Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Andrew Branca To Cover Derek Chauvin Trial For Legal Insurrection

Andrew Branca To Cover Derek Chauvin Trial For Legal Insurrection

Andrew’s coverage helped make Legal Insurrection the go-to website for Zimmerman trial coverage, and it will be again for Chauvin trial coverage.

https://youtu.be/lirHz93qJ50

Derek Chauvin goes on trial starting Monday, March 8, 2021, for the alleged murder of George Floyd. I say “alleged” because though the media and activists have already written the narrative of guilt, we know that criminal guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and media narratives do not always hold up in court.

We saw that in the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, which we covered more extensively than anyone else. The evidence overwhelmingly pointed to a viable self-defense claim, so Legal Insurrection readers were not surprised when the verdict came down that way.

I revisited our coverage in February 2019, Seven years after Trayvon Martin shooting, the falsehoods, propaganda and misinformation are worse than ever and before that, in 2017, revisted how Five years after Trayvon Martin’s death, myths and lies about case live on

The Zimmerman trial was covered for us live by Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self-Defense. Andrew’s coverage and analysis gained widespread attention, and he became the go-to expert on the case.

This is Don West, co-counsel for George Zimmerman in the Treyvon Martin shooting.

Today is the second anniversary of George Zimmerman’s acquittal. Because of the hectic pace of the trial, I’ve only recently begun to review much of the coverage of the case; and I want to compliment Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson, and especially Andrew Branca for their exceptional coverage of the trial.

The facts of the case were reported fairly and accurately, and the legal analysis was always first rate.

Where so many news outlets and bloggers seemed unconcerned with the actual facts or the law, and were content to combine misinformation with their own misunderstanding, its obvious from the reporting that Legal Insurrection was genuinely interested in the truth and fully understood the legal issues of the case.

Your effort is truly appreciated. Thank you.

Andrew covered several other cases for us, but the past couple of years has focused mostly on his book and his subscription self-defense website.

So we’re thrilled to announce that Andrew has agreed to cover the Chauvin trial for us daily, as the case develops from jury selection through verdict. He is planning on a Preview post this Sunday night.

We will focus on the evidence presented in court, not any political narratives.

Legal Insurrection was the go-to website for Zimmerman trial coverage, and it will be again for Chauvin trial coverage.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Dantzig93101 | March 5, 2021 at 10:12 pm

It will be interesting to see how Ellison et al try to obfuscate the autopsy report and the bodycam videos.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Dantzig93101. | March 6, 2021 at 12:44 am

    You will see and hear what the prosecution presents. All else will be censured.

    Have we learned nothing?

    Branca coverage is the best!

    Ben Kent in reply to Dantzig93101. | March 7, 2021 at 3:01 pm

    MEDIA MANIPULATION
    The media are not stupid. They know what they are doing. By leading their audience to believe in guilt of the officers – they set up the audience for a huge disappointment. They know it will lead to weeks of rioting.

    Riots and disruption have a double advantage for the media: (1) it sells more advertising; and (2) it advances the “victim” agenda of the liberal-wing of the party – advancing the narrative that you need the democratic party to protect you from the crazy injustice of the right. Yes, the verdict looks crazy to the audience because they are fed weeks of misinformation leading them to believe wholeheartedly in the guilt of the officer.

    Facts, reason and rationality do not sell advertising. Mayhem sells. Mayhem disrupts the status quo. Mayhem gives a mob a reason to undermine the current power structure. Even the hint of mayhem sells (see “insurrection narrative”).

    The real story can never penetrate the media bubble because the media have a vested interest in deceiving the people.

Subotai Bahadur | March 5, 2021 at 10:12 pm

we know that criminal guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and media narratives do not always hold up in court.

You assume a rule of law, an apolitical judiciary that follows the law and Constitution, and a public that does not react to the legal processes with riots and murder. In 2021 in the what was America, that is an not inconsiderable assumption.

Subotai Bahadur

Wait, what?

Just kidding, looking forward to covering this trial for Legal Insurrection, and humbled by the invitation to do so. 🙂

Hold onto your hats, folks, it’s going to be quite the ride.

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
lawofselfdefense.com

    BillyHW in reply to Andrew Branca. | March 5, 2021 at 10:43 pm

    Have you seen The Trayvon Hoax documentary yet?

      Skip in reply to BillyHW. | March 6, 2021 at 4:10 am

      Yes I did see the Trayvon documentary, so know fabrication of evidence is possible by a DA

        pst314 in reply to Skip. | March 6, 2021 at 12:25 pm

        See also the criminal actions of the DA in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax.

          MarkSmith in reply to pst314. | March 6, 2021 at 11:02 pm

          I think it is always interesting that the Duke case keeps coming up. Mike Nifong was a piece of work.

          Disdained, Disgraced, and Disbarred: Mike Nifong May Be Gone, But The Damage Done By Durham’s Dirty Prosecutor Will Live On

          https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/disdained-disgraced-and-disbarred-mike-nifong-may-be-gone-but-the-damage-done-by-durhams-dirty-prosecutor-will-live-on.html

          If you ever have a chance, watch the Stair Case Murder or read the book.

          Nifong May Have Committed Misconduct in Other Cases Too

          Interestingly, Nifong served as an Assistant D.A. in the controversial murder prosecution of novelist Michael Petersen – another Duke graduate. (Petersen’s trial is chronicled in the documentary “The Staircase.”) The investigation began in 2001, and ended with a conviction in 2003. Did Nifong learn his dirty tactics then — or earlier? Did he use his dirty tactics then – or earlier?

          The misconduct revealed in the Duke lacrosse case merits an investigation into Nifong’s past prosecutions, as well. Nifong would have happily sent three completely innocent young men to jail in the Duke lacrosse case. Did he happily do the same to other innocent people in the past?

          Interesting Preview Here to hook you.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeudG20K4TU

          Dimsdale in reply to pst314. | March 7, 2021 at 9:42 am

          There oughta be a law!

    alaskabob in reply to Andrew Branca. | March 6, 2021 at 11:46 am

    The “value” of the present George Floyd narrative outweighs the value of Cbauvin’s life both nationally and especially in Minneapolis for the Left. The prosecution in Florida will not hold a candle to the fabrication of cause in this case. Madtin, Brown and Gray didn’t wind up “justifying” the degree of nation-wide destruction that Floyd’s death did. Their “heroic” deaths did build the BLM base used for Floyd. That BLM was built on the deaths of petty criminals should show how hollow they are..but it paid and pays big benefits.

