How she was laughing at times thinking of the memories and then crying again from despair and sadness. Absolutely horrific to watch.
Of course the lawyer is doing his job so I don’t blame him.
George Floyd | Chauvin guilty on all counts | Sentenced to 22.5 years
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
Of course the lawyer is doing his job so I don’t blame him.
It made me nauseous.
Both sides of lawyers did very well with her, both could be seen as advancing their side with the jury.
I don't follow - why does 'momma' inject doubt?
Can someone elaborate as to why the “momma” point will inject doubt?
Eddie Glaude just mentioned it, I’ll try to paraphrase...
It goes to the reduction of severity of the incident (Floyd was calling out for his girlfriend, not his mother, so the incident couldn’t have made been too traumatizing for Floyd, trying to lessen the blow of his death). It goes to lessening the shock of the whole incident to the jurors.
As it fell inside a rather lengthy discussion about their shared addiction of opiates, I felt it even played into Floyd calling out for his girlfriend as she was associated with what made him feel good & what could help alleviate any pain he was feeling at that time. That goes to the obvious dehumanization being attempted by the defense by portraying Floyd as a drug addict & how opiates could be the real reason he died.
It goes to the reduction of severity of the incident (Floyd was calling out for his girlfriend, not his mother, so the incident couldn’t have made been too traumatizing for Floyd, trying to lessen the blow of his death). It goes to lessening the shock of the whole incident to the jurors.
As it fell inside a rather lengthy discussion about their shared addiction of opiates, I felt it even played into Floyd calling out for his girlfriend as she was associated with what made him feel good & what could help alleviate any pain he was feeling at that time. That goes to the obvious dehumanization being attempted by the defense by portraying Floyd as a drug addict & how opiates could be the real reason he died.
I appreciate that this isn't your argument, but this just makes no sense to me.
All of which should matter absolutely feck all for the verdict, but yeah.
There will be at least one person on that jury who is just looking for any excuse to let the white cop off.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense, one wouldn’t use such an argument in real life, I don’t think.
But all that needs to occur is one juror becoming slightly doubtful of the reason why Floyd died to allow the defense to win this case.
See immediately above. @WI_Red nails it (as is often typical of him).
Thanks!
My single experience as a juror was surreal. We had one juror who was adamant that whatever the cops said was a lie, and we had one juror who adamant that the suspect was guilty because the cops only arrest you if you are guilty. Would have made for an interesting deliberation had the guy not pled out.
(He was guilty by the way, the whole thing was on tape but as we are finding out that means dick all)
Man, this really saddens me. Such blind faith in authority.
When & where was the trial? What was the charge?
LA in the early 2000's. I got reassigned to the North Hollywood courthouse which sucked because I lived in the south bay so the commute sucked ass, especially on a Catholic HS teachers salary.
Charge was prostitution, not surprising for the area, but it lead to some real bigotry in the jury room (Suspect was male, so was the undercover). They had the hotel room wired for video and sound so it was pretty easy to prosecute. The only possible defense I guess would be entrapment, but the defense pled out before presenting their case so who knows.
Edit: It may have been West Hollywood....
What was the sentence?
I keep getting multi-dozen alerts by the migration, I had a quick moment that I pissed everyone off with my interpretation of the ‘Momma’ testimony!Obviously the jury know full well what will happen if Chauvin gets off. I wonder if that will have an impact on their final verdict.
Don't remember us being told. He did walk free I know, as he wandered somehow into the jury assembly room and starting chatting with us afterwards. That was when the "cops always lie" lady loudly proclaimed something close to: "Don't you worry baby boy, those cops always be lying so you were going to be innocent in my book"
Like I said, surreal experience.
Agreed.
Wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest to see that as a part of the defense’s questions to LE who are called to the stand. Or in the closing remarks which allow much more latitude.
Paramedic dodgy as feck.
9 minutes in an awfully long time to be on the brink of death. It's probably seemed like an eternity to him because he kew he was dying and there is nothing he can do about it.
Every potential juror was asked multiple variations of this when they were being selected.
"Do you believe you can deal mentally with the media storm around the case"
"Would you be fearful to make the correct ruling - based on the facts you hear - even if you thought it would be unpopular."
Are the two I remember being asked. There was another one about 'could you cope with your decision potentially inciting violence' but I can't remember the exact phrasing of that one. There was maybe 4 or 5 questions on the topic.
