George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[ilovewings]

Why William Barr Rejected a Plea Deal in the George Floyd Killing.

Why did Bill Barr reject Chauvin's plea in this case for third degree murder?
I was curious so I looked it up and found this article. It is kind of complicated.
One of the reasons was that Barr felt if he allowed that plea it would appear as though the sentence was too lenient. There were some other reasons.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I used to post on Web sleuths a LONG time ago for the Jodi Arias trial. Back then, we had what seemed like a whole forum with pages upon pages of threads, and the trial and evidence was sticky-noted at the top. Do we have anything like that now for the GF trial or are we limited to the trial and sidebar threads?

@wasnt_me - Subthreads aren't done often anymore. But a media/timeline/ docs thread was created at the start of the trial.

HTH

MN - George Floyd, 46, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 **Media & Timeline - NO DISCUSSION

 

[MsBetsy]

I think it says 8mg/2mg? I'm working at the moment, so can't really get a good screenshot.

View attachment 292752

Thanks, I couldn't remember if it was green or blue. The green is 2mg and the blue is 8mg. The 2mg on the right side is the amount of naloxone.

 

[wasnt_me]

@wasnt_me - Subthreads aren't done often anymore. But a media/timeline/ docs thread was created at the start of the trial.

HTH

MN - George Floyd, 46, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 **Media & Timeline - NO DISCUSSION

Yeah, that shows you how long it's been for me! I remember when we first got this new look. I think that was around the time I stopped posting after the JA trial. Thanks for this!

 

[ilovewings]

As obvious as it is to me that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes+ is the cause of death, you just never know how defense tactics will have their desired effect on one or two jurors. Anyone remember the first trial of Phil Spector for the murder of Lana Clarkson? I laughed out loud at the defense that Lana Clarkson killed herself- I said to myself, sure she did- she knew Spector for five minutes- but she shot herself in the home of a complete stranger because she was depressed. Could not conceive of any half way intelligent person with at least some common sense, believing such drivel- Well, one juror believed it and there was a mistrial. Remember Robert Durst? he murdered and dismembered a man and he was acquitted with a defense of self defense. Then of course there is Casey Anthony. I have learned through the years that for the defense it is just a game: they know all they have to do is get to one juror: just one.

 

[mickey2942]

Side note, I have friends who work in several large metro areas, who have been given the rest of the week off, tele-work or leave. They can take their pick, if they feel the commute to work or home is unsafe

 

[MsBetsy]

I was using hyperbole. But , actually, looking at social media posts, many many people were calling for DC to be given the death penalty.

I think there were just as many people blaming the victim for his own death, especially right after the toxicology report became public.

 

[ilovewings]

I think there were just as many people blaming the victim for his own death, especially right after the toxicology report became public.

The defense strategy in this case is blame the victim and it could work.

 

[Gibbo214]

Has there been any evidence presented about the fake $20?

 

[In vino veritas]

As obvious as it is to me that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes+ is the cause of death, you just never know how defense tactics will have their desired effect on one or two jurors. Anyone remember the first trial of Phil Spector for the murder of Lana Clarkson? I laughed out loud at the defense that Lana Clarkson killed herself- I said to myself, sure she did- she knew Spector for five minutes- but she shot herself in the home of a complete stranger because she was depressed. Could not conceive of any half way intelligent person with at least some common sense, believing such drivel- Well, one juror believed it and there was a mistrial. Remember Robert Durst? he murdered and dismembered a man and he was acquitted with a defense of self defense. Then of course there is Casey Anthony. I have learned through the years that for the defense it is just a game: they know all they have to do is get to one juror: just one.

This is too true. Although I do not think this will occur, IF there is a hung jury on all three charges and a mistrial is declared, what would happen?
Will the case be re-tried at a later date?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The defense strategy in this case is blame the victim and it could work.

I disagree that the defense is blaming the victim. I think they are trying to introduce some facts that can lead a juror to feel that there is reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure if it's going to work. It's getting closer to the end where we will find out how the jury feels about the evidence that was presented to them. JMO

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Has there been any evidence presented about the fake $20?

As to verification by LE / Secret Service that it indeed was or was not - it has not been put into evidence per se in the case MOO.

 

[Gibbo214]

As to verification by LE / Secret Service that it indeed was or was not - it has not been put into evidence per se in the case MOO.

And why is that? Isn't that what started the whole thing? I find the silence about this, very strange.

 

[ilovewings]

I disagree that the defense is blaming the victim. I think they are trying to introduce some facts that can lead a juror to feel that there is reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure if it's going to work. It's getting closer to the end where we will find out how the jury feels about the evidence that was presented to them. JMO

They are blaming the victim in the sense of al

I disagree that the defense is blaming the victim. I think they are trying to introduce some facts that can lead a juror to feel that there is reasonable doubt.

