LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 12 – Meet the Jury Instructions, Bring On The Defense Case
Both Sides Will Argue for Modifications to Standard MN Instructions
Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Minnesota murder trial of Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd. I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense.
It seems likely that today will see an important inflection point in this trial, with the state resting its case in chief intended to meet the state’s burden to prove defendant Chauvin guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense beginning the start of its case in chief intended to raise a reasonable doubt in the juror’s minds with respect to the criminal charges.
Interestingly, the defense case in chief is expected to be much more brief, only about three days, in contrast with that of the state, which is now entering its 12th day of testimony.
Once the defense has also rested, it will be time for the jury to receive its instructions on the law from Judge Cahill before they go into deliberations, tasked with arriving at a unanimous verdict of either guilty or not guilty for Chauvin on each of the criminal charges brought against him, and perhaps lesser included charges, as well.
Judge Cahill has indicated that he’s likely to allow closing arguments to take place on Monday, with jury instruction and deliberations to follow immediately afterwards, at which point the jury will be sequestered in deliberations.
Minnesota, like almost all states, has developed a set of standardized jury instructions, and for its criminal courts refers to these as the Criminal Jury Instruction Guide, or CRIMJIG. Within the CRIMJIG the individual instructions are organized in much the same manner as Minnesota criminal statutes, and each CRIMJIG jury instruction is assigned a distinct identifying number.
As we rapidly approach the point of the jury being instructed I thought it might be helpful to share with all of you the relevant CRIMJIG instructions on the criminal charges in this case. Note that there are also additional instructions, beyond those related to the criminal charges, that the jury will also receive, usually of a more administrative sort—defining “reasonable doubt,” for example. Here, however, I’m focusing strictly on the criminal jury instructions.
I should note, however, that the standardized CRIMJIG instructions are not likely to be the final form of instructions received by the jury. The standardized instructions are best thought of as the starting point for the final instructions to be used in deliberations.
There is always some modest and contextual modification made to any standardized jury instructions—things like filling in the defendant’s name, the date of the event in question, and so forth.
The parties are free, however, to also suggest more substantive changes to the standardized jury instructions, argue for their suggested changes before the judge. The reason for allowing such substantive changes is to customize the standardized instructions to best fit the unique factual and legal characteristics of this particular trial.
Indeed, the parties have already done so in motions filed with the court, which I’ve embedded below, and we should expect final arguments on the jury instructions as soon as the parties have rested and before the jury is instructed—all these arguments, of course, taking place outside the hearing of the jury.
Ultimately the trial judge, here Judge Peter Cahill, will decide the final form of the jury instructions, either accepting or rejecting suggested modifications by the prosecution and defense. Just as the jury is the “finder of fact” in a trial, Judge Cahill is the “finder of law,” and the jury is legally bound to apply the law in this case as they are instructed by Cahill. (Of course, practically binding them to this obligation is all but impossible.)
As Judge Cahill makes those decisions on suggested modifications he will also be well aware that standardized jury instructions exist for a reason—those are the jury instructions preferred by the appellate courts—and the more substantive modification he adopts the more likely this case, and his legal decisions, are to be reversed on appeal. This awareness tends to act as a powerful brake on any judge’s interest in greatly modifying the standardized jury instructions.
You’ll recall that these are the criminal charges in this case:
609.19. Murder in the second degree.
609.223 Assault in the third degree.
609.205. Manslaughter in the second degree.
609.195. Murder in the third degree.
A more substantive discussion of those criminal charges can be found here, Chauvin Pre-Trial Day 1: 3d Degree Murder Throws Wrench Into Jury Selection Process, with additional discussion of the recently modified 3rd degree murder law of Minnesota discussed here, Chauvin Pre-trial Day 4 Midday: 3rd Degree Murder Reinstated, Sixth Juror Seated.
Here are the standardized jury instructions (CRIMJIG) relevant to the criminal charges in this case:
11.24 Murder in the Second Degree—Defined
11.25 Murder in the Second Degree—Elements
11.28 Murder in the Second Degree–While Committing a Felony–Defined
11.37 Murder in the Second Third Degree–Depraved Mind—Defined
11.38 Murder in the Second Third Degree–Depraved Mind–Elements
11.55 Manslaughter in the Second Degree—Defined
11.56 Manslaughter in the Second Degree—Elements
13.01 Assault–Intent to Cause Fear
13.02 Assault–Infliction of Bodily Harm
13.15 Assault in the Third Degree–Substantial Bodily Harm—Defined
13.16 Assault in the Third Degree–Substantial Bodily Harm–Elements
13.31 Assault in the Fifth Degree–Intent to Cause Fear or Inflict Bodily Harm–Defined
Here are the defense and prosecution motions on jury instructions, both filed on February 8, 2021. These will be slightly different from the standardized CRIMJIG instructions, modified in whatever way the parties think will be more favorable to them and also to be acceptable to Judge Cahill. It is likely further modifications will be argued for and against this week, beyond those contained in these February motions. Helpfully, the defense motion includes reference to relevant CRIMJIG numbers; unhelpfully, the state motion does not:
Defense Motion: Proposed Jury Instructions
LINK: Defense Motion: Proposed Jury Instructions
Prosecution Motion: Proposed Jury Instructions
LINK: Prosecution Motion: Proposed Jury Instructions
Finally, be sure to stay with us on this blog post all day as we LIVE stream and LIVE blog the trial proceedings in real time, and to join us again this evening for our end-of-day wrap-up commentary and analysis this evening.
