To chongosuerte and all LEO, please stay safe. I hope our LEO avoid any serious injuries, or worse, when the crap hits the fan. I'd hate to see any deaths as a result of this trial, regardless of which side "wins."

As for OT, enjoy well earned $$$. My CHP friends say they never earned so much OT dollars than in 2020, with the defund the police marches. Ironic.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Chief must be pushing the Woke narrative, ready to shove Chauvin under the bus so the Chief can be popular with certain groups and as a politician. Chief must have no respect from those that serve under him.

I’ve always wondered if ol’ Chief Daniels from Hill Street was an accurate portrayal.

All signs point to “yes”.

LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 7 – Where is Cause of Death Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

https://lawofselfdefense.com/l...-a-reasonable-doubt/

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You need to listen to the rest of this Chief's testimony. This guy is apparently a clown who only has the job because of his non-white last name and skin tone. If I were on that jury I'd have discounted virtually everything that fell out of this clown's piehole.

If you did that, you'd lose his testimony that Chauvin wasn't kneeling on Floyd's neck

That's minimally useful by the defense and only partially diminishes the chief's comments. A better question from the defense would have been to ask the chief why he changed officer policy regarding these procedures if they were not in place prior to the Floyd incident. This moron was ripe to be ripped apart if the defence had pushed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Para -

Thanks for not locking this so far. The outcome of this “trial” is going to have repercussions for years to come.

I genuinely hope you will allow this discussion to carry forward in a dedicated thread.

Repercussions ? Give me a break. Whichever way the trial goes, there will be mayhem and destruction in the streets, and politicians and media will make fake hay of it until the next shiny object deflects the public's attention again. Wash, rinse, repeat. There's nothing new here.

Since the mayhem will happen in either case, we can at least pray that the outcome of the trial is of justice and not just bowing to popular opinion.

flashguy

Chauvin Trial Day 7 Wrap-Up: Defense Slaughters on Cross of State’s Own Witnesses

https://lawofselfdefense.com/c...tates-own-witnesses/

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Chauvin Trial Day 7 Wrap-Up: Defense Slaughters on Cross of State’s Own Witnesses

https://lawofselfdefense.com/c...tates-own-witnesses/

From the article: "We keep seeing Nelson circle back to this reality, and it’s a potent view of the events around Floyd’s death. It raises the legitimate question of whether it was, in fact, the angry bystanders who in effect “killed” Floyd by interfering with the officers’ ability to provide Floyd with the attention and care which he’d otherwise have received

some of the material from wcb's link above seems especially important

from the link:

MPD Lieutenant Johnny Mercil, Use-of-Force Trainer

Nelson is defense attorney

Schleiter is prosecutor

Nelson began by asking questions related to Mercil’s time as a street cop, with a particular emphasis on the tendency of suspects being subject to arrest to come up with all kinds of nonsense about why they shouldn’t be arrested that day.

Dangerous job, being a police officer? Yes. Are people generally unhappy about being arrested? Very rarely are they happy, Mercil answered. Do suspects frequently engage in a wide variety of behaviors to avoid arrest, including fighting, arguing, making excuses? Yes, they do, answered Mercil.

Indeed, when asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect’s claim of a medical emergency as an apparent effort to avoid arrest, Mercil answered that he personally had done so.

The state wants to present Chauvin’s knee in a negative light, as deadly mechanical asphyxiation, or as a “blood choke” as attested to by MMA Williams. In fact, however, the use of pressure and body weight to restrain a suspect was adopted by the MPD because it was a lesser intensity of force than the prior practice of using strikes—either barehanded, or with batons, or even with weighted gloves—to compel compliance. Mercil concurred.

The take home message for the jury is that Chauvin’s knee, far from being a public execution in a public street, was a lesser force than would otherwise have been required.

Additional factors that a reasonable officer would take into account in deciding how much force to apply and for how long included a disparity in size between the officer and the suspect—and as we know, the 6’ 6” 230-pound Floyd was substantially larger than the 5’ 9” 140-pound Chauvin —as well as the circumstance in which a suspect not only fought police, but fought multiple officers—exactly as Floyd did in this instance.

When asked if additional use-of-force factors included if the suspect was believed to be on drugs, and whether being on drugs could give a suspect exceptionally great strength, Mercil agreed to both statements.