I saw one potential female juror getting struck off at this point for breaking down in tears saying that she was already fearful, and couldn't make a decision that would put her family at risk....so I think the ones who are on the jury have been pretty well vetted.
Nice one, thanks for the info.
Who determines juror questions? The judge, a collaboration between the attorneys, or another party?
Surely the fact that there was one person who was adamant about the complete opposite is also troubling? Such absolutes in either direction can be an issue, hence why such broad generalized strokes can be so problematic.
Yep. Absolutism in anything is rarely healthy.
both were troubling. Not sure how deliberations would have gone. Don’t remember much (it was over 20 years ago) of the evidence, but apparently it was enough for the guy to plead.
Especially in instances like that which require people to be able to interpret evidence and make an accurate conclusion. It’s the same reason so many people end up locked up on bullshit because despite what the evidence points to, people blindly go with their allegiance or with that mindset of “oh well _____ can’t be wrong”
I’m glad it worked out in that instance. And I wasn’t trying to downplay the “pro-law enforcement” standpoint, just found it interesting that one side was troubling while the other was overlooked. I understand everyone has a bias to a degree, but to not be able to look past that and make a fair conclusion based on actual evidence, one way or the other, is troubling and really just causes more issues in an already less than perfect system.
Day 4
Defense really clutching at straws today
Defense really clutching at straws today
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Am I missing something with the whole "Momma" thing? It seems highly irrelevant as to whether DC killed him or not. I believe he was referring to his Mum as he said "Please don't shoot me I've just lost my Momma" while in the car. Even if he was referring to his girlfriend the point is he was still crying out for a loved one during his last moments.
I don't know how it infers doubt. Seemed like a weird angle for the defense to take
I don't know how it infers doubt. Seemed like a weird angle for the defense to take
It’s nefarious, cruel, & abhorrent. Most understand that Floyd was referring to his mother as he was being murdered, but the defense’s only real path to anything approaching a victory is to denigrate who Floyd was, devalue the severity of the murder, & to create any element of doubt in just one juror’s mind to make them think the murder was anything but.
It’s repugnant, but that’s what defense attorneys often are by just doing their job. Not many facts are on the defense’s side, so they will try to muddy the waters any way they can.
It doesn't. Its just an excuse for pieces of shit who want an excuse to ask for leniency.
All the potential jurors filled out a questionaire that included questions like 'How supportive are you of the BLM movement', 'Do you support the police', 'Have you seen the George Floyd video'...things like that.
Based on their answers to that questionaire, both sides came to a mutual agreement on 24 potential jurors being dismissed at this stage.
After that, the remaining potential jurors were questioned extensively by both the defence and prosecution (the ones I watched were 45+ minutes each side). After questioning, the judge could dismiss them "for cause" - if it was felt they were unable to impartially review the evidence.
The defence and prosecution also had a number of strikes each - where they could each strike a juror "without cause" a number of times (think it was 6).
Thanks, but I understand the juror selection / striking process.
But who determines the questions that are asked? Surely attorneys on both sides cannot ask questions that aren’t vetted in some way, or can they?
Fixed
I often wonder how these people can live with themselves. Defense attorneys in general, that defend rapists, murders, people that have masterminded terrible crimes. How can the lawyers that defend them look at themselves in the mirror?
I think it takes a "special" kind of person to do so. You need to be able to 100% convince yourself that every client deserves the most robust defense, regardless of tactics. My sister was an attorney in a financial firm but she quit pretty quickly because just couldn't dissociate the work being done from her conscience. It's the same reason she never pursued trial law.
Just watched a clip of a commentator saying she believe it was, what Law schools call, a Red Herring. A piece of evidence introduced designed to trick and distract the jurors into thinking it's more important than it is in reality. Despicable ploy.
Money isn’t worth tainting your soul like that. If someone told me they would pay me 500 million dollars to turn the other way while they injected 100 meq of KCL into someone’s IV and kill them, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself, or that money.
I think you have to have a lack of a conscience. That’s what it comes down to for me. Your sister quitting because she couldn’t dissociate the work from her conscience is evidence of that for me. Most jobs you can dissociate yourself from them, but defending criminals is not one such thing, in my opinion.
Because they are doing their part in keeping the system as honest as possible. Believe it or not, some defendants are actually innocent.