Here is the LIVE stream of today’s court proceedings:
Here is our LIVE blogging of today’s proceedings:
Anyone interested in a free podcast version of our daily legal commentary and analysis of the Chauvin trial can access the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Podcast, available on most every podcast platform, including Pandora, iHeart, Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, simple RSS feed, and more.
And thanks, as always, to both Legal Insurrection and CCW Safe for the support that makes my coverage of this case possible.
Until next time, stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years. Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, and you can now order the most current edition for just the price of shipping and handling by clicking here. To know YOUR state’s use-of-force laws in an actionable way that will keep you safer physically and legally, take our state-specific advanced use of force class either streamed online or via a shipped DVD with a 100% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here: Law of Self Defense State Specific Use-Of-Force Class.
[Featured image is a screen capture from video of today’s court proceedings in MN v. Chauvin.]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
how ever Cahill can railroad Chauvin, he will.
he’s been trying to screw over Chauvin from the get go
I disagree with this. I think Chauvin is innocent, but I think judge is fair even if I don’t agree with every ruling. It’s like a football game, we always have a tendency to think the refs are screwing our team.
you obviously did not pay attention voir dire of the jurors.
You accuse Judge Cahill of exhibiting an active bias against Officer Chauvin in his oversight of the proceedings. How, exactly, did you arrive at that conclusion? Train of thought, examples in support?
he refused a change of venue , which is ridiculous
the error of his judgement is taking place right outside his courtroom
I agree that this was a huge mistake by the judge. But mistake does not mean bias.
he allowed obviously biased jurors to use the old and tired “of course I can be impartial ”
they either were impaneled or the defense had to use a strike
and come out of the clouds, everyone is bias to some degree
He’s also allowed the prosecution to spring two exhibits on the defense with very little warning which didn’t allow them much preparation time to deal with the exhibits. In one case it was one expert witnesses’ charts and graphs and the other was another expert witnesses’ report that he had written. If the prosecution wanted those exhibits as evidence to be presented to the jury then they could (should?) have entered them as evidence in the discovery process. Not simply a couple of days or hours before the witness was to take the stand.
I would assume that Nelson will move for a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the basis that the state has failed to prove their case (as indeed I don’t think they have even come close). I also assume that this will be denied for political purposes.
Would you agree, Mr. Branca?
Yep.
Are motions for a directed verdict ever successful?
Rarely enough to be as close to never as one might imagine. It really takes the prosecution having literally zero evidence on a required element of the criminal charge. The jury’s role is to be finder of fact, if there is no evidence on an element of the charge, there is nothing for them to consider on that element, and the element cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as a strictly technical matter. In that case, no rational jury could arrive at a guilty verdict, and directed verdict may be granted.
But generally prosecutors are smart enough to get at least a hair’s worth of evidence on element, and so long as there is >0% evidence there’s something for the jury to consider, and then you can forget all about a directed verdict.
Even if a judge is inclined to grant a motion for a directed verdict, he may wait until after the jury has returned its verdict and grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). That way, if the judge erred in granting the directed verdict as decided by the appellate court, a retrial is not necessarily required because the jury verdict exists. JNOV is a rarely granted motion: In decades of civil litigation we succeeded once in getting a JNOV. It was upheld by the appellate court.
Mr. Branca,
Have you ever heard of a partial directed verdict? For instance, 2nd and/or 3rd degree murder, but not manslaughter? Do you think that is more within the realm of possibility here rather than all? Or is the likelihood of any directed verdict so infinitesimally small it is not worth even considering?
Thank you for the confirmation. Along with learning a lot from you throughout the Zimmerman trial and later articles, I happen to work IT for a bunch of lawyers. Hang around them long enough and you start to pick a few things up. LOL
Keep up the great work, sir!
I thought it was standard practice to request directed verdict.
That being said, the state put on sufficient evidence that “implies” that Chauvins actions killed Floyd and the therefore the state satisfied the beyond reasonable cause standard
However, the state did not provide any evidence to support the actual mechanical method which caused his death. There is no question that Floyd died due to lack of oxygen, but the mechanical method of why the flow oxygen was cut off was not supported by the medical testimony.