    I started reading LI during Martin case. Coverage here will be the touchstone. I hope the world checks here for the deal news!

    Dimsdale in reply to Andrew Branca. | March 7, 2021 at 9:40 am

    Just keep your head low!

    Joe-dallas in reply to Andrew Branca. | March 7, 2021 at 9:52 am

    Andrew Branca

    Question directed to Andrew

    I recall seeing in the first version of the Autopsy (pre-drug report), a finding of “no finding of petechial hemorrhages” A medical term for signs of asphyxiation). Apparently the cells in the neck will develop certain characteristic whenever some dies of asphyxiation.

    The most recent autopsy report makes no mention of this medical finding.

    Any insight as to missing reference to petechial hemorrhages.

I look forward to your coverage Mr. Branca. We appreciate those that get their hands dirty keeping an eye on a system that has become a democrat party subsidiary.

Any sane jury…

Am looking forward to Mr Branca’s reports. These Policemen have a ton of “feelings” already against them. Our local Sheriff and Police Chief have made TV promos for a local media special, they weren’t pro LEO.

Seems there is a new standard of evidence in the court of public opinion, preponderance of innuendo.

George Floyd died of “hooping” Fentanyl into his rectum. And then the whole ƒucking world burned down.

    MarkS in reply to BillyHW. | March 6, 2021 at 7:59 am

    So, if George never had a knee on his neck he would have died that day?

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to MarkS. | March 6, 2021 at 10:05 am

      So, if George never had a knee on his neck he would have died that day?

      Yes.

        And you know that how?

          Paddy M in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:09 pm

          Because he consumed a lethal amount of fentanyl. Maybe try reading non-leftist news for once.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:42 pm

          And you DON’T know that how?
          Seriously, Mark, do you live in Sadiq Khan’s filing cabinet, or what?

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 8:20 pm

          And you know that how?

          According to the toxicology report Floyd had consumed/ingested a lethal overdose of fentanyl and meth before he encountered law enforcement. And that was on top of his hypertension (high blood pressure), enlarged heart, and Arteriosclerosis (hardening/blockage of the coronary arteries).

          https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

          MarkSmith in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 11:05 pm

          Bowman +1 Mark311 -1

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 4:30 am

          At Lucifer morning star

          Except that it’s your opinion that he does of the drugs the actual conclusion of the autopsy states he died of “CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION ”

          Where does that conclusion mention drugs. The report you cite doesn’t conclude drugs as an issue of primary importance. That’s your opinion

          Observer in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 6:29 am

          When the FBI got involved (trying to find a federal civil rights violation) they interviewed the Hennepin County Medical Examiner. Read the FBI’s 302 report. The ME said that Floyd’s death was a combination of the drugs, his pre-existing medical conditions (severe coronary artery disease) and the strain and exertion of struggling with the cops before they placed him on the ground. That’s right, before he was on the ground. The ME also said there was no evidence that cops blocked Floyd’s airways when he was on the ground — Floyd was still able to speak, and the cop was not even in the right position to block Floyd’s airways.

          Chauvin didn’t murder Floyd by putting his knee on his neck. Chauvin was trying to keep an agitated drug addict, displaying signs of excited delirium, from injuring himself. That is what Chauvin and the other cops had been trained to do, and the training manuals clearly show that.

          There was no murder here. There was no recklessness, or even negligence, by these cops. What there was — and still is — was a gross dereliction of duty by the national media and by the legal community to explain to the public what really happened here. Just like in the cases of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, etc., they let a false narrative be created and they actively spread lies and disinformation. And just like in those other cases, they will express outrage and condemnation when a jury fails to convict the designated “raaaaacist” boogeyman in their fabricated drama.

          paralegal in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 2:25 pm

          Autopsy report. Floyd had lethal levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system (pg. 14) in conjunction with 75% – 90% pre-exisiting cardiac blockage. (Pg. 10).

          There is no evidence of suffocation or strangulation. (pg.2; 7-9; 12)

          https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

      Anonamom in reply to MarkS. | March 6, 2021 at 11:28 am

      Yes.

      drednicolson in reply to MarkS. | March 6, 2021 at 5:30 pm

      If Mr. Floyd had not:

      a) dropped a cocktail of dangerous street drugs
      b) shoplifted
      c) violently resisted arrest

      He would not have been facedown on the street, restrained by multiple officers, going into convulsions from drug overdose and over exertion, and ultimately dead from cardiac arrest. (Pre-existing cardiovascular problems also contributed.)

      George Floyd was a small-time scoundrel and junkie, who ended up being more valuable dead to the leftilibrals than he ever would have been alive.

        Dimsdale in reply to drednicolson. | March 7, 2021 at 9:45 am

        Funny how each of these triggering police cases is due to the suspect resisting arrest or outright attacking the cops.

        Chris Rock’s video “How not to get arrested” is highly instructive here.

      henrybowman in reply to MarkS. | March 6, 2021 at 6:41 pm

      Yes.
      A better argument would be, “If George Floyd hadn’t seen the po-po coming and swallowed his stash, would he be alive today?”
      But when you go around passing bogus $20 bills, you lose the right to complain about that.

        mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 7, 2021 at 4:50 am

        Sorry your justification for his death is counter fitting $20 bills. That’s your moral and legal justification wow. That’s a pretty low bar for effectively allowing the death penalty.

          MajorWood in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 12:18 pm

          No, George Floyd decided to commit suicide over some bad $20 bills. George Floyd’s own actions led to his death. Just another case of where the cover-up ended up being more damaging than the original crime.

          If your airway is being obstructed, you cannot talk. The first thing taught in a suspected choking is to ask the person a question. If they answer, you move to the next stage of the assessment. If they don’t, you address the airway. George Floyd saying “I can’t breathe” is proof that he wasn’t being choked, and lends support to the notion that levels of narcotics in his system were already starting to inhibit his ability to breathe. What we have here is just a suicide by cop by somewhat unconventional means.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 1:52 pm

          @majorwood

          Sorry that’s crap, a totally disproportionate response. To suggest it even is beggars belief.