When asked explicitly if any of the video of the event showed Chauvin placing Floyd in a “choke hold” (in this context meaning a respiratory choke but the term has been used with careless disregard for accuracy) Mercil was obliged to answer that it did not.

When asked if a carotid choke, or what MPD would refer to as an “unconscious neck restraint” required both of the carotid arteries to be compressed, Mercil answered that it did. So much for MMA expert Williams’ testimony to the contrary.

Further, when asked how quickly unconsciousness occurred when a carotid choke was placed, Mercil answered “ less than 10 seconds .” Clearly, then Floyd was not being subject to a carotid choke for the large majority of the 9 minutes or so Chauvin had his knee in place, and likely never during that period.

When asked if Mercil trained officers that a suspect who had become unconscious could regain consciousness, get back into the fight, and perhaps even be more aggressive than previously, Mercil responded that he did.

Nelson also explored with Mercil whether there were circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an officer to maintain a neck restraint for a substantial period of time, and Mercil conceded that there were.

Sometimes to maintain the neck restraint for however long it took EMS to arrive, asked Nelson? Mercil answered that he, personally, had maintained restraint on suspects for the duration required for EMS to arrive.

Nelson showed Mercil a series of photographs captured from the body worn camera of Officer Lane, and showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd from the angle down Floyd’s proned body.

Photo 1: Where’s Chauvin’s leg in this image? On Floyd’s neck? Or on his shoulder blades and back. Mercil: Shoulder blades and back .

And in photo 2? Same. Photo 3? Same. Photo 4? Same.

Are there circumstances like those already discussed where would be appropriate to maintain presence of leg across shoulder blades and back in order to ensure control of the suspect? Yes, there are, Mercil answered. For as long as 10 minutes? It’s possible.

It was after Nelson was done with cross that Schleiter attempted to salvage something from this train wreck for the prosecution by showing a still photo of the bystanders, pointing to some holding phones, and asking if people taking videos was a good enough reason to maintain a restraint. Mercil answered that video taking by bystanders was not a sufficient reason.

That’s when on re-cross Nelson pulled up the exact same photo that Schleiter had just used, and pointed out that in the picture MMA Williams was clearly being physically restrained from advancing on the officers by the arm of another bystander pulling him back.

Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?

Yes, Mercil answered, it would.

As was expected, a good defense attorney is destroying the prosecution's case. Because when laid bare here, the truth is devastatingly honest. I gotta have faith that the jury must see reality here and furthermore give a just verdict.

Whatever the jury decides, the finding has to be unanimous, correct?

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
Whatever the jury decides, the finding has to be unanimous, correct?

Yes, either way, it has to be unanimous.

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
Whatever the jury decides, the finding has to be unanimous, correct?

But a hung jury is still a semi-win for the defense.

In reference to the questions earlier about why the defense doesn't go hard on the witnesses now, there are three factors in play.

First, the defense recognizes, as has been pointed out, that there is a long time between testimony today, and when the jury retires to consider a verdict. Possibly three weeks or more. The defense will want the most devastating testimony to be as close as possible to closing arguments.

Second, the defense wants to treat the "enemy" witnesses as respectfully as possible. Court isn't a TV show. These people are senior cops. If they don't behave in a surly manner on the stand, treat them with respect, and get the answers that the defense needs. Such as, "are there situations where an officer may not provide emergency aid?" when the answer is "yes, when there is a hostile crowd." No need to stick a training manual in their face and tell them to read it. If they are honest, they will give you the answer. You only need the manual if they lie.

Third. The Defense is cross examining the witness. That means that the defense is only allowed to ask questions that explore questions the prosecution asked on direct examination. In this phase, the prosecution is directing the subject matter. For example, "excited delirium". If the prosecution didn't bring up excited delirium, it's very difficult for the defense on cross to ask questions about excited delirium. However, the defense can, and has indicated that it will, call these same witness back during the defense phase and ask them direct questions about things the defense is interested in, like excited delirium and other matters. In this case, the defense will be driving those parts of the narrative in which the defense is interested, present those matters in the best possible light, and the prosecution will be limited to cross on only those issues.

I hope this helps explain why the defense is being a bit "nice" and not going all in. They are poking holes, showing inconsistencies, and they will use that on their opportunity for direct to drive a truck through the prosecution narrative.