The build up of fluids in the lungs prevented the avleiol in the lungs from transferring oxygen from the air to the blood was the immediate cause, which the rapidly build up of fluid was caused by the fentanyl combined with the other drugs
“therefore the state satisfied the beyond reasonable cause standard”
No. They satisfied the evidence > 0% standard only. Nothing more.
Not so. They have provided the jury with evidence on which it could properly convict, if it believes that evidence. Whether to believe it is entirely up to the jury.
It is standard to request a directed verdict. Why wouldn’t a lawyer do it? If he didn’t, it would imply that he didn’t believe in his client’s innocence. Even if it gets rejected 100% of the time, it’s a persuasive gesture that can influence the jury.
Obviously he will move for it, because that’s de rigueur, but the denial will have nothing to do with politics. I agree that it took the better part of two weeks before the state made a case on which a jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but Tobin’s testimony finally did that. If the jury believes Tobin and finds his testimony credible and convincing, and disbelieves any testimony contradicting him, then it can convict.
It doesn’t matter how phony you or I or even the judge think Tobin was. That is not a matter for a judge. Only the jury can consider how much credibility to give any witness, so in deciding whether to send the case to the jury the judge must consider each witness in turn as completely credible and truthful, and if any one of them or any combination of them made a case then he must give the jury a chance to decide whether to believe that witness or combination of witnesses.
while I agree with this sentiment, explain to me how this is not judicial bias ?
no legal proceeding should be concerned with political whims
Which instruction explains how the jury should consider what is “objectively reasonable” from the point of view of a police officer?
Thanks.
Both the defense and prosecution motions reference how the jury is to determine reasonableness of officers. That’s one I consider and administrative jury instruction, as it is not discussing a particular crime charged.
Could the exclusion of Morries Hall’s statements for hearsay be the basis for a significant issue on appeal?
It seems like a pretty big deal in terms of Chauvin’s ability to defend himself fully—but I have no idea whether it was a controversial call by Cahill.
Also, is there a possibility that Shawanda Hill will be called? I would assume she could assert the 5th as well, given that Floyd’s lady friend said she had supplied him with drugs (although allegedly in the past, from what I recall). But as far as I know, she hasn’t done so yet…
As to Shawanda Hill: it appears she has been called to testify, per NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/13/us/derek-chauvin-trial/shawanda-hill-who-was-sitting-in-the-back-seat-when-george-floyd-was-first-approached-by-officers-is-summoned-to-the-stand
Everything that ever happened happened in the past, including statute of limitations legislation..
Is the state arguing that the full videos are cumulative and redundant?
Well this video isn’t good for GF.
Prosecutions strategy now: Interrupt as much as possible with useless objections.
Like the democrats in DC, the State knows the refs are on there side.
What just happened?
sorry, their
This was a waste of testimony the way they’re limiting what the defense can submit.
What a stupid cross of Officer Creighton.
Prosecutor seems a little mad. Her tone changed to anger after that side bar.
Why didn’t Nelson fight harder to get the information on the police computer screen about Floyd to be allowed? Normally past criminal offenses are not relevant, but it seems to me they are in this situation if the officers on scene actually had that information.
If the officers know about past offenses, aren’t those offenses admissible as it helps explain why police may have acted in certain ways?
How is he getting these prior events into evidence??
What would have been the issue with the video, hearsay? Could they get the other officer in that case? Did enough of the make it to do damage.
Of course there will be unlimited technical problems now that the defense is putting on its case.
this woman is useless
She doesn’t have to be super helpful, just getting in the ingestion of drugs and that his BP was elevated.
does she have to mumble ?
She’s practicing for the PA announcement proficiency test at American Airlines.
This paramedic is a pretty bad witness. But I doubt she’s ever had to testify before and appears to be pretty nervous.
I would bet that there are serious safety concerns for anyone with testimony that supports Chauvin…
Let alone a juror who votes to acquit him.
Did you see how quickly they were baying for blood after the lady cop accidentally shot the thug fleeing a warrant arrest in MN? The same people who believe “lynchings” still take place in the US are, ironically, the only ones trying to commit them.
Dr. Rich would say that BP was really great, super strong heart!
7-9 every 20 mins, dang GF!
I would love to hear an honest doctor explain how that is obviously BS and no human could take that many Percocets for even 12 hours and live to tell about it.
Pundits on Washington Post are refusing to acknowledge George Floyd shoveling pills in his mouth while discussing Creighton’s testimony.
LOL now the Washington Post pundits are blatantly mischaracterizing the purpose of Creighton’s body camera footage. They are insisting that the footage was introduce that Floyd was non compliant and required additional force during his interactions with the police.
Uhhhhh No, its to show he shovels pills into his mouth when he gets stopped by the cops.
