MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 *officers charged* #3
- Thread starter Tippy Lynn
- Start date
- Status
Doubt?
In a MN criminal trial I believe we'll hear judge refer to guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"*
Later/ tomorrow, I'll search for Jury Instructions the judge will give regarding the crime, as they may explain or define it further.
Hypothetical (not this case): During deliberations a juror says - "I don't know if the defendant killed the child. Maybe little green men in flying saucers landed, killed her, and flew away."
Is ^ def guilty Beyond a Shadow of Doubt? Juror has a doubt, even if unreasonable.
Is ^ def guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? If this is the only doubt any juror has, then guilty
_____________________________________________________
* MN Courts Website "Glossary of Court-related Terms...
"Beyond a reasonable doubt - A standard of proof required to convict a person of a crime. The jury has a high degree of certainty about the defendant’s guilt, although they need not be 100 percent convinced."
* Minnesota Judicial Branch - Glossary of Court Related Terms
@Chelly bbm sbm
In a MN criminal trial I believe we'll hear judge refer to guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"*
Later/ tomorrow, I'll search for Jury Instructions the judge will give regarding the crime, as they may explain or define it further.
Hypothetical (not this case): During deliberations a juror says - "I don't know if the defendant killed the child. Maybe little green men in flying saucers landed, killed her, and flew away."
Is ^ def guilty Beyond a Shadow of Doubt? Juror has a doubt, even if unreasonable.
Is ^ def guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? If this is the only doubt any juror has, then guilty
_____________________________________________________
* MN Courts Website "Glossary of Court-related Terms...
"Beyond a reasonable doubt - A standard of proof required to convict a person of a crime. The jury has a high degree of certainty about the defendant’s guilt, although they need not be 100 percent convinced."
* Minnesota Judicial Branch - Glossary of Court Related Terms
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 33,230
- Reaction score
- 218,053
The only time I have seen the jury ask questions is when they were in deliberation and said they can't come to a decision without answers to a few questions. The judge got them their answers. But I have only heard of that happening once, and it all happened in notes back and forth between the judge and the jury.
I recall the jury submitting written questions for expert witnesses in the Jody Arias trial in Arizona. My friend google didn’t retrieve an MSM article on jury questions during a trial, but this article indicates that some states allow it, including Michigan.
Should Attorneys Let Jurors Question Expert Witnesses?
I had the same “do something people!!” reaction to the video, so I’m with you @dixiegirl1035...another old lady who can’t imagine (in my mind) standing there watching George Floyd being killed by Chauvin without organizing the onlookers to take action. That’s what the passengers on Flight 93 that crashed in PA on Sept 11, 2001 did...and they knew for sure they would die to save many. Bum rushing several cops to save one man’s life doesn’t seem like a huge sacrifice in that courageous context IMO.
After a brief discussion, a vote was taken and the passengers decided to fight back against their hijackers, informing several people on the ground of their plans. One of the passengers, Thomas Burnett Jr., told his wife over the phone, “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it. I love you, honey.” Another passenger, Todd Beamer, was heard over an open line saying, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll.”
Flight 93
Jury Questions?
Any/all witnesses; Yes, this happens in trials in various states, but gen'ly only after prosecutor & def atty have finished presenting their cases & their closing arguments. So in deliberations, thru the foreperson, the jurors send a written request to ask judge to allow then to re-see/re-hear the evd & testimony they already saw/heard. If judge grants request, essentially these deliberating jurors see the same evd, almost like rewinding video of witness testifying (ex: Yes, I saw him/def stabbing her/victim, or seeing the purported suicide note or the knife decedent was stabbed w.) Iiuc, this is common in many/most state court trials.
Different from------
Expert witnesses, as referenced in link (by @Lilibet Thanks for this article) addressing issue of whether jurors can
send written request that judge ask an expert witness for new info, to add to or expound on their testimony before the expert witness is dismissed. Jurors may ask about a topic the expert witness may not have addressed in their testimony. Judge reviews to determine whether to pose question to witness. If not relevant, judge does not ask expert witness, the jury's question.
For either type of witness, jurors send written request to judge who can determine whether jury is asking for info that is relevant, etc. Have not yet searched for MN Law on this.
Welcoming comment, clarification, correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. my2ct, could be wrong.
@SouthAussie bbm You have a keen sense of observation.
Any/all witnesses; Yes, this happens in trials in various states, but gen'ly only after prosecutor & def atty have finished presenting their cases & their closing arguments. So in deliberations, thru the foreperson, the jurors send a written request to ask judge to allow then to re-see/re-hear the evd & testimony they already saw/heard. If judge grants request, essentially these deliberating jurors see the same evd, almost like rewinding video of witness testifying (ex: Yes, I saw him/def stabbing her/victim, or seeing the purported suicide note or the knife decedent was stabbed w.) Iiuc, this is common in many/most state court trials.
Different from------
Expert witnesses, as referenced in link (by @Lilibet Thanks for this article) addressing issue of whether jurors can
send written request that judge ask an expert witness for new info, to add to or expound on their testimony before the expert witness is dismissed. Jurors may ask about a topic the expert witness may not have addressed in their testimony. Judge reviews to determine whether to pose question to witness. If not relevant, judge does not ask expert witness, the jury's question.
For either type of witness, jurors send written request to judge who can determine whether jury is asking for info that is relevant, etc. Have not yet searched for MN Law on this.
Welcoming comment, clarification, correction, esp'ly from our legal professionals. my2ct, could be wrong.