The prosecution is trying to set up a discussion where Chauvin's actions are unreasonable and against policy. The defense is undermining that at every step. For example, noting that the knee isn't on the neck, it's on the back, also asking how long it takes to pass out from a "blood choke" answer, about 10 seconds. Thus, Floyd couldn't have died from a blood choke, per the MMA guy, because he was awake for much more than 10 seconds, and the pressure was on his back, not on both sides of his neck.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
In reference to the questions earlier about why the defense doesn't go hard on the witnesses now, there are three factors in play.

Excellent points for those of us not lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
In reference to the questions earlier about why the defense doesn't go hard on the witnesses now, there are three factors in play.

First, the defense recognizes, as has been pointed out, that there is a long time between testimony today, and when the jury retires to consider a verdict. Possibly three weeks or more. The defense will want the most devastating testimony to be as close as possible to closing arguments.

Second, the defense wants to treat the "enemy" witnesses as respectfully as possible. Court isn't a TV show. These people are senior cops. If they don't behave in a surly manner on the stand, treat them with respect, and get the answers that the defense needs. Such as, "are there situations where an officer may not provide emergency aid?" when the answer is "yes, when there is a hostile crowd." No need to stick a training manual in their face and tell them to read it. If they are honest, they will give you the answer. You only need the manual if they lie.

Third. The Defense is cross examining the witness. That means that the defense is only allowed to ask questions that explore questions the prosecution asked on direct examination. In this phase, the prosecution is directing the subject matter. For example, "excited delirium". If the prosecution didn't bring up excited delirium, it's very difficult for the defense on cross to ask questions about excited delirium. However, the defense can, and has indicated that it will, call these same witness back during the defense phase and ask them direct questions about things the defense is interested in, like excited delirium and other matters. In this case, the defense will be driving those parts of the narrative in which the defense is interested, present those matters in the best possible light, and the prosecution will be limited to cross on only those issues.

I hope this helps explain why the defense is being a bit "nice" and not going all in. They are poking holes, showing inconsistencies, and they will use that on their opportunity for direct to drive a truck through the prosecution narrative.

The prosecution is trying to set up a discussion where Chauvin's actions are unreasonable and against policy. The defense is undermining that at every step. For example, noting that the knee isn't on the neck, it's on the back, also asking how long it takes to pass out from a "blood choke" answer, about 10 seconds. Thus, Floyd couldn't have died from a blood choke, per the MMA guy, because he was awake for much more than 10 seconds, and the pressure was on his back, not on both sides of his neck.

You often can't be "mean" to a witness unless that witness is already disliked by the jury and/or is clearly AND demonstrably lying. (Even then, you might be better off by simply making your point without rancor.) A jury will be deferential to a cop, so if you jump in with both feet and start slinging the mud, you may alienate the jury and bolster the witness, rather than the opposite. You, as a lawyer, need to remain likable yourself, and people who rush in swinging their dicks are generally not likable.

ArtieS' comments are accurate. This is the prosecution's turn, and if they are any good at all, they will limit the damage the defense can do at this point by staying strictly to their points. The defense will get its turn when the state rests.

Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: Defense Pummels Prosecution with Their Own Expert Witness

https://lawofselfdefense.com/c...-own-expert-witness/

quote:

You, as a lawyer, need to remain likable yourself, and people who rush in swinging their dicks are generally not likable.

I have never, in all the cases I've participated as a juror on (most times as jury foreman ), encountered an attorney I would describe as likeable. They seem to have always fallen into three categories....

1 - Utterly incompetent which mean likeability is irrelevant.
2 - Competent but unlikeable.
3 - Exceptional and neither likeable or unlikeable.

The demeanor of the attorneys are all but irrelevant to me when I'm in the jury box. All I'm listening for is a reason to convict or acquit and I generally ignore virtually everything else.

Thank goodness it appears the Chauvin defense is doing an excellent job of getting the 'real' details into the discussion.

Am I reading this article correctly? The squad car was processed but the pills weren't collected and tested until a second processing (requested by defense) was done? If that's the case that is some pretty shoddy work.Why wouldn't they have done it the first time around?

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-u...th-day-8-2021-04-07/

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
Am I reading this article correctly? The squad car was processed but the pills weren't collected and tested until a second processing (requested by defense) was done? If that's the case that is some pretty shoddy work.Why wouldn't they have done it the first time around?

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-u...th-day-8-2021-04-07/

If I were a juror, I would start wondering if that was planted evidence or not.