          As for being able to speak it only takes a small amount of oxygen to be able to speak. That doesn’t mean the person is receiving enough oxygen for there brains to function. From a scientific perspective you are completely wrong. Additional given that Floyd was unresponsive for 2 mins plus that argument falls apart even further.

          paralegal in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 2:29 pm

          That is incorrect. The “justification” for his death is that Floyd is on video popping the lethal dose of fentanyl(timestamp 1:34) and meth describe don pg 14 of the autopsy report.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyLlVERFqE
          (timestamp 1:34)

          https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf
          (pg. 14)

    Joe-dallas in reply to BillyHW. | March 6, 2021 at 8:06 am

    Floyd would have lived without the knee –

    He would have lived 5 – 10 minutes longer at most

I don’t see how there’s any way he could get a fair trial.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to BillyHW. | March 6, 2021 at 10:02 am

    I don’t see how there’s any way he could get a fair trial.</blockquote.

    There's no way he'll have a fair trial. I can't even see the possibility of seating an impartial jury let alone actually getting to the point the actual trial starts.

I thank George Zimmerman for his community and public service,. Hopefully Derick Chauvin will be exonerated, vindicated and ultimately elected as Mayor or even governor of Minnesota.

If anything, Officer Chauvin was attempting to protect the suspect, during an episode of seizures, from injuring himself.

    mark311 in reply to NotKennedy. | March 6, 2021 at 9:58 am

    You shouldn’t be hoping for anything, just let the process play out

      Barry in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 10:29 am

      You should just overdose on drugs and let the results play out.

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 11:02 am

      Actually, the process has already proven to be flawed.

      In order to charge, let alone prosecute a person foe homicide, in Minnesota as well as most of the rest of the country, there has to be sufficient evidence that that the actions or inaction of a person were responsible for the death of another individual. In the Floyd case, there were two enormous pieces of exculpatory evidence ignored by the state, when deciding to charge Chauvin and the others.

      The first was the Hennipen County ME’s autopsy report. IN it the ME clearly states that Floyd’s death was not the result of any manual strangulation or carotid compression. It was the result of a self induced drug overdose combined with several preexisting co-morbidity issues. So, no direct or indirect action of Chauvin or the others caused Floyd’s death.

      The second is the fact that the arrest was lawful and that medical attention was immediately sought when it became clear that Floyd was in actual distress. Medical assistance was not withheld. And, given the limited medical training and equipment at the disposal of the officers, there exists no evidence that their actions were not reasonable and they were possibly even in line with departmental procedures. So, it would be an incredibly steep uphill climb to prove negligence by the officers in Floyd’s death.

      Chauvin and the others should never have been charged criminally for Floyd’s death. Civil litigation by Floyd’s family is another matter. However, this case should never have gotten this far. And, it probably wouldn’t have, except for the politics involved.

        henrybowman in reply to Mac45. | March 6, 2021 at 6:46 pm

        Actually, even stronger: it didn’t just state that death wasn’t caused by either of those things, it stated that there was no evidence of those things even having occurred.

      alaskabob in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 11:58 am

      The jury of public opinion by a segment of the population resulted in the Summer of 2020. The difference here is that the hope of vindication rests on fact and evidence , not on fabricated narrative . Also, I doubt anyone here will torch cities if the verdict is guilty …. which is being set in stone by the Left before this plays out. The hope is for a fair trial …. which is in doubt.

        Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to alaskabob. | March 6, 2021 at 3:57 pm

        The jury of public opinion by a segment of the population resulted in the Summer of 2020.

        Let’s fill in the omission here. The jury of public opinion deliberately created by viciously biased ‘news’ media resulted in the Summer of 2020.

        MajorWood in reply to alaskabob. | March 7, 2021 at 12:37 pm

        I have full confidence that cities will be torched by the verdict regardless of the direction. Looters gonna loot.

      UserP in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 1:41 pm

      “You shouldn’t be hoping for anything. Just let the process play out.”

      That’s right Mark. We must not in any way interfere with the process by hoping. That would not be proper, just leave our minds blank until Mark tells us what to think.

        mark311 in reply to UserP. | March 6, 2021 at 2:48 pm

        The point I’m making is pre empting the trial results in either direction isn’t a good thing to do

          UserP in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 4:19 pm

          No, Mark. What you said is we “shouldn’t be hoping for anything.” Our hopes will interfere with the trial. “Let it play out,” you said. Hoping for justice is a bad thing, it will preempt the outcome of the trial. Oh my!!! We must be committing legal insurrection.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 5:06 pm

          User P … That’s pretty flawed, hoping for a specific outcome is not in the interests of justice. By definition advocating for a specific outcome outside of the process leads to an untenable position namely that we don’t care what the truth is and that the best route to determine the route as chosen by society is the court system. If the defendant is guilty then in an ideal world the court would find them guilty and punish accordingly and vice versa if they are innocent then the court should ideally find them innocent and let them carry on their lives.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:48 pm

          Our “hope” cannot possibly affect the trial results in any fashion whatsoever.
          Perhaps this philosophy explains why you are so hopeless.

      henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:44 pm

      Why? “Hoping is violence” this week?

        mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | March 7, 2021 at 3:04 pm

        Of course not but it’s a fundamentally flawed position with respect to law and order. You can’t respect law and order without respecting due process.

          pst314 in reply to mark311. | March 8, 2021 at 9:20 am

          Fundamentally flawed? So, looking back on the felonious misconduct of DA Mike Nifong in the Duke LaCrosse fake rape prosecution, it was wrong for private citizens to raise a hue and cry over the false testimony and the wrongdoing of the DA? Even though without public outrage a DA is more likely to get away with wrongdoing?

This is excellent news! May God bless you and protect you.

daniel_ream | March 6, 2021 at 2:01 am

I think Ellison has deliberately increased the charges to something that’s impossible to prove due to some technicalities of the way second-degree murder is defined in Minnesota law.

He’s creating a win-win situation: if Chauvin is convicted a scalp is collected, and if he’s acquitted the riots will be apocalyptic.