The local Fox affiliate just said that the video was bad for the defense because the cop drew his gun. Nevermind GF was non-compliant and taking one last bump.
It’s a twofor.
That helps the defense, unless it increases the jury’s sympathy for poor beleaguered floyd who just wanted to thug in peace — given voice dire, maybe.
Hopefully, the jury would understand that even if Floyd had “no coma”, did not fall asleep, no stroke, did not collapse, etc., it does not mean that Floyd’s body can sustain the same level of tolerance a year later. Plus, no guarantee that they were the exact same drugs either.
I think the use of the word “coma” is to paint an extreme picture. I personally would never classify someone unresponsive from an opiate overdose as in a coma.
But the prosecution team tried to paint it as an extreme picture as if Chauvin caused GF to go into coma or something to that effect.
Judge Cahill admonishing the jurors to not consider the behavior of floyd during this previous arrest… Is it possible that alone c0uld be enough for an appeal? That seems contradictory to reality.
Good thing she is wearing gloves while combing through her hair.
This witness is already painful.
What the hell is this judge doing? He’s trying to torpedo the defense witness.
He has been for the entire process
why is the judge doing this ? he is inviting her to take the fifth
I thought for sure that we’d see Dr. Baden take the stand for the prosecution. Did I miss him?
No Baden involvement in this trial.
Dr. Baden was not called to the stand.
Are they still gonna call morris hall and make him take the fifth question by question? I thought that was the ruling yesterday morning.
Direct and quick with Shawanda Hill.
I think Frank came off as very patronizing in his handling of Hill.
She certainly appeared to think so.
I thought he looked terrified of her, myself.
Seems likely Shawanda and Floyd were doing drugs and he nodded off. The jury can infer that, but will they?
Hopefully Nelson bundles it up with an expert and some hypotheticals.
They’ve been there, done that.
They were the ones not smart enough to get off this jury; you be the judge.
Chang can drive a car
case dismissed
I notice the trial is conspicuously absent from my twitter trends this morning. It’s pretty much been a top trend for me most days of the trial.
Branca comment – “Chang appears to be running Floyd ID on his squad computer.
That’s where video halts, per Judge Cahill in limine order.”
Branca question –
Does chahill exclude because it would be cast floyd in bad light ?
but should be included because provides additional basis for officers sense of situation
Yes, squad computer shows Floyd’s priors, inadmissible as character evidence in this trial.
But prior behavior would be relevant for assessing the situation?
Don’t know if the jurors are smart like this… but if they see the computer screen on floyd blocked out…they know it reads like a betty crocker cook book of priors.
There’s info in what’s told and sometimes more info on what they choose NOT to tell you. That takes some street smarts to have that presence of mind though.
I thought that only applied to defendants, not victims. We just had Floyd’s brother on who did nothing but attest to George’s character.
Shawanda seems higher than a kite
Including Floyd’s friends loudly criticizing and bemoaning his resistance to police is pretty strong stuff.
And “William Ricardo” aka Morries Hall is obviously his nom de guerre—did his ID have that name on it?
What if Hall had a gun in his backpack?
is this how they train police, to allow these two just to wander around ?
sit their asses down 15 ft apart
Absolutely not. I was watching that screaming at the screen. Absolute madness to see Shawanda and Moories just running the show and doing whatever they wanted. They were digging in their bags, getting in the car, and Ofc. Chang had zero control over them.
I used to live in this neighborhood in 1973-75. Pretty nice then. No druggies hanging out on street corners.
Just before they redirect the fire truck to “Park and 36th”, Chang (twice) asks Thao “Are you still red?” and Thao responds “Yes.”
What does that mean?
Ah, addressed: it’s the BWC on.
The “expert” on my local Fox affiliate just said they are having trouble locating Shawanda Hill and that she might not testify… Apparently the expert is not even watching the trial because she just testified about a half hour ago.
Barbie said journalisming is tough!
They should have asked Shawanda Hill if GF called her Mama too.
A Daunte Wright press conference right outside the government center scheduled for noon. Wouldn’t it be interesting if that turned in to a crazy riot?
I need to stock up on popcorn.
What it should be (if these “activists” were actually interested in doing something useful in society, which obviously they are not) is a tutorial on how to avoid getting shot or killed by police during stops:
Comply with police demands, do not try to fight the police, do not try to flee from them. If you have a complaint about the cops’ conduct or believe you’ve been wrongfully detained, wait to make your case at the police station or in court. Do not try to overpower or flee from police on the street. The police are concerned about being shot or stabbed themselves, and they have loaded guns on them. Police are human, and like all humans, they sometimes make mistakes. Keep those facts in mind at all times during your interactions with cops on the street, don’t behave stupidly, and you will greatly increase your chances of survival.
They certainly did their best.
