LocalFireDept
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2013
You are correct, and if I recall correctly, the judge is permitted to speak with the jury and bascially say "you can deliberate and come to your own verdict how you like, but in summary, here's how things look..." (please do correct me if I'm wrong on this).The defense doesn't need to make the prosecution's witness look foolish. He gave no evidence relevant to the Floyd case.
Today's testimony was like a police officer being on trial for shooting a suspect and the prosecution having someone from the police testify that it is against police policy to shoot a suspect that is not a threat.
Problem for the prosecution is the defense will put up a large image for the jury to see with the suspect with a gun in his hand pointed at the officer.
LIkewise for the Chauvin trial we have the suspect on camera exhibiting direct signs of Excited Delirium and the police training material are explicit that such suspects are a threat and need to be restrained until the EMT arrives and is able to administer something to enable them to be safely transported.
There is no gray area. And it something even the dumbest of the jurors can comprehend.
With how much of a shitshow the prosecution's case has been so far, there is a desperate desire for something to seize upon. Today's testimony sure as hell wasn't it.
A jury trial doesn't leave the evidence up to interpretation, it is presented as the only fact that matters. I don't believe anyone disagrees with that point you have made. What the jury is determining is, based on the evidence they have been presented or lack thereof, whether they believe Chauvin is guilty of the charges against him or not. They may only make a decision based on the testimony they've heard, but how it is presented certainly factors in to how they will interpet it and that is where bringing in character witnesses and how a juror "feels" about the testimony comes into play. The evidence not only needs to true, but it must be presented to the jurors in a way that leaves no doubt in their mind when it comes to delivering their verdict. Even the dumbest juror should know to only make a decision based on the evidence provided to the court, but God can always build a better fool. If they're trying to establish at least third degree/depraved heart murder, how the jury feels can matter, as the prosecution would need to reasonably establish that Chauvin is indeed a "bad person," which is somewhat a subjective thing, and chose not render aid he could have given because he is a "bad person"
Personally, I hope that jurors will be swayed more by reason than by emotions. Especially when a great deal of the prosecution's witness have poked tons of holes in their "slam dunk" case.