The Friendly Grizzly | March 6, 2021 at 4:51 am

Regardless of verdict, the riots should prove interesting.

    I think the riots will only happen if justice is served. That is the terrifying part. Justice is supposedly blind, but is she bullet proof?

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to amwick. | March 6, 2021 at 8:29 am

      If Chauvin is convicted, the [insert name here]s will still be out “celebrating” by smashing windows, looting stores, and jumping up and down on cars.

      UserP in reply to amwick. | March 6, 2021 at 9:00 am

      There are two possibilities which would cause riots in this case:

      1. Chauvin is found guilty
      2. Chauvin is found not guilty

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | March 6, 2021 at 3:59 pm

    Regardless of verdict, the riots should prove interesting.

    The riots will be puffed up to Eniwetik size by the toxic microbes who write for the NYT and its ilk.

smalltownoklahoman | March 6, 2021 at 7:01 am

Looking forward to your coverage Andrew, it’ll probably be the only bit of sane reporting on it!

Welcome back Andrew.

Connivin Caniff | March 6, 2021 at 8:50 am

Was there a change of venue? If not, why not?

    Joe-dallas in reply to Connivin Caniff. | March 6, 2021 at 9:05 am

    There was a hearing on the motion for a change of venue. Apparently under Minnesota law, the legal reasons for change of venue are very narrow. Discussion over at Powerline, ( who are MN residents and are very familiar with MN criminal law procedure) noted that Chauvin’s arguments were a very big stretch trying to make the case for change of venue under MN law.

    In summary,
    A) MN law doesnt allow change of venue in this case
    B) The law needs to be changed in this case where change of venue is entirely appropriate.

      Connivin Caniff in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 6, 2021 at 4:50 pm

      Thank you. But it is not merely a matter of state law. A defendant is entitled a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution. At best the local jury will be petrified with fear for the lives of themselves and their families. He will not get a fair trial in this cesspool of mob justice.

        TheOldZombie in reply to Connivin Caniff. | March 6, 2021 at 11:25 pm

        Honestly any jury anywhere would be terrified to be on this trial.

        I can only imagine the hell they went through to get a jury seated.

Exactly^

I pray the legal guild does not fail us yet again.

He’d have murdered him even faster if he’d put his full weight down instead of just what was necessary to restrain him.

Katy L. Stamper | March 6, 2021 at 9:55 am

Good news, having Andrew report on this.

This will be an interesting trial, from a number of legal and political perspectives.

One thing that has to be understood, is that the powers-that-be are not constructing a quadruple security fence with concertina wire on top for fear of Chauvin supporters rioting if he is convicted. Not gonna happen. The political narrative that Chauvin was directly responsible for Floyd’s death has been too widely accepted by the general public.

The problem, in this case, is the autopsy. It makes it pretty clear that Floyd’s death was the result of a self induced drug overdose, coupled with preexisting comorbidity issues. And, it found no evidence of any manual strangulation or carotid compression. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution handles that issue, as it goes to the heart of the charges. Will the prosecution have to impeach its own autopsy results? It will be interesting.

It will also be interesting to see if the defense opt for a jury trial or a bench trial. Personally, I would seriously consider a bench trial. Given the fact that the case is based largely upon appearances, rather than hard evidence, it is more likely that a single judge would rule for acquittal than would a jury. And, it is more likely that any conviction could be reversed due to error, with a single trier of fact.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Mac45. | March 7, 2021 at 12:46 am

    “Given the fact that the case is based largely upon appearances, rather than hard evidence, it is more likely that a single judge would rule for acquittal than would a jury.”

    Sure, that is more likely… if a judge could beam himself off the planet the instant he slammed down his gavel to stay ahead of the mob.

    If such were the case, a judge would have already have shaped the case in pre-trial in a way beneficial to the defense. I’ not seeing that.

    I think you have a better chance of finding a stubborn hold-out juror. It only takes one for mistrial.

This is going to be useful to me, personally.

I have a kid who was studying to be an EMT at the time. He brought up the videos to me, and told me that this was an obvious murder, that pressure on the back of the neck like that can be lethal. He was getting this from his professors. Chauvin’s defense in part, I hear, is that he only did what he was trained to do.

The video that was initially released was soundless, and truncated to delete Floyd’s behavior that led up to Floyd being outside of the car and on the ground, as well as the dialog among the officers that indicated concern for Floyd’s condition.

The toxicology report was not released until much, much later.

So, there should be a bundle of teachable moments in this case.

I think the careful, slow and boring procedures of a real trial are worth covering in detail, so that people will eventually be able to cut through the noise and tell why a jury decided the way it did. Regardless of the outcome of this case, there will be people vilifying the jury and the system.

    mark311 in reply to Valerie. | March 7, 2021 at 4:53 am

    Your counter statement doesn’t really change the nature of the restrain or its usage. It was well known to be a dangerous form of restrain used for an excessive period of time. There were 4 officers there , using that form of restrain initially may have been justified but then should have been switched to something else. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that applying significant pressure to the neck is dangerous and since he was trained he should have known that.

    Mac45 in reply to Valerie. | March 7, 2021 at 12:33 pm

    The teachable moment here is the same one that has been around since the beginning of time. When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Unless that assumption is supported by empirical evidence.

    In the Floyd case, the claim that Floyd’s death was the direct result of the actions of Ofc. Chauvin were based entirely upon a piece of edited video. Bad enough, in its own right, considering that we have a huge industry dedicated to making visual images create false assumptions. But, then, the news media chose to ignore evidence which directly refuted the assumptions drawn from the video. Then, for short-term political gain, the state acted against the officers, without sufficient probable cause. So, here we are. We have reached the point where the state has to justify ITS actions. If it can not do that, then there will likely be violent repercussions.

      mark311 in reply to Mac45. | March 7, 2021 at 3:18 pm

      The case hinges on two especially points.

      1) What was the cause of death and 2) was the restraint method appropriate and proportionate.

      For 1) both the official autopsy and the privately funded one point towards the restraint method as the direct cause of death.

