over.

I agree

The gist of it is they are trying to confirm that the video and audio can't or hasn't been altered in any way and that it's all genuine.

They are just taking fucking FOREVER and dragging it on for... reasons.

 

[NerdShamer]

Please tell me what court allows you to have your phone out in use, never mind take pictures. This bitch crazy

Basically, no court that's worth their salt. The press occasionally has the luxury of filming it, but it depends on the judge.

 

[Extreme Aneurysm]

Sign In - Axon

login.evidence.com

 

[X Pac Heat]

Can the jury do it if they don't know it's an option? Like go through a series of actions that amount to a Jury Nullification. It'd be hard but not impossible to use if you filtered out anyone who was aware of it.

Or do they need to formally invoke it by name, so if they didn't know about it going in its impossible to use?

How would people get caught knowing about it anyways? Can you ask about it when doing Jury selection without mentioning it by name?

Technically speaking , it *isn't* an option legally as I understand it. There's just nothing they can do about it as the jury is protected.

The actions would simply be rejecting the evidence and finding the defendant however they want. This could, technically, be done without knowing about the concept if one just simply felt strongly that someone should or should not go to jail when making their judgement. It's not something you invoke, it's just something that exists.

You can't really catch them unless they mention it. But if they mention it, both sides will probably agree not to accept them as jurors.

At least, this is how I understand it with no actual formal education in the law.

 

[DumbDude42]

Everyone seems to be certain he gets convicted: BLM riots. He gets acquired: BLM riots. The question to be asking is how wide spread the riots are going to be in either case.

my predictions:

in case of not guilty: repeat of last year.

in case of guilty: small local attempts at rioting, but authorities crack down hard immediately and it doesn't get big. media blackout keeps it out of peoples minds to prevent it from spreading. it dies down within days.

 

[The Grimace]

Has the court made any effort to protect the jurors' identities? I remember something about the first batch leaking and they had to form a new jury?

 

[LemmeSee]

I'm not familiar with how the United States justice system operates, so I'll ask something basic - can a judge/jury choose to completely ignore a medical expertise if it doesn't fit their bias towards a given case?

The jury can do whatever the hell they want. The Courts fear the Jury Nullification.

 

[7he47r0n]

They can assign it any weight they want, from completely believing it to thinking it's absolute bullshit. Also if an expert clearly isn't, you can move to exclude their testimony as "junk science" under the Frye or Daubert standards, depending which applies. (Minnesota has a variant of Frye called Frye-Mack, Mack being the Minnesota Supreme Court case adopting Frye.)

Daubert is sometimes called "Frye in drag" by people who believe it is essentially identical, but the standard in Frye for admissibility is whether something is "generally accepted" in the scientific community. As an example, Mack involved excluding "expert" testimony from some quack pushing hypnotic recovered memory nonsense, which would also be a quintessential example of "junk science" under Daubert.

Often, though, even bad expert testimony is allowed and the fact-finder (judge or jury) is simply expected to make up their own mind whether it's credible. For instance, in this case, Dr. Michael Baden will almost certainly be allowed to testify. He's entirely qualified. However, the defense can call his findings into question, and the very fact the prosecution and family hired a second doctor because they weren't happy with the actual performer of the autopsy's findings is suspicious. As is his past history of being a hired gun in a series of questionable cases, although bringing up O.J. might backfire in this case.

My lawful friend, you are a godsend in this thread. Are prior court appearances of whoever performed the autopsy or gave the second opinion something which can be formally introduced into the case, or can it only be limited to a persuasive argument directed towards the jury?

 

[itskaon]

whats the point of this IT guy being a witness?

 

[Retard#7822]

View attachment 2046504

Fuck, so safe to say that this cunt was trying to leak the jury out? I mean, she wears the "uniform" of the usual suspects who would do something like this.

 

[luigismanslave]

Oh yea, shes a huge Coal burner, 100%

she's huge alright

 

[SleepyNibba]

Has the court made any effort to protect the jurors' identities? I remember something about the first batch leaking and they had to form a new jury?

nope a few news publications hav ealready dox'd them to an extent, i know when you become a juror theres some public info recorded, but in this day and age thats all thats needed to find out everything about someone.

 

[X Pac Heat]

whats the point of this IT guy being a witness?

At this point I'd bet money it's simply padding out the trial.

No matter what happens, they don't want people to think they didn't take it seriously by getting through it quick.