Here's another attorney's take on Day 8 and the prosecution's star witness on use of force being turned by Nelson to justify everything Chauvin did:

Legal Insurrection: Day 8

I haven't been following this day-by-day, but I am really impressed by Nelson as defense attorney.

from the above links

Nelson - defense attorney
Stiger - "expert" prosecution witness

Stiger was paid $ 13,000 by the prosecutors

Stiger wrote a 461 page report. but it was mostly filler material. 94% filler such as appendices, mere attachments of the MPD training and policy materials that had been sent to Stiger by the prosecutors themselves.

Only 26 pages were substantive analysis and opinion

This was the first time Stiger had ever testified as an expert witness. He is from the Los Angeles Police Department

Is the fact of Floyd’s size of particular concern, asked Nelson? (Floyd was 6'6" at 230 - 240 lbs. Chauvin weighs 140 lbs)

I wouldn’t say so, said Stiger.

Oh? Explain.

Well, Stiger answered, I’ve seen even small suspects be even more dangerous than large ones.

Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances.

Yes, answered Stiger.

In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson?

Stiger: Yes.

Things a crowd says to the officer can itself create a perception of risk?

Stiger responds that words alone cannot justify a use of force (and this is correct).

But words said in a particular tone can heighten a reasonable officer’s perception of risk?

Risk, yes, says Stiger.

MPD trains officers to consider the potential signs of aggression? Yes. Like raised voices, tensing muscles, exaggerated gestures, pacing? Yes.

What if someone tells the officer they’d like to slap the f*** out of you, that could be perceived as a threat? Yes, answers Stiger.

i agree Nelson is doing a very good job.

huge difference in how we interpret the day's events versus the main stream media

------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
i agree Nelson is doing a very good job.

huge difference in how we interpret the day's events versus the main stream media

------------------------------

I made the mistake of turning on HLN to watch a bit of the trial today. The prosecution witness is a pulmonologist who is testifying that Floyd suffocated due to being handcuffed while prone with Chauvin's knee on his neck. During a break the media "experts" said this was very damaging to the defense, which is odd because the defense had not yet cross examined him. Did they not learn from previous days where the defense attorney eviscerated the prosecution's witnesses on cross? Do they not remember that so far the defense has gotten two separate prosecution witnesses to state that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's shoulder(s) and not his neck? Gotta keep pushing the narrative I guess.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...vin-trial-so-far.php

Two vehicles, the SUV in which Floyd, his drug dealer and a woman friend were seated, and the MPD squad car, were impounded and processed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. But white pills in those vehicles were left unchecked.

Why? Because the BCA didn’t realize that drugs were a factor in the case. It was only in January, as a result of a request by defense counsel, that the BCA finally identified and tested pills in one of the vehicles that turned out to contain fentanyl–a lethal dose of which was in Floyd’s blood when he died.

The three officers who were with Chauvin on May 25, and who also have been charged, presumably won’t testify. Their lawyers will insist that they take the 5th–as, by the way, Floyd’s drug dealer did yesterday.

The dealer was with Floyd on May 25 and pled the 5th on the ground that he may be prosecuted for supplying Floyd with the overdose of fentanyl that killed him. But the jury won’t see that.

quote:

The dealer was with Floyd on May 25 and pled the 5th on the ground that he may be prosecuted for supplying Floyd with the overdose of fentanyl that killed him. But the jury won’t see that.

Sure they will. The Defense will likely be able to get into evidence that the state has identified an individual for prosecution that is accused of providing Floyd with drugs. They might have to be a bit creative with things, but Nelson seems smart.

Second, the defense will put the dealer on the stand, ask him very direct questions, and force him to take the 5th in the presence of the jury. A defendant can't be forced to take the stand if they assert the 5th, but a witness may be forced to take the stand, and assert the 5th with respect to certain questions.

I don't know quite how far the defense can go on this. For example, I don't know if they can show officer body cam footage that shows the dealer and Floyd at the scene. I just don't have enough knowledge of the criminal rules of evidence to know, but I would imagine something that would go like this (which assumes the officer tapes show what I expect they show):

Defense: What is your name?
Witness: Answers name
Defense: Where do you live?
Witness: Answers
Defense: Where were you on X Date?
Witness: I take the 5th.
Defense: (Shows officer body cam of Witness at scene) Does this refresh your memory? Do you recognize that man?
Witness: I take the 5th
Defense: (Showing tape again with Floyd in the background) Ok, do you recognize that man in the background?
Witness: I take the 5th.

Etc.

Again, I don't know if the above is a legitimate way of introducing the jury to the possibility of the dealer's involvement, and I don't know if the defense could then impeach the non-cooperative witness with properly authenticated video from the scene.

What I do know, is that the defense will try some version of the above, and if the trial court excludes all of it, there will likely be grounds for appeal of any Chauvin conviction based on reversible error, unless I am completely all wet about this, which is possible. It's been a long time since I was involved in the criminal law.

Nelson is clever though, I bet the jury will get the message, and will be duly instructed by the judge to draw no adverse inference from the use of the 5th.

Hopefully one of our judge or trial lawyer members will tip in with better information than my speculation.

Subtle distortion from the Prosecutor this morning.

Note the time stamp.
Photos are displayed in reverse order giving the impression of pressing down with the knee, rather than lifting up pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
i agree Nelson is doing a very good job.

huge difference in how we interpret the day's events versus the main stream media

------------------------------

It is not how the media interprets the day's events, but how they push their narrative on others. Most likely they know Chauvin is innocent, they just want to continue manipulating their readers and obtain large amounts of "clicks" to bolster advertising revenue.

^^^^ Yup.

I wonder how this so called doctor handled cross with this absurd take.

I'm listening to the cross right now, I think the doc is handling it well. Nelson is reaching, he's good. We'll see how this shakes out. The doc had my mind nearly changed listing to the examination.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
I'm listening to the cross right now, I think the doc is handling it well. Nelson is reaching, he's good. We'll see how this shakes out. The doc had my mind nearly changed listing to the examination.

But the doctor acknowledged there was no sign of damage to Mr. Floyds neck indicating strangulation by knee. He is basically saying that 140 pounds of Derek Chauvin plus his police gear kneeling on Floyds back and shoulder and neck was enough to restrict his breathing to the point of death.

So, if this is such a medical risk, why would it have been taught as a restraint technique?

Agree the doctor's testimony was compelling. But then if this is the cause of death, essentially having the air squeezed out of you by weight of another person, then why has the prosecution focused on the neck, "blood chokes" and everything else? I might not be a typical juror, but any sign of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks by a prosecutor would raise a ton of reasonable doubt.

The prosecution should have a clear cause of death and timeline of events supporting that cause. It is usually the defense that throws everything out there to try to get something to stick.

The problem for the prosecution seems to be there is a clear case of death, at least one clear enough to raise reasonable doubt concerns about the cause of death they are pushing.

What say our legal experts, will the prosecution bring up the drugs or leave it to the defense to bring them up? It seems to me that the prosecution will have to address them some how.

The prosecution has brought up the drug issue. To them it has no bearing. Floyd's tolerance apparently makes his level of fentanyl a non issue.

One of the witnesses claimed it was impossible for Floyd to die from fentanyl because his respiratory rate was too high before he died, and he didn't slip into a fentanyl induced coma before death.

But I'm a layman. I'm sure others will be along with more accurate commentary.

Defense: I object to the police surgeons bad combover haircut!

Judge: Sustained, jury may disregard any testimony from a witness who cannot even come to the conclusion that he is bald.

You guys keep misunderstanding this isn't a real trial, its a lynching. Or lynching attempt.

quote:

any sign of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks by a prosecutor would raise a ton of reasonable doubt.

IM unqualified O, that's exactly what's happening. With dozens of lawyers, and millions of dollars. The Irish doc made very compelling testimony that the death very well was from literally getting the life squeezed out of him. All the other toxicology and other evidence points toward the potential reality that had they simply tossed him in the car, he might have just died from his own drug ingestion. The defense, having not even had his real turn yet, has certainly painted a picture that the LEO's acted reasonably however. As Daily Wire has pointed out, the crowd is guilty. IMO, the drug dealer pleading the 5th is guilty.

There appears to be plenty of evidence that the majority of the time, Chauvin's knees were not on Floyd's neck. Now we've heard that may not have mattered...even the weight on the back and shoulders, given the unique situation and other factors, likely squeezed the life out of Floyd.

I guess I don't understand why Chauvin's life should be ruined for this.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
You guys keep misunderstanding this isn't a real trial, its a lynching. Or lynching attempt.

You are absolutely correct.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
Now we've heard that may not have mattered...even the weight on the back and shoulders, given the unique situation and other factors, likely squeezed the life out of Floyd.

Utter nonsense.

Steven Crowder yesterday did an exact demonstration of this with him handcuffed on the cement for the same time with someone with a similar build to Chauvin on his back and neck for the exact same amount of time.

Floyd died from a drug overdose.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
Now we've heard that may not have mattered...even the weight on the back and shoulders, given the unique situation and other factors, likely squeezed the life out of Floyd.

Utter nonsense.

Steven Crowder yesterday did an exact demonstration of this with him handcuffed on the cement for the same time with someone with a similar build to Chauvin on his back and neck for the exact same amount of time.

Floyd died from a drug overdose.

The Irish Doc gave a compelling testimony. I did get the impression he was seeking out this case though, to help advertise his findings which do not appear to be shared by some of his peers.

Forgoing his $500 per hour consulting fee (his words) may be indicative of his motive.