      For 2) even when you look at the restraint method as used by Chauvin he comes of badly from a professional point of view. Using it for an elongated period of time, even after complaints and even after unresponsiveness from the suspect was not appropriate. Further we know the suspect was already handcuffed and there were four officers, at some point during the first minutes of the use of the neck restraint I’m led to understand that from a policing perspective it should no longer have been used. An alternative method should have been. Additionally we know that the restraint method was a dangerous one and given the officers training should have known this.

      Clearly these two points will be heavily debated by expert testimony at the trial. So we shall see in more detail what the arguments for both points.

        Mac45 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 4:28 pm

        You have that wrong. The points are; 1) what caused Floyd’s death and 2) did any action or inaction of the police directly trigger that death? There is a third factor; if the actions or inaction of the police directly responsible for Floyd’s death, were those actions proper and legal?

        In this case, the autopsy pretty well sets out the cause of death, a drug overdose compounded by preexisting conditions and possible aggravated by the stress of being arrested. When you read the body of the report, it specifically states that there was no sign of hypoxic-
        ischemic damage [present from inadequate oxygen to the brain] nor any damage to the throat, neck or larynx. The drug overdose was self administered. No police action there. The preexisting conditions were also not due to any action of the police. The arrest was an action of the police, but there is no evidence that the arrest was improper or illegal. And, there is no evidence that the manner of controlling Floyd, on the ground, caused any injury which resulted in or contributed to Floyd’s death. Did the police cause Floyd’s death, or allow it to happen, through inaction? As the paramedics were requested prior to placing Floyd on the ground, there is no proof that any lack of action by the police caused Floyd’s death.

        In other words, there is not now, nor was there ever sufficient probable cause of criminal activity, by the police, to bring criminal charges against them.

        You may want to sit this one out, Marx311. Just a thought.

          Paddy M in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 7, 2021 at 8:15 pm

          Even though Floyd’s blood work shows a lethal amount of fentanyl, Mark here says that the video isn’t consistent with an OD (whatever that means) and his “common sense” tells him that Floyd died of medical evidence-free asphyxia.

        alaskabob in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 10:23 pm

        Mark 7-11…. If the cause of death was “drug overdose” I guess your question would then be “how” did the overdose kill him? It is an understatement to question whether a lethal dose of drug didn’t directly contribute to Floyd’s death. Fentanyl is a highly potent synthetic opiod…and my guess is “I can’t breathe” had all to do with that and not the restraint. The compression is away from the carotids and tracheal…uncomfortable but not lethal. If he had been in the back of the cruiser he would have gone unconscious and coded. The problem with street drugs is potency. ..you never know how good the stuff is until you use it. Guess wrong with good smack and you’re dead.

Chauvin’s defense team has put together a panel of fourteen (14) doctors including the former Chief ME for the State of Maryland to testify that George Floyd died of a fentanyl and meth overdose.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum203042021.pdf

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to paralegal. | March 6, 2021 at 12:42 pm

    The persecution will fall back on the leftist, “It’s not the guilt or innocense, it’s the seriousness of the charge” trope.

    In any event, Chauvin is done in any kind of LEO work, and needs the equivalent of witness protection to start a new life.

    mark311 in reply to paralegal. | March 6, 2021 at 2:50 pm

    Interesting link, it seems to indicate that the group of experts is not admissable as it would prevent adequate cross examination?

      paralegal in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 3:11 pm

      That is incorrect

      They would come in under the business records exception or the exception for statements regarding diagnosis of a medical condition.

        mark311 in reply to paralegal. | March 6, 2021 at 5:11 pm

        Im going by your link which states that the group of experts would not be admissable. The state then proposed thatThere would be a ore trial hearing to question the basis of Dr Fowler’s testimony and it’s basis outside of the jury. It’s noted at the end of the document that’s the state’s motion should be granted.

          Mac45 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 12:42 pm

          The document is a response, by the state, to the defense request to have a single expert present a report authored by several other experts. So, it is naturally going to argue against the defense request. The judge will rule on whether the defense may proceed as it has requested.

      paralegal in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 3:50 pm

      The leaked bodycamera footage is interesting

      1. Floyd himself asked to be put on the ground. (” I wanna lay on the ground, I wanna lay on the ground!”)

      2. The “I can’t breathe” nonsense started before they even got Floyd out of his car.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gQYMBALDXc

        mark311 in reply to paralegal. | March 6, 2021 at 5:19 pm

        1) irrelevant
        2) after 8mins plus on his neck it takes only a hint of common sense to know you might physically endanger someone. The restraint technique used is a difficult one to adopt with causing harm and in many authorities isn’t endorsed or authorised.

          paralegal in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:42 pm

          Wrong and wrong. Just like most of your assertions.

          henrybowman in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 6:57 pm

          Stop arguing from “common sense.” Common sense is wrong almost as often as you are.

          healthguyfsu in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 7:21 pm

          Stop pre-empting the trial, mark.

          In fact, just shut up altogether because you’re not allowed to have an opinion towards either side of the verdict until the trial plays out. That’s your rules.

          TheOldZombie in reply to mark311. | March 6, 2021 at 11:28 pm

          The thing is that there is no evidence showing the knee on the neck is the reason Floyd is dead. There’s not even evidence of damage to Floyd’s neck from the knee.

          How do you explain that?

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 4:59 am

          Paralegal

          Sorry but asking for a specific thing to happen doesn’t make any difference at all to his defence. If Floyd had asked to be shot and then consequently he had been shit would that have been a defence no it wouldn’t.

          On the restrain method no it’s well understood to be a dangerous manicure to press on someone’s neck. Many police forces don’t allow it. There is even doubt that he properly utilised the method as well , he should have subdued the suspect that transferred to another restraint type. Even then he is in handcuffs and there are four officers there is an argument that by that stage he is already restrained.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 5:00 am

          @healthguy

          I’m not pre empting the trial I’m talking about specific points of the case. That’s quite different.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 5:05 am

          @oldzombie,

          Compressions of that type don’t necessarily have direct physical signs

          “Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted.”

          https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/

          You would also need to explain why the autopsy didn’t actually conclude that drugs were a direct cause of death as opposed to the conclusion specifically pointing to law enforcement restraint. It’s disengenuous to say it’s cause X because it’s mentioned in a report when the actual conclusion doesn’t even refer to it.