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,770
Not in this state MOO
Another reason why some prefer to follow cases in Florida (Anthony and Dan Markel case) and Arizona (Arias case) is that after EACH person on the stand, they are allowed to present the judge with questions (that many of us at WS are thinking!) and the judge has discretion (with input from counsels) on whether to present it. We (WS'ers
) sooooooo much looked forward to trial questions on cases were were following on the threads as it gave us insight into the jury. Some times, they asked questions that showed they picked up on things that we on threads had not."The states that expressly encourage judges to allow jurors to question witnesses are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada and North Carolina. Out of these jurisdictions, Arizona, Florida, and Kentucky require that judges allow jurors to ask written questions.
The respective highest state courts of Indiana and Kentucky have ruled jurors have a right to ask questions of witnesses.
Other jurisdictions give a more restricted endorsement of this practice. In Pennsylvania and Michigan, the respective state supreme courts have said it is permissible at the discretion of the trial judge. Texas does not permit jurors to question witnesses in criminal trials and Georgia law requires all questions to be written and submitted to the judge. Only Mississippi law expressly forbids jurors from questioning witnesses."........much more at link
Questioning of Witnesses by Jurors – Courts
Not sure if this link is up to date...
Last edited:
Laughing
Rarely Speechless
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 15,583
- Reaction score
- 61,072
IDK about Minnesota, but I have served on the jury of 2 criminal trials in 2 circuits. Both times the jury asked questions.
In one case, there was video-recorded testimony and there were questions about the that testimony. The judge recalled everyone to the courtroom & re-played the entire video.
In another, the judge recalled us to the courtroom and the court reporter read the attorney questions and witness answers.
In short, jurors did NOT hear new testimony, judges allowed for repeat of testimony already in that trial transcript.
jmpe ymmv lrr
I’m pretty sure I heard the judge or one of the attorneys tell a PJ that the jury won’t be able to ask questions during trial. That they would have to go with whatever evidence is presented to them. So there won’t be the Arias type jury questioning in this trial. But the jury can always request to have video played back or testimony read back to them during their deliberations. Sometimes the jury asks for definitions of certain legal terms and they’re told to rely on their collective understanding of those terms. Judges don’t answer specific questions like that during deliberations. Once the evidence is in that’s it - the judge doesn’t answer follow up questions about the evidence during deliberations. Juries are told to rely on their memories and only on what was presented.
Good catch. I should have said Beyond a reasonable doubt.
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,770
This article came across my feed that was published yesterday. It is titled for George Floyd so posting here, although not ? relevant to the case and should be in another thread? (Although may be relevant as to some of the voir dire questions, and what the PJs are saying in response, so I'll leave it here)
In City After City, Police Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests Inquiries into law enforcement’s handling of the George Floyd protests last summer found insufficient training and militarized responses — a widespread failure in policing nationwide.
In City After City, Police Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests Inquiries into law enforcement’s handling of the George Floyd protests last summer found insufficient training and militarized responses — a widespread failure in policing nationwide.
oh yes that "don't do drugs" comment from that officer and thought to myself I must be hearing things.
I think sequestration might make for a much quicker trial...I expect many days when one side or the other (mostly defense) coming in and have to deal with reports of juror misconduct or media coverage that is impossible to miss. Motion after motion. I am not confident that all the jurors have the life experience to deal with what is ahead.
To me they seemed more interested in proving a point than any concern for a human life. His "medical episode" started long before they put him on the ground and restrained him. Imo
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,770
@turaj Exactly! That is what many are concerned with is the thought that it is best to have a quicker trial with sequestration vs. having a trial which ends in justice.
No!
That is what so many agree with. Quick does NOT equal justice.
Agree with you that having such longer trial is best WITHOUT sequestration!
MOO.
dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,770
Wow! That goes against a quicker trial for sure! Interesting 1970 trivia for sure! Now that was a looooooooooooong trial. People v. Manson . Only 142 prospective jurors were questioned to seat the jury. Interesting, yet O/T to go further so long VERY interesting legal read at People v. Manson
Shows how much the defense just pushed and pushed during trial to have appellate errors. Thanks for sending me down that rabbit hole to review and to keep heads up as to what holes are.
All MOO
Not to go too far off topic, but seeing as there's no jury selection today and we are discussing the length of trials etc...
The McMartin trial was the longest trial in history. That trial lasted 2 1/2 years without one conviction.
It was 3 months from the time the jury was empaneled to the day the trial started. The case lasted 7 years.
If you like to read, here's some interesting trivia. I understand many people do not like Defense Attorney's, but this is a great example of what the State can to when they have unlimited funds.
Something to think about.
McMartin Preschool.
McMartin Verdict: Not Guilty : Justice: The jury's findings close the longest and costliest criminal trial in history. No decision has been made on retrying Ray Buckey on 13 undecided counts.
@Chelly bbm. My earlier BaSD vs BaRD post was not directed specifically at you, just a gen reminder to all (including those who may not need a reminder).
Recently I've seen posts on crim cases talking about proof BaSD. Afaik (could be ignorant of it) no US jurisdiction requires proof BaSD, which would seem an impossible standard to meet. No doubt at all?
Maybe other countries do?
I think courts generally try to avoid sequestration, especially since the trials of Casey Anthony and O. J. Simpson. It can take a huge psychological toll on jurors and it's very expensive.
Although if at any time during the trial it does become a problem, the judge can decide if it's necessary to sequester the jury. Imo
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