The woman screaming “save his name” looked like a poster child for excited delirium.
Nicole MacKenzie = Resting Bitch Face?
This day is recess day
I suspect the defense will bring in a cardiologist to say that cardiac arrest can occur without anything that would be apparent at autopsy.
Not without the judge telling the jury that this has nothing to do with GF
his way of saying “ignore” without saying “ignore”
It seems absolutely insane that the judge is allowed to say this before each defense witness.
Drivers on the freeway know if the sign says 75, they can do up to 82 with no problem
I suspect in regard to being reversed on appeal, judges will sometime operate under the same theory
Except he didnt die of cardiac arrest
He died because the fluid in his lungs prevented the exchange of oxygen and co2 through the alveoli – the tiny air sacs in the lungs. It is through the Alveoli that the blood exchanges the O2 molecules with co2 molecules.
My question for Branca – Nelson did not address this issue on any cross that I saw. Any reason, or is he going to bring in cardiologists to explain why the cardiac arrest wasnt the issue?
Nelson addressed it briefly with the ME that GF’s lungs were overweight. The ME explained it away as saying that when you do CPR for that long they can fill with fluid. He might address it further with his own witness but it was mentioned briefly.
“Cardio” goes with “pulmonary” the way peanut butter goes with jelly, or meth goes with fentanyl.
Mr. Branca, how does qualified immunity factor into this case, if at all?
I read that it does not apply to criminal cases but it can be clarified and confirmed by the horse’s mouth.
Qualified immunity applies only in civil cases, accusations of negligence, not to criminal cases, accusations of crimes.
Thank you, and thank you for your efforts on this case. I’ve not found the equivalent anywhere else!
Notice the prosecution is not “dunking” on any of the defense witnesses?
Has defense said anything worth “dunking” on? Thus far, I don’t think we’ve learned anything new, other than perhaps that Officer Chang doesn’t understand the concept of Greenwich Mean Time.
I learned that the officers, especially Officer Chang, were exceedingly polite to the street characters. I hope that is noticed by the jury.
What is dunking and what do I have to notice about it?
Think Basketball: When you are dribbling down the court and attempting to make a basket. Your opponent steals the ball, sprints down court and does a slam dunk.
Nelson did it to the Prosecution about a 100 times with their witnesses.
It’s kinda like hoopin’, only instead of inserting drugs in your anus, you insert your anus in drugs.
while we are putting body cams on cops, maybe we should include prosecutors and judges
How ’bout body cams on politicians?
I’d prefer shock collars.
I can’t even watch the female prosecutor. It appears she loathes their police, but I could be wrong.
She’s unbearable.
Not specifically the police. She just loathes men, loves cats, and really wants to keep Rapunzel in the tower.
Did the MPD, BCA, city, et al, ever interview these 4 officers?
It seems that the state twisted and skipped the facts to fit their very weak narrative.
This Barry Brod is definitely a great witness and the state did not want him.
I am wondering how the Dr. Sam Sheppard case relates to this case. In the Sheppard case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the basis of the news media creating a carnival atmosphere. Here we have the threat of violence.
The shooting of daunte wright makes Chauvin even guiltier!
I don’t get Carhill’s overruling of an objection to the limitation of cameras as out of foundation.
This guy’s testimony could pretty much guarantee an acquittal. All the defense needs is reasonable doubt and this guy said that it was justified, reasonable, and in line with Minneapolis police protocol.
Would you agree, Branca?
Just out if curiosity, I would be interested to see what kind of testimony this guy would have offered for the state.
My guess is that the state realized that they could not manipulate Barry Brod into twisting his conclusions based on his analysis. Barry’s last statement was to the point…Chauvin was reasonable and objective in spite of the surrounding issues and factors following BOTH the MPD and national standards.
Yes, he added NATIONAL protocols, which destroyed that guy, stupid professor Seth Straightout’s (whatever his name is) testimony from yesterday.
Would you use a bathroom break to gather your thoughts and speak openly to colleagues to try and gameplan or is that not a thing?
if one’s case is full of shite, by all means
The state’s cross will not be successful with Barry.
Watch how biased the WaPo is in their reporting of Mr. Brodd’s testimony. Firstly, Chauvin was fired for political reasons, not because he was out of line in terms of force. In fact, the defense very clearly showed that it was Minneapolis protocol by using a handbook. And in a trial, experts will contradict each other and they’re favoring one over the other because of their biases.
These guys are a joke and the fact that they claim to be neutral is even more funny. They’re not even clown, they’re the whole damn circus.
I’m thankful for sites like Legal Insurrection that deliver fact based information that allow me to formulate my own thoughts and opinions.