          Dimsdale in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 9:50 am

          “Common sense” would tell you not to resist the police. You will clearly live longer.

          Joe-dallas in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 10:14 am

          mark311

          The autopsy conclusion of Homicide is contradicted by the body of the autopsy.

          A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae (page 2 of the Autopsy report) petechial hemorrhages are always present in ashpyxiation (extremely rare not to exist)

          The absence of petechial hemorrhages is a significant hurdle and extremely difficult for the ME to explain on cross exam.

          The only plausible avenue for the cause of death is that being in a prone position made it difficult for floyd to expand and contract his chest cavity to breathe along with the officers failure to render first aid.

          The failure to render first aid is rebutted by
          A) the fact they called for an ambulance 4-5 minutes prior to the final attempt to restrain an individual who was
          B) Floyd remained very uncooperative and agitated.

          In sum, the conclusion of homicide is not supported by the detailed findings in the body of the autopsy report.

          The kneeling in the neck was not on the any portion of the neck that would have blocked air flow.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 7, 2021 at 3:28 pm

          @joe Dallas

          No it isn’t contradicted. Those were ordinary findings listed since it was a comprehensive report. The conclusion was as stated previously and didn’t even note details drugs as a cause of death. That was the medical examiner’s judgement.

          As I’ve listed in previous links. There isn’t necessarily physical damage as a result of the restraint. However his cause of death was consistent with asphyixiation , indeed based on the video his death wasn’t consistent with drugs at all below is a link that runs through the medical aspect quite well.

          https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/working-stiff/86913

Its a kangaroo court or let Minneapolis burn, no other options I can see.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Skip. | March 6, 2021 at 3:57 pm

    “and/or” let Minneapolis burn. There will be celebratory bonfires and killings if the verdict is guilty, as noted by The Friendly Grizzly.

    Subotai Bahadur

    henrybowman in reply to Skip. | March 6, 2021 at 6:59 pm

    I’m OK with the burning option. Seriously.
    Elections have consequences. These are yours, Minneapolis.
    Vote like Mogadishu, live like Mogadishu.
    “Magic dirt” theory takes yet another hit.

steve_gosney | March 6, 2021 at 1:57 pm

Andrew’s coverage of the Zimmerman trial was definitive. I look forward to the same here. Great analysis and knowledge are Andrew’s hallmarks.

This is something I had hoped would happen, glad to see it. The Zimmerman trial coverage is what brought me to LI in the first place.

I

In this, what I see so far to be the trial of the century, I’m looking forward to some great forensics testimony, especially the decedent’s documented pathophysiology and his toxicology studies both, say, with respect to a few hours before and at the estimated moment of death.

In addition, it will also be a watershed moment in the trial when the MPD has to admit, in the assisted demonstration by defense counsel, when it occurs, that then-Officer Chauvin performed his appropriate, MPD policy-compliant subject-restraining hold, whereby his knee is properly positioned on the back of the agitated and resisting subject’s neck, and not his throat, thus enabling the same subject to breathe and speak at will and unimpeded — all to effectively maximize safety and restraint in order to accomplish a lawful arrest to protect the public safety, the subject from harming himself, as well as his constitutional, due-process rights.

Moreover, it was the then-conscious, still-arrest-resisting, then-subject and later-decedent himself, who, although lawfully ordered, constantly refused to sit peacefully in the police cruiser after being read his rights, handcuffed, and thus lawfully placed under arrest. As the standard video of the entire event shows, it was the same Mr Floyd, who stated repeatedly and frantically, “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe!” and requested that the officers lie him down in the hope of being alleviated from his inability to breathe comfortably and safely, without any distress and panic.

The police accommodated their arrest-subject’s wishes, as courteously and professionally as was reasonably expected, in my opinion, under the mutually stressful and difficult circumstances.

II

If what I think was competently and impartially shown and explained about the event by a well-informed journalist, if its content is entirely accurate and remains unimpeached and not contradicted by evidence presented at trial, I believe the relevant, admissible evidence will show, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Floyd was 1) not mistreated, 2) not murdered, and 3) not even otherwise criminally, say, negligently killed by then-MPD Officer Derek Chauvin, but that Mr Floyd’s acute and grave distress, visible and obvious to anyone at the scene of the event that day in May, 2020, or viewing the standard, publicly available video of it, exhibited as a part of the relevant documentary, forensic, and expert testimony, will show and again so prove that it was Mr Floyd’s lethally toxic fentanyl and other drug levels in his system — along with his own stressful response to the event, no less his underlying comorbid, ill conditions — prior to and at the time of then-Officer Chauvin’s legitimate, non-life-threatening, proper police hold on the subject and later decedent — that all contributed to Mr Floyd’s death.

Most importantly, it is what Mr Floyd brought to the event, including his high-risk, toxic fentanyl and other vital system function-debilitating drug blood levels, along with his high-risk, physically and emotionally ill conditions that — combined with his own, stress-exacerbating response to the entire law-enforcement event in response to the crime he committed earlier and for which he was lawfully being arrested — that all led to his unfortunate demise.

In sum, Mr Floyd’s own prior and more immediate physical and emotional conditions, and his own responses to the result of his illegal actions that morning, his arrest, are the direct, proximate and legal cause of his own, tragic and untimely death. And when viewed together with the conduct and actions of the investigating and arresting police officers and then-Officer Chauvin in particular, their and especially his conduct and actions merely occur at the same time and in the same place as Mr Floyd’s reckless, self-destructive conditions and actions.

So in brief, then-Officer Chauvin’s conduct and actions in question were merely ASSOCIATED WITH, so at worst CONTRIBUTED TO, but in and of themselves are not solely, legally responsible for Mr Floyd’s death. Whether, in fact, the officer’s properly positioned and pressured restraint-hold even contributed to Mr Floyd’s death remains to be seen. From what we all know so far, that would be a stretched, distorted, and unanticipated finding.

Put most formally, then-Officer Chauvin’s conduct and actions were neither necessary — meaning, without which, Mr Floyd would have lived, regardless of his physically ill and theoretically toxic, multiple drug blood levels, soon about to fully matter — nor sufficient — meaning, having taken place, led directly and proximately to Mr Floyd’s death, also regardless of the same lethally toxic drug state, one of several ill bodily states at the time — as causes in Mr Floyd’s death.

