GUILTY MN - George Floyd, 46, died, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #18 - Chauvin Closing & Deliberations #1

[whitelilac]

My feeling is that they will be unanimous in the manslaughter charge, but deliberate for some time in the 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges...so I don't think there will be a quick verdict.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

What riot? jmo

There wont be one for this case if the jury follows Maxine Waters instructions to vote guilty. JMO

 

[BUF]

Actually it is common for the Defense to ask for mistrial prior to the jury deliberations.

Yes. Nelson did that during the usual time after both defense and state rested. It was denied then.

 

[Inthedetails]

Actually it is common for the Defense to ask for mistrial prior to the jury deliberations.

Exactly. This is not unusual at all. (Gives us something to talk about while we settle into waiting.)

jmo

 

[tara83]

There wont be one for this case if the jury follows Maxine Waters instructions to vote guilty. JMO

I hope this doesn't come out wrong but you sound more upset over Maxine Water's comments than you do the man on trial who is on video having a knee on a man's neck for over 9 minutes.

 

[GarAndTeed]

OT, but ...

I chose it in honour of the literally hundreds of missing and murdered indigenous woman of Canada .. the totem pole acknowledging their heritage, the red being the blood, all surrounded by trying to find truth and justice through the mist.

That's so cool!

 

[kaen]

Yes but why? If they where trusted to not watch the news during testimony why aren't they trusted during the deliberations? JMO

Ensures juror safety and security.
Exposure to expected demonstrations.
Chance of a juror making a mistake by talking about the case or inadvertently hearing the news.
Allows jury to deliberate as long as 12 hours a day without having grapple with the logistics.
Allows the jury to have less stress of travel, family, etc.

ETA:
Not necessarily why the judge would do it but it has these benefits:

Build jury community.

Last but not least, jury work is hard and exhausting in high profile cases. These folks have been together but only tangentially at lunches. Being sequestered gives them an opportunity to have a sense of peer support and discuss the case with only people they can: other jurors.

 

[Rhozwen]

Yes but why? If they where trusted to not watch the news during testimony why aren't they trusted during the deliberations? JMO

Judge Cahill felt it was necessary. Being sequestered is not just so they don't watch the news, it is for their safety and security as well as shielding them from outside influences.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Whoa - the judge's statement about Waters!

He was not pleased, and he didn't hold back. I don't blame him a bit.

He knows this will be an issue on appeal, and if convicted it could be overturned.

I wish others would just keep their mouth shut, and let the jury do their job.

Waters doesn't even know what his charges are. She said first degree, and he's not even charged with that. Ugh.

Jmho

 

[Leve]

Well the schools are closed from Wednesday I believe

So if a jury has a child, even if they avoided all news coverage, they know a not guilty verdict will probably cause violence.

Personally, I think there will be riots either way.

 

[Bravo]

All i can say is if I was one of these Jurors I would hightail it home after the verdict. I would not speak publicly. Perhaps that's just me. Either way this ends at least a few folks out there are bound to be unhappy.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Judge Cahill felt it was necessary. Being sequestered is not just so they don't watch the news, it is for their safety and security as well as shielding them from outside influences.

One last question. What has changed in regards to safety, security and outside influences between today and earlier in this trial? I assume that those things have always been important. Thanks.

 

[kkdj]

There wont be one for this case if the jury follows Maxine Waters instructions to vote guilty. JMO

Even if it’s 2nd degree manslaughter?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Even if it’s 2nd degree manslaughter?

That's a good question. I'm not sure.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Great response by the prosecution imo: “We can’t expect vague statements like this to become part of the record”.

Eta: His comments are good, imo.

But the thing is Nelson does have specific evidence he can entered in the record. He told the judge he would give it to him.

Jmho

 

[kittythehare]

OT, but ...

I chose it in honour of the literally hundreds of missing and murdered indigenous woman of Canada .. the totem pole acknowledging their heritage, the red being the blood, all surrounded by trying to find truth and justice through the mist.

It's beautiful as well as the intention behind it.
Thank you.

 

[Chelly]

All i can say is if I was one of these Jurors I would hightail it home after the verdict. I would not speak publicly. Perhaps that's just me. Either way this ends at least a few folks out there are bound to be unhappy.

If I was one of the jurors, after verdict I'd leave the country for a few weeks.....maybe go to Canada.

 

[kkdj]

That's a good question. I'm not sure.

I am concerned if it’s anything less than 2nd degree murder there will be civil unrest.
Personally I see 3rd degree or 2nd degree manslaughter being the verdict tho.
Moo

 

[Chelly]

So if a jury has a child, even if they avoided all news coverage, they know a not guilty verdict will probably cause violence.

Personally, I think there will be riots either way.

Oh please, let us not speak of the R-word.
just my opinion of course.

 

[MTW2011]

Judge Cahill felt it was necessary. Being sequestered is not just so they don't watch the news, it is for their safety and security as well as shielding them from outside influences.

Didn't he deny Motions to have them sequestered throughout? In such a median driven age I've often thought how hard it must be to stay away from all media especially in a trial that will continue for multiple weeks. Even if it one can put anything they've heard about a case aside beforehand, that whole concept of judging yourself and your ability to do that is really interesting but too OT here. Im now finding myself I kinda wished the judge did ask them about if they heard Waters' comments, not divulging what she said at all, but just asking if. And if one had, asking if they can put that aside. I'm feeling this way even more after the judge's remark about grounds for a future appeal/overturn a conviction.