Suddenly, on cross examination of the defense use of force expert, prosecution no longer uses the term “Chauvin,” but every reference is now to “the defendant.” I thought there’d been a pretrial ruling that the nomenclature to be used would be “Mr. Floyd” and “Officer Chauvin.” Prosecutors like to remind the jury over and over again that this person is not to be named but the guy is a defendant.
Judge Cahill will get right on this !!
I see you beat me to the punch. I commented the same a few posts down. Schleiter has been doing so for days.
All of Barry’s answers to this Scleiter’s questions are “maybes”. In reality, the state still has nothing.
maybe he will ask him if the judge is an asshole
“maybe”
This witness is hurting the defense pretty bad in my opinion. Good cross by the state.
Could.
Maybe.
Possible.
Never said Chauvin did it!!
Prosecution is asking the right questions, but I don’t think it’s effective because he keeps answer “it could” … that’s a big difference from the Yes answers Nelson got from State’s witnesses.
Just because it “Could” cause pain, doesn’t mean it did. Should they have gotten him a nice pillow to rest his head on too?
Schliecher keeps trying to change Barry’s answer into something positive. He just won’t quit.
I am not sure. He is the only expert so far that has come across serious and honest to me.
That has nothing to do with his demeanor and lack of emotion – that is a bit of an issue I will agree but that is who he is. The reason he comes across as the only serious and honest expert so far is because he is the only one who isn’t lying and twisting the facts. Every other prosecutor and expert are lying about what they know to be true. You think the forensic toxicologist really never heard of the slang term “hooping” in terms of rectal drug use? You think the prosecutors don’t know that? But they pretend it’s basketball-related. You think Stoughton really thinks the prone restraint is de facto unlawful? He knows it’s legal but straight-up lied. You think cardiologist Dr. Rich doesn’t understand the effect of clogged arteries on the heart? Hah. You think the pulmonologist Dr. Tobin doesn’t understand the antagonistic effect a CNS Stimulant and a Narcotic Analgesic has on breathing? He pretended he didn’t. Despicable liars, the lot of them.
To be fair, when GF was asked about the foam on. his mouth early on, and he responded he was “hoopin” I think it is very unlikely he just confessed to the officers he was talking drugs rectally. It didn’t appear that the officers registered his response to be an admission of drug taking either. I’m trying to be fair but I just don’t think it is reasonable to interpret it as an admission of drug taking.
Schleiter sure uses “defendant” a whole lot despite agreeing to use Mr Chauvin. He’s pretty egregious about it.
the judge is clutching his pearls at the moment
The ProAm Prosecutor’s name is “Schleicher”, not “Schleiter”. https://www.maslon.com/sschleicher
Schleiter has conflated “possibly” and “likely” in the infliction of pain in the prone position. Went unnoticed.
Apologies if this has been asked/addressed, but given the unique situation and series of events I thought it worth asking (possibly again).
Can the defense raise the politicization of the prosecution of Chauvin in its case? That is, can it call witnesses (or raise in closing arguments) which outline the timeline of GF being killed, general rush to judgement to bring charges before a thorough investigation? I’m sure it’s obvious to the jurors, but having witnesses testify to the timeline as well as political pressure faced by the DA?
The transition from recovery to prone positions appears to be a response to kicking at the officer.
I will reserve judgement until I hear the re-direct, but at this point it seems the defense overpaid.
prosecutor going way out of scope for cross isn’t he? why isn’t nelson objecting??
Lawyers have to use objections strategically in trial. The lawyer doesn’t want to risk annoying the jury with too many objections (making the jury think the lawyer is nit-picking over every little thing, and drawing out the trial unnecessarily), and the lawyer also doesn’t want to create the impression with the jury that he or she has something to hide, and is making numerous objections as a way of preventing the jury from hearing damaging testimony from a witness. Often a lawyer will refrain from objecting to an otherwise objectionable question because the lawyer believes that the question isn’t really harmful to his case, or in some circumstances, because he thinks the witness’ answer may actually be helpful to his case. Here, Nelson may be refraining from objecting to some questions that exceed the scope of direct because Nelson wants to be able to ask the witness about those issues on re-direct.
There was a noticeable portion of Floyd’s upper back outside of the circle drawn by Schleiter. The angle of the leg also appears to be pushing toward the back, diagonally across the neck.
Yes, the circle started at the armpit area, I would call that mid back. Thoracic area.
What is a technology break? Schliecher is trying to move Barry out of the grey area into concrete black and white areas, which has no reasonableness, common sense, and objectivity.
“Brodd is a train wreck for the defense”
Was afraid you would say that. Got that impression too but haven’t been able to watch closely today. Was hoping my impression was wrong.
I think his style is off-putting but his answers and information are pretty good. Stylistically perhaps a poor choice, but informationally I think it was better. Too many people focus on style over substance but I suppose that could be a problem for the jury. And he’s a white male, so that may hurt too in liberal-land Minnesota.