I'm not sure if it's going to work. It's getting closer to the end where we will find out how the jury feels about the evidence that was presented to them. JMO

What I mean is they are blaming his death on his health (high blood pressure, heart disease) and a drug over dose. The defense expert today totally ignored the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes. Millions of people are walking around with heart disease and high blood pressure for which they take medication and they lead normal lives: they are not dropping dead--and the defense is also blaming "the hostile crowd".

 

[Deleted member 39678]

They are blaming the victim in the sense of al


What I mean is they are blaming his death on his health (high blood pressure, heart disease) and a drug over dose. The defense expert today totally ignored the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes. Millions of people are walking around with heart disease and high blood pressure for which they take medication and they lead normal lives: they are not dropping dead--and the defense is also blaming "the hostile crowd".

I disagree. I'll have to end it with this.

 

[wasnt_me]

We have an adversarial system of justice, where one side (the prosecution) presents a theory or case, backed up by certain evidence, that they rely on to PROVE their case. The opposing party, the defense, seeks to refute certain aspects of the prosecution's case, in order to introduce the concept of "reasonable doubt." (MOO)

As far as I understand, the onus is on the state to PROVE its case. If the state cannot prove its case at all (to any reasonable jury), then the defense can request an aquittal:

Judgments of Acquittal

The defense is free to refute the prosecution's case, with facts and evidence that introduce reasonable doubt.

If someone does not agree with the system of justice, they are free (in most countries), to request and demand change.

Whilst I concede that our justice system is not perfect, what would one prefer it to be replaced with?

All MOO.

And as far as I understand, jurors are instructed that they can't use just "any doubt." It must be a "reasonable" doubt.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. This standard of proof is much higher than the civil standard, called “preponderance of the evidence,” which only requires a certainty greater than 50 percent."

As far as I understand, jurors can't decide they have a doubt. It must be reasonable. If you claim that because GF might have had drugs in his stomach that did not get absorbed into his system, I again ask how that would have affected him if it was not in his blood stream yet? If it would not have, then your doubt is not reasonable. If it does affect a person, then I can see where you might have a reasonable doubt.

I'm asking for help seeing your "reasonable" doubt.

 

[Gibbo214]

They are blaming the victim in the sense of al


What I mean is they are blaming his death on his health (high blood pressure, heart disease) and a drug over dose. The defense expert today totally ignored the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes. Millions of people are walking around with heart disease and high blood pressure for which they take medication and they lead normal lives: they are not dropping dead--and the defense is also blaming "the hostile crowd".

And some are still walking around without medication. I had no idea that I had high blood pressure until I had a slight stroke.
I thought that I was healthy. I walked daily, was not overweight and had had so many normal pap smears that I did not think that that was worth having them yearly. I had no reason to go to the doctor.

 

[wasnt_me]

They are blaming the victim in the sense of al


What I mean is they are blaming his death on his health (high blood pressure, heart disease) and a drug over dose. The defense expert today totally ignored the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes. Millions of people are walking around with heart disease and high blood pressure for which they take medication and they lead normal lives: they are not dropping dead--and the defense is also blaming "the hostile crowd".

I agree. The defense is blaming the crowd and blaming Floyd for his drug habit and his health problems, all things that a police officer should already be taking into account when arresting and restraining someone. The defense seems to be blaming late EMS, too, even though DC didn't think it was necessary to roll GF into recovery, get his knee off GF's neck, or do chest compressions when they lost the pulse for an additional 2 or 3 minutes. Not giving him that aid ensured he would die, imo.

That's regardless of what drugs were or were not undigested/absorbed in his stomach. If DC had taken his knee off, had rolled GF to the side or done chest compressions (or let someone do them), and GF still died -- I don't know if his behavior would meet the criteria of the charges.

 

[Boodles]

And why is that? Isn't that what started the whole thing? I find the silence about this, very strange.

The issue in this case is whether Derek Chauvin murdered /committed manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

Whether the $20 bill was bogus isn’t at issue. George is dead. He can’t be prosecuted for passing a bad $20.

But you’re right. A suspicion about him passing a bad $20 is what started the ball rolling from which point Chauvin et al took GF into custody and abused force to, IMO, murder him.

 

[MsBetsy]

And why is that? Isn't that what started the whole thing? I find the silence about this, very strange.

They may never find out where the bills came from now, unless Morris knows who manufactured them.

I've always questioned whether the police had probable cause for an arrest in the first place. In Lane's body cam footage it's clear that he didn't even check the bill.