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

Outcome?

  • Guilty of Murder

    Votes: 75 7.6%
  • Not Guilty of Murder (2nd/3rd), Guilty of Manslaughter

    Votes: 397 40.0%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 221 22.3%
  • Mistrial

    Votes: 299 30.1%

  • Total voters
    992
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sobwait, did Floyd not doe of a heart attack? But he had enough drugs in him to kill a horse.
What gives?
 
Does the defense always go second? Seems like a massive last word advantage when it comes to bringing out expert witnesses.
You can't defend yourself against something that hasn't been asserted, so the jury has to hear the prosecution first and then hear the defense try to tear it apart. Either way, it is appropriate to give the accused an advantage, given that someone has to get the last word advantage because of the inherent structure of a trial.
 
Does the defense always go second? Seems like a massive last word advantage when it comes to bringing out expert witnesses.
that advantage is likely intentional

there are a lot of ways in which the prosecution has huge advantages over the defense. for starters, they don't have to worry about money cause they're funded by county/state/federal funds while the defendant actually has to pay attorneys fees out of his own pocket.
prosecutors also tend to be buddy-buddy with both cops AND judges. judges also disproportionately have the background of being former prosecutors, as opposed to being former defense attorneys which is much rarer.
the list goes on, but you get the point - the odds are stacked against the defendant in many ways, so the system tries to partially make up for it by granting other advantages (getting the last word, requiring a high standard of proof to convict, the right to remain silent, the right to a jury trial, etc) to the defendant.
 
You can't defend yourself against something that hasn't been asserted, so the jury has to hear the prosecution first and then hear the defense try to tear it apart. Either way, it is appropriate to give the accused an advantage, given that someone has to get the last word advantage because of the inherent structure of a trial.
As a criminal defendant, you are generally facing, alone, the entire force and power of the state, and a prosecutor who has essentially unlimited resources to do anything possible to ensure you spend the rest of your life behind bars, or even get literally killed by the state. The U.S. is actually pretty good at having elaborate procedural safeguards so a criminal defendant has a fighting chance, but they're expensive. You'll pay for them.
 
Sobwait, did Floyd not doe of a heart attack? But he had enough drugs in him to kill a horse.
What gives?
Personal opinion; dude died due to his own cocktail of drugs on top of his heart disease causing oxygen not to circulate through his body efficiently enough. Knee to the back of the neck might not have helped, but with all that fighting he was doing it was pretty much inevitable.
 
Reports about an Asian woman seated in court who was Chauvin's guest. Who was she?

Also information about the potentially compromised juror. EDIT: and of course it was a middle aged white woman.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210409-133600_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20210409-133600_Twitter.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 108
Personal opinion; dude died due to his own cocktail of drugs on top of his heart disease causing oxygen not to circulate through his body efficiently enough. Knee to the back of the neck might not have helped, but with all that fighting he was doing it was pretty much inevitable.
"might not have helped" is actually a big issue, that could make it manslaughter.

You don't have a duty, in general, to help someone if they're dying, you damn sure do have one to not help said death along.
 
I'm listening to Jersh in lieu of the trial this morning. Anyone got a tl;dr for me?
 
Reports about an Asian woman seated in court who was Chauvin's guest. Who was she?

Also information about the potentially compromised juror. EDIT: and of course it was a middle aged white woman.
Probably his (technically I believe, there's some speculation it might be about protecting assets) ex-wife
 
This is apparently the final day of witnesses for the prosecution, what did they think they're were going to accomplish with this? Maybe I'm not giving their blatant appeals to emotion enough credit, but the prosecution needs to present undeniable facts not second-hand opinions. Now I'm wondering what the hell the Defense is going to be up to for the next two weeks, they've already done their job during cross examination. More time for breaks, I guess.

Either the facts of the situation are simply not on their side, or the prosecution is intentionally throwing. Disagreeing with a study is not a fact, your opinion on another's autopsy is not a fact, the feeling you had when you were part of an angry mob is not a fact. If the jury is doing their job right, the first two weeks of witnesses has given them precisely dick to work with.
 
I'm listening to Jersh in lieu of the trial this morning. Anyone got a tl;dr for me?
forensic pathologist ducked dived and sneeded her way through cross but ultimately contradicted several things asserted by yesterdays witnesses
The prosecution side of questioning was pretty normal and not interesting so i've forgotten what was said already.
 
That's Posobiec saying that you fucking idiot. If he says the sky is blue you should double-check.
Yeah seems like the Judge asked it in an almost Jokingly manner?

Pool report: Judge questioned juror​


Before proceedings began for the day Friday, Judge Peter Cahill questioned a juror during a brief hearing that was not broadcast via audio or video. According to a pool reporter, the judge asked the juror, a White woman, about having seen any potential outside information about what's going on in the trial.
The juror said she turned on her television to watch a show she records, and saw a show featuring a courtroom and a lawyer. She said she turned the TV off. The woman also confirmed she had received a text from her mother-in-law that said it looked like a bad day. Cahill asked, "No book deal in the works?" And the woman replied, "No. I don't know what to expect."
Asked whether she had had any other outside contact, the juror replied, "No, and if anyone approached me, I would report it."
The juror was excused, after which the judge indicated he did not believe any misconduct occurred.

Source for what supposedly happened this morning that wasn't on camera/live feed:
I'll add an archive when it finishes processing.
*Edit archive: https://archive.vn/FpC1k
 
This is apparently the final day of witnesses for the prosecution, what did they think they're were going to accomplish with this? Maybe I'm not giving their blatant appeals to emotion enough credit, but the prosecution needs to present undeniable facts not second-hand opinions. Now I'm wondering what the hell the Defense is going to be up to for the next two weeks, they've already done their job during cross examination. More time for breaks, I guess.

Either the facts of the situation are simply not on their side, or the prosecution is intentionally throwing. Disagreeing with a study is not a fact, your opinion on another's autopsy is not a fact, the feeling you had when you were part of an angry mob is not a fact. If the jury is doing their job right, the first two weeks of witnesses has given them precisely dick to work with.
Wait what. Final day for them? I thought we'd have another week, holy shit ahahahaha. That's so bad given their current showing, I'm hoping for Trayvon shenanigans from the defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back