Wasn’t it possible to get someone more personable and less creepy and surly than Brodd as a use-of-force expert?
He’s coming off like a bitter prison guard who volunteers for executions.
He’s not terribly bright, either—his argumentativeness and monosyllabic evasiveness are the kiss of death for someone trying to humanize Chauvin and make his behavior sympathetic, or at least explicable.
Sorry, I accidentally hit the downvote button and I can’t figure out a way to fix it. Anyway, I don’t think it’s a matter of being bright or not, but more a matter of not being confident in his convictions. If you actually believe what you’re saying, it should be easy to explain the difference between using pain to incentivize compliance vs. attempting to control the subject which may lead to some discomfort during the period of time in which he’s being controlled.
The fact that he got turned around so easily on that particular point is surreal.
agreed. he was a poor choice in appearance. and he didn’t do great in substance either.
Is it vaguely possible that Nelson didn’t highlight to Brodd that an officer’s very existence is considered to be a “use of force” by the MPD, assuming that they are wearing a uniform?
Andrew, you said Brodd was a train wreck for the defense. I’m sure you will cover this in your wrap, but could you give a brief synopsis as to how?
I don’t see how – I see him calmly answering, conceding a point when necessary but providing reasonable context for Chauvin’s actions. Completely 180 from the State’s experts on cross. I’m sure some things could always be better, but I don’t see the train wreck you do. Could you explain
Not sure about the legal pros/cons—but it cannot possibly be good to have a use-of-force expert who is so surly, unlikeable, and monosyllabically combative. Couldn’t they have gotten a nice lady—maybe even a black one? Or are they facing a situation where no experts want to take Chauvin’s case—either because of professional integrity or fear of becoming pariahs?
I think it’s both. Brodd was one of few willing to do it and he is also very experienced. The issue I think is that Brodd is a self-assured, self-confident, aggressive white male. That is why he is in the position he is in. But we’re back to judging people by the color of their skin in 2021 so I suppose I see where his race, gender, and age combined with his opinion could be a problem for the jury. Although if that is the case, Chauvin was screwed from the beginning. Maybe Chelsea Handler was right? Why have a trial? You’re about to see a lot less cops, very soon.
Prosecution loves to show that freeze frame of Chauvin’s boot off the ground for a split second. If the jury was paying close attention to the video that is from that point in time it clearly shows GF lifting his shoulder as the defense expert said it could be. Also the time off the ground was so fast you almost can’t see it happen. This reinforces the defense theory that the weight placed on that knee was not as much as it may seem. I really hope the jury sees these shenanigans for what they are.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that Chauvin could conceivably have had virtually ALL of his weight on his right knee. In fact, I think that that’s a pretty good possibility, and would also explain why his left foot came off of the ground.
Branca’s comment – “No two ways about it, Brodd is a train wreck for the defense. They needed much, much better than this.”
I said the same thing 2 weeks ago when Legal insurrection announced that Brodd was the expert witness. The tape of the testimony of prior trial provided by Legal insurrection, brodd came across as arrogant and way too pro-police
I agree.
I don’t see how Brodd can argue that “prone control” is NOT a use of force.
Not good for the defense.
I disagree re Brodd. He gives short crisp answers to questions on cross, without prevaricating (unlike, e.g., Dr. Rich, who gave paragraph-long answers even to simple questions), and that to my mind makes him seem more credible.
OTOH, his offer to testify for the state gives me pause for concern. What would have said in that scenario? In view of this history, it’d be easy to paint him as someone who will say whatever he’s paid to say, whether or not it would be fair.
I appreciate his succinctness and he definitely has a poker face. I almost welcome it after so much emoting and bloviating. I don’t share the sense of doom about him some do here.
It was funny how much Shawanda hated Frank—but seemed fine with Nelson.
Hahaha I thought the same thing. I thought maybe she had defense and prosecution confused or something because it seemed like the exact opposite of what we have seen from any of GF’s associates.
She’s used to the prosecution being against her, and defense counsel defending her.
Washington Post talking head, watching three weeks of this trial, just called Prosecutor Schlieter “Assistant Attorney General Frank”
They called GF Derek Chauvin earlier.
I think it’s a dead heat in who was the worst witness so far between Shawanda and Genevieve Hansen (?), the EMT.
state is picking brood apart like nelson did the state’s witnesses
In the video clip shown, the foot appeared to leave the ground for only a fraction of a second. It also appeared to happen at about the same time that Chauvin used his hand on the vehicle to stabilize himself. The still picture conveys the impression that the foot was off the ground for a protracted period.
The talking heads are now equating the number of witnesses to a winning strategy. “The sheer volume” of witnesses is what matters instead of the content of their testimony.
Depends how the jury interprets the number. Fewer effective witnesses could demonstrate that the prosecution’s case is almost trivial and easily refuted – but only if they are effective. Fewer defense witnesses could also be interpreted as indicating that the defense is unable to marshal many arguments to support its position.
Thinking like a juror here – I take a Brodd over a Rich any given day.
Brood talks like a police officer, looks the part as well. That is what I would expect from a “use of force” witness. Not the policeman/school investigator/attorney/anti-police activist from yesterday.
Rich was the cardiologist who thought he was the Prime Minister of Canada. The school investigator was Stoughton.
Question for Branca: Why do the expert witnesses NOT say “it depends” ?
Clearly a ‘yes’ answer on some of these questions from prosecution is highly dependent on context. If I were wanting to not allow a questioner to take my answer out of context, I would pin it to specific context.
To cover their asses.
This whole thing has highlighted how truly screwed up our justice system is. No one is trying to get the RIGHT answers, just answers that fit their narrative. Questioning is so pointed and disingenuous that no one could possibly get the whole story. Expert witnesses willing to say whatever needs to be said for the right price, or even worse, people volunteering to say whatever needs to be said for free. Videos edited down to snippets, animations that take some liberties, and words and actions purposely taken completely out of context, I have to imagine not all trials are like this
Yes, they all are. Law is irony. It is a profession supposedly to seek truth, but it is the most dishonest profession one can find.
I’ve read (I think from Jack Dunphy) that people being arrested commonly tell police that they can’t breathe. Does anyone here have relevant experience that addresses this?
How is this AH HAH shit allowed to continue? This is what the prosecution should have used their case for?
Schleiter keeps using the term “on top” of Floyd and Brodd no longer pushes back on the characterization.
Nelson has dropped the ball in every way on this witness. Is he out in the parking lot having a smoke?
Prosecutor pointing out the teen girls and elderly man in the crowd, and ignoring the scowling, aggressive young men next to them.
One of the things that has annoyed me from the first week of testimony, the two young girls that were SO traumatized on the stand are smiling in a good portion of the BWC video. If I was a juror, that would have definitely stuck in my craw.
At what point can continued questioning be seen as desperation?
That was my conclusion!
Nelson should show the photo where Schleiter drew the circles indicating upper back and neck. Examined carefully, it appears to show the use of the knee that Brodd is describing (45 degree angle toward the body, knee on upper back between shoulder blades).
I’d be brining up the ‘I’m claustrophobic’ thing and contrasting it with him sleeping in his car 5 minutes earlier.
It sounds to me that dispatch should have sent more officers to the GF event, especially to control the traffic. Why not?
I have actually thought about that as a point against the defense. If the crowd was forming and they were worried about it to the point where it was getting in the way of arresting someone, wouldn’t you radio for more cars code 3 to help control the crowd?
MPD is understaffed. They have had a mass exodus since GF’s death and the riots. As such, they may have had all their bodies assigned to other calls for service. People have a notion that police officers are just sitting around in the department like firefighters, ready to roll out at a moment’s notice but that is not the case.
Refining fail on my part, If I may correct anc clarify my muddle up. “They have had a mass exodus since GF’s death and the riots.” should have been inserted at the end of my comment as a stand alone comment. Understaffed departments (there has been a national shortage for the last 5 years) sometimes do not have available manpower to throw every officer on a call when they are all assigned their own calls for service unless it’s an officer assist.
Erin Eldridge is unbearable.
Thank you. It’s not just me. I hope the jury feels the same.
GF using his shoulder or face to push himself off the ground is GF exerting force. Not Chauvin. Why has no one figured this out with that line of questioning when asking about the bruising/scratches to the shoulder/face.
Don’t watch the news.
Good advice, just generally speaking!
No tv 16 years now.
Last time I had TV was 1972. I’ve seen no films since early 90s. I didn’t do popular culture.
I didn’t go to college, of that I am proud. haha
I owned a small business.
They never got to me.
I’ve tuned out all of their noise. It’s I why can see them and their agenda crystal clear.
All of this goes to Globalist/Corporatist agenda.
It is classic fascism where government and corporatism are one. You know they always refer to “public/private partnership.”
That is also China, it is not a communist country it is a fascist country where private business is allowed to exist with government control. Fascism was the more successful cousin of communism, which is why the Chinese embraced it. The fascist brand is bad, but the practices are not.
A courtroom demonstration to emphasize the correctness re your comment on how Officer Chauvin distributed his weight seems ripe.
Last week, I used my couch and demonstrated to myself that, kneeling there with both feet off the floor. I could keep my balance, no hands, mind you, with nearly all the force transmitted to the couch by my right knee.
Try it. It may not make sense, but try it.
If I were defense counsel, I’d agree to let any prosecutor, or their champion of choice, kneel on my neck for nine and a half minutes, but only after the designated kneeler gets the same drug combo at the same level floyd had at autopsy.