This is what the facts — if they are substantially the same as originally reported, as referenced above — and any wholly valid, reason-based appraisal of them and the circumstances of their occurrence might and would say to an impartial, fair-minded finder of trial facts, or juror.

If, one most unlucky day, one OD’s on highly toxic drugs, skips taking stabilizing, life-preserving medication for one’s chronic, very poor state of cardiovascular health, and, in the usual course of a poor-choice-and-related-misfortune-filled-life, commits a crime leading to one’s arrest, and such person is both not the best equipped, physically and emotionally, to handle the stress of arrest, because one’s already on parole for committing a previous crime — then the present arrest is not very likely to end well.

Being no surprise to any qualified juror, then, like anybody else who gets up each day, happy to be alive, make decisions in accordance with and take actions that lead to and preserve, as conscientiously as one reasonably can, a healthy, wholesome, responsible and productive life, Mr Floyd’s present arrest, himself already in a multiply stressed array of acute, life-threatening conditions and eventually viewed worldwide, did not end well, to say the least.

III

This understanding takes a serious, sober, common-sense-based and realistic approach, along with a continuous effort to avoid a life-threatening experience that could end in someone’s return to prison, or worse, his ultimate demise: the essentially self-caused, merely law-enforcement-associated loss of his own life. The police, any police officer seen acting in the available video of the life-draining, national calamity-following event of that day is simply not to blame. All of then-Officer Chauvin’s conduct and actions at that event, if what I have read remains factually sound, is admitted as evidence and found truthful, does not point to a bad — but, rather, a good and conscientious — police officer in that place and time. He did not want, nor did he act recklessly or negligently to facilitate Mr Floyd’s death.

The lying spinners of a factually false, larger and infamous, nation-hating narrative, whose purpose is to bring down a relatively very good and fair criminal justice system and a liberty-loving and justice-preserving culture — upstream from an increasingly bizarre, narcissistic and sociopathic, coordinated enterprise to plot and process nothing less than an illegal, political upheaval or insurrection, a coup — are, in approaching the end of this nearly year-long national nightmare, more fully to blame. It is they who misdirected and deflected a proper understanding of the facts and the circumstances of Mr Floyd’s death.

Such was George Floyd’s sad fate, I’m pretty confident in saying. And the unanimous verdict of the jurors will accordingly find all the MPD officers involved in the suspect’s life-ending event NOT GUILTY and, therefore, duly acquitted of all charges.

IV

I would be quite surprised, but not fully; quite amazed, but not entirely; and quite, quite disappointed in American justice if Andrew Branca’s reporting and analysis of Derek Chauvin’s criminal trial admits and in the end finds only facts and circumstances that do not comport with the beliefs and conclusions outlined above — that’s to say, only the anticipated good reporting and expert analysis of the admitted and decided facts and circumstances that find then-Officer Chauvin guilty as charged.

In all reason, however, if that turns out to be the case, Mr Branca could not possibly be held responsible for any faulty reporting or analytical misunderstanding of the events at trial, nothing we see so commonly from the MMM, with few exceptions.

The fault for then-Officer Chauvin’s “guilty,” but, in all likelihood, baseless verdict, God-forbid, would, I argue deeply and probably among a minority of hypothetical trial observers, rests in the laps of too many of America’s mostly past but enough presently elected representatives at the state and federal levels; its appointed or elected judges and justices, state and federal; its uncaring, mostly secular, agenda-driven and indoctrinating, education-avoiding teachers and administrators at all learning levels, and an unfree press.

In short, our own institutions in our own culture — these have defeated us — but not ultimately and wholly; for our Bill of Rights includes a Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

V

That said, the bulk of this critical fault would rest with the People, We ourselves, who, for too much of a part, squandered our inalienable gifts from Above, our fortunes, and each one’s dignity and honor.

As Andrew Branca will undoubtedly report on and appraise during and after the trial of former MPD Officer Derek Chauvin, just as he sees it, so fairly, accurately, and admirably as he has in the past, he might also find, not what I hope he would, but what I fear he would: what, if then-Officer Chauvin is found guilty, We the People must ultimately own up to.

It seems, then, regardless of Mr Branca’s anticipated eminent reporting and appraisal, America’s very integrity — as possessing a competent judicial system, guaranteeing and delivering due process to the accused in a fair, open, and impartial trial — is itself on trial. In this respect, a verdict, either as a taxing triumph or a most heart-shattering defeat, awaits the accused, fellow police officers nationwide, and, not in the least, us — justice-minded Americans, who consider themselves We the People.

Because we are sovereign, know we can, and must dedicate ourselves to a better society and culture. Politics, it’s said, is merely downstream.

Now this is the way I daydream about the trial turning out bad. Maybe all will be good — at least the verdict, implications for the accused, and justice per se. . . .

In any case, I truly look forward to Andrew Branca’s periodic or occasional report and analysis. We, all of justice-minded America, are lucky to be getting his take and expertise.

    rhhardin in reply to GatorGuy. | March 6, 2021 at 4:53 pm

    “I would be quite surprised, but not fully; quite amazed, but not entirely; and quite, quite disappointed in American justice if Andrew Branca’s reporting and analysis of Derek Chauvin’s criminal trial admits and in the end finds only facts and circumstances that do not comport with the beliefs and conclusions outlined above”

    I hesitate to say I do not disagree with you.

      GatorGuy in reply to rhhardin. | March 6, 2021 at 8:05 pm

      Exactly. We know the justice we want.

      I think since 7/5/2016, at then-Director Comey’s bizarre presser — especially when he proffered for our irrational acceptance and idiot-certification his “no reasonable prosecutor” shtick — we, the theoretical sovereign and dealers, learned our real status in this game, called American fairness, out in the open: exposed and sucker-punchable.

      So, accountability? promoting, during cases, controversies, and preliminary investigations, concrete action to better the outside chance of a moral universe? justice?

      Comey said to us in so many words, Hey, America, Go to hell. We rule, he made sure we know; either you get in line, or you can drop out. It’s our country, and we pick the winners and losers. You’re just the spectators.

      Got it, Jim. And we’ve been getting it left and right ever since. I’m counting on the outside chance that a just and principled jury will be empaneled in Minneapolis and that the huge, varied and expert defense team will knock the evidence ball out of the park.

      An impartial, fair, and honest judge would certainly help. Looking for a real barn burner of a spectacle, anyway.

      MarkSmith in reply to rhhardin. | March 6, 2021 at 11:13 pm

      Remember the same people who are behind this show are the same people who said there was No Antifa at the Trump rally and the same people that stole the election.

      I expect to be shocked for all the wrong reasons.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to GatorGuy. | March 7, 2021 at 1:10 am

    The prosecution’s opening statement:

    Sometimes little people have to be sacrificed in the cause of revolution, and you’re no Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates.

    Thank you.

Most certainly the defense and Mr. Branco will stress that Officer Chauvin was following the Minneapolis Police Manual and his actual training when he used the “neck restraint” procedure to protect Mr. Floyd, responding officers, and the public.

Keith-X, the Democrat Minneapolis bureaucracy and the media can scrub their website and obfuscate to their heart’s content but the internet is forever.

Additionally, how can Due Process be preserved without a change of venue? Will Minneapolis citizens, taxpayers and business owners, even if they are permitted to serve on the jury, be expected to ignore the reaction of portions of the community even before the facts were known?

I believe Scott Johnson at Powerline is giving play by play coverage of the trial too.

Geez, I thought he died of Covid! My bad.

TheOldZombie | March 6, 2021 at 11:13 pm

I was of the opinion, initially, that Floyd was wronged. Should have waited for more info but hey I’m human and can make mistakes as well.

Once you learn that the police department trained the officers to do what they did, that Floyd took a lethal dose of fentanyl before the cops even stepped out of their cars, that he got prompt medical care, and that there was no injury to his neck meaning he wasn’t choked to death by the knee you realize that the officers should not be on trial.

I’ve seen the effects, in person, of fentanyl on a person. I’ve seen Narcan (naloxone) used to try to save people from an overdose. I’ve seen people die. It’s super easy to overdose on fentanyl. It only takes a small amount to kill you and from what I’ve read Floyd took enough to kill several people. He was dead the moment he swallowed it. It just took time for his body to die. Nothing the officers did could have stopped his death or was the cause of death.

I hope this trial will go the way that Zimmerman’s trial did. A lot of people thought that if Z was found not guilty there would be riots but the trial on TV really showed how the state was wrong. At his acquittal you had some protests but no riots. Having the trial on TV helped because the media couldn’t spin the trial. We all could see with our own eyes and ears that the states case was garbage.

But I don’t think it will go that way in Chauvin’s case. I think the country is in a different place. An acquittal will see widespread violence. I fear a jury will be thinking the same thing as well as fearing that they will be doxxed and attacked if they find him not guilty. The left has shown it will go after anyone. I see no reason why they wouldn’t go after a jury who finds Chauvin not guilty. I can see someone in the court system leaking the information somehow to the public.

Wouldn’t surprise me if some in the leftist media tried to smuggle in cameras to take pictures of the jury during the trial.

I see the jury ignoring the evidence and convicting or trying to find him guilty of a lesser charge in some vain attempt to please everyone.

Also he’s still going to prison even if found not guilty. The state want’s to bury him so they’ve gone after him on tax fraud on top of the Floyd murder charge. They most likely have an actual case on the tax evasion charges. They are going to get him in prison one way or the other.

Colonel Travis | March 7, 2021 at 1:21 am

I discovered Andrew Branca because of this site. I’ve learned so much from him, can’t wait for this. There is no one more knowledgeable about self-defense law.

I’m not sure I understand why we are having a trial. We saw everything. The autopsies are public knowledge. And yet he’s charged with murder.

Is that an “indictment” from a grand jury, or (as with George Zimmerman) an “information” from the DA? Did they actually get a grand jury to charge murder here?

Because it seemed the only reason they didn’t charge Zimmerman with Murder 1 was that one needs an indictment for that, and they probably could not get an indictment for anything from the grand jury and had to go with the information.

Jurors should be able to consider whether the case comes to them via indictment or merely information. In fact I’m not sure why we let DA’s charge via information at all. It weakens the meaning of “probable cause” which is constitutionally guaranteed.

    Mac45 in reply to artichoke. | March 7, 2021 at 12:18 pm

    There was no grand jury indictment in the Floyd case. It was a direct filing by the DA. Now, the usual route for charges being filed in high profile cases, especially those involving death and a government agency or agent, presentation of the evidence to a grand jury which will then decide it it deems it advisable to issue a true bill. Since the DA actually controls the grand jury process, it is usually quite easy for him to influence whether a true bill is issued or not.

    So, when you see a high profile case, such as Floyd and Zimmerman, not going before a grand jury, you should be very suspicious as to the strength of the evidence supporting such charges.

texansamurai | March 7, 2021 at 11:57 am

In fact I’m not sure why we let DA’s charge via information at all. It weakens the meaning of “probable cause” which is constitutionally guaranteed.
_____________________________________________________________

am not a jd so a bit confused by this statement–are you saying that a da(on their own authority) may charge an individual for a capital crime without compelling evidence? on “information?”( whatever that is )sans an indictment from a grand jury?

The prevailing theory, in criminal trials, is that there is a greater chance that a lone juror or two could be swayed to adopt a position more favorable to a defendant than a single trier of fact, a judge. But, that is based largely upon the position that the case against the defendant is strong, evidentially. In a case which is largely based upon a public perception of guilt, which has little of no basis is actual fact, then forcing a single, trained individual to make and justify a decision may well be more advantageous.

It is almost impossible to reverse the decision of a jury, upon appeal, based upon the assumption that the members ignored evidence in arriving at their ruling. However, it is possible for such an appeal to be successfully mounted against an experienced jurist. This provides the defense with more leverage. Also, in high profile jury cases, jurists are reluctant to grant directed verdicts of acquittal. They are much happier to allow the jury to render a verdict and take the heat.

You can actually see George Floyd swallowing the fentanyl pills on bodycam at timestamp 1:34.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyLlVERFqE

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend