Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree. The guy was handcuffed, lost consciousness (something which Deuse bizarrely denys, but his posting is erratic and confused at best), and there's a 9 minute video of him crying out for help as Police officers kill him, whilst said police officers are told by bystanders they are being unnecessarily rough and harming him. The optics are horrendous. The video is why it got the attention it did. Its practically a snuff video and is very difficult and upsetting for most to watch a helpless man slowly killed by police officers who are supposed to protect him.

Well yes, the video is what I'm referring to and the emotive reaction to it. It doesn't take 9 minutes to lose consciousness if you actually can't breathe, people who go into cardiac arrest also stop breathing. Note again he was complaining about not being able to breathe well before he was put onto the ground that he continued to do so when on the ground doesn't mean that being on the ground was the cause - they'd already tried to put him in a patrol car once and he started those complaints, started dropping to the floor himself etc..

Part of the outcry is that only select bits were initially released and without context - the conclusion being that it was solely the restraint causing his outcry and his eventual death when that isn't necessarily the correct conclusion here - it might well have contributed but the point here, re the trial, is that there is obviously reasonable doubt given that we now know about the presence of drugs, we know that the "I can't breathe" cries were made before he was even on the ground - those things aren't really as clear cut as they might have initially appeared in people's minds when viewing the first selected clips available.
 
Some updates on the Jury selection - they've agreed on 7 so far, the prosecution has rejected one potential juror and the defence has rejected 3, couple of others mentioned in this article have been dismissed for other reasons too.

https://www.startribune.com/day-end...-to-the-derek-chauvin-murder-trial/600033470/
When court adjourned for the day Friday, the jury so far includes one multiracial woman in her 20s, one Black man in his 30s, one Hispanic man in his 20s, a white woman in her 50s, and three white men, two in their 30s and one in his 20s.

[...]

The seventh juror seated is a single mother who is a high-level executive in the nonprofit sector focused on health care. She took the unusual move of summoning her own attorney to the courthouse.

At one point, the judge halted the live external feed and cleared the courtroom of everyone except the trial participants out of unspecified privacy concerns.

She told defense attorney Nelson that she had prior professional dealings with Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, but didn't know him personally. She later told prosecution attorney Steve Schleicher that "all of our interactions [with Ellison] were positive at the time" and would have no impact on her ability to be a fair juror.

[...]

The first jury candidate to be questioned Friday, a recent college graduate, carefully chose her words as she gave unwavering answers to probing questions.

She was asked about her ability to consider only the evidence presented at trial and not just the widely viewed video.

"What I saw as a human, that did not give me a good impression," said the woman, who disclosed that she participated in a social justice protest in Duluth in the time since Floyd died. "I just couldn't watch it anymore."

Defense attorney Eric Nelson followed with questions about her willingness to accept information about policies that guide police procedure and whether she was willing to listen to both sides. She assured Nelson that she would on both counts if seated. After a brief huddle with his legal team, he used a strike and had the woman dismissed.

[...]

The prosecution exercised one of its strikes and dismissed a prospective juror who served in the Army Reserve for eight years and was deployed to Iraq. He was questioned extensively about whether he could give equal weight to the testimony of police officers vs. bystanders at the scene.

"Being in the military, it's easy for bystanders to say how they would react in that situation," the man said, while insisting he would not give law enforcement an edge in credibility. He said the fact that Chauvin also served in the military would not affect his opinion.

This is in comparison to @dowie and I who I would be more than happy to strangle because he and I can have a coherent discussion despite our differences.

LOL thanks :)

I'm not sure what strangling would demonstrate here though - I suspect that a chokehold from some MMA enthusiast is rather different, if you were to put someone in the position where they'd need to tap out within 30 seconds or a minute or so lest they pass out then you'd not really be replicating what we saw even assuming some significant force was applied via Chauvin's knee - Floyd was conscious for around 9 minutes and taking at various points during the ordeal.
 
It's a common misconception that you can't talk when you can't breath. I think I could slowly choke you with my knee on your neck to the point where you would eventually go unconscious, whilst being able to talk throughout.

Well not really - I mean that's perhaps true for a very brief period of time if you're only able to exhale.

Given Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" before he was even on the floor then it's not clear at all that it was the restraint causing the issue. If there was significant pressure applied by the knee on his neck then sure, if not and he's in the recovery position (approximately) and simply being controlled/restrained then, while it might not be comfortable and he might still be distressed/anxious it isn't necessarily the cause.
 
"Juror #37." got me

"I'm going to focus on one issue and that's the presumption of innocence," Cahill said, addressing "Juror #37." "Do you think you could do that -- presume that he is innocent as you enter the courtroom?"

"I wouldn't like that verdict," she stated, before the judge interjected, "So if it if it was 'not guilty.'"

Yeah there have been a few dismissed without the prosecution or defence using any of their strikes - seems there are a few more instances of strikes being used mentioned in this NY Post article:

https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/six-j...derek-chauvin-trial-in-death-of-george-floyd/
“I’ve seen the video, so I can’t unsee it,” the woman, identified as prospective juror 37, told Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill.

“Are you willing,” Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson asked, “or are you able to set what you know about this case now aside and judge this case based upon the evidence in court?”

“Like I mentioned before, there’s video surveillance, so I can’t unsee the video,” she said. “So I’m not able to set that part aside… It’s still going to be traumatizing to me”.
[...]
Another prospective juror, a music teacher, said he could approach the case “with a clean slate” — but conceded that he had gone to the scene of Floyd’s death and prayed with his wife, calling the site “holy ground” on social media.

So far three white men, a black man, a Hispanic man, and a woman of mixed race have been seated in the case, but Nelson has used 7 of the 15 challenges he is allowed.

Prosecutors have used 4 of the 9 that they are alloted.

Other prospective jurors have been dismissed by Cahill, and 18 others were dismissed without even being questioned, in many cases over answers they gave on a 16-page jury questionnaire that was sent to them in December.



The social media thing is rather awkward - thinking about the risk to the prosecution re: any appeals here, imagine some SJW type thinking they are doing good by making sure they get onto the Jury and they don't mention something like that, the identities of these people will be revealed eventually and then if something like that comes out - a juror having gone to a protest or gone to the site and called it "holy ground" or made some other comments on social media and it hadn't been mentioned then presumably, if Chauvin is convicted, then there become obvious grounds for appeal.
 
Young jurors are bad for the defence team. They want middle aged to retirement aged white non collage educated jurors. I'd imagine the prosecution will be trying to keep them from the jury.

Probs need a demotion in your username from Colonel Klinck to Captain Obvious :p

Anyway here is some data, interestingly opinions have shifted a fair bit since the BLM/Antifa hysteria last summer:

Last June:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/usa-today-protests-2020
Though most say Floyd’s death was murder, significant differences exist between white and black Americans (55% and 83%, respectively), along with Republicans and Democrats (46% and 75%, respectively).

More recent polling this month:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...sat-ipsos_racial_injustice_topline_030421.pdf
far fewer Americans personally believe George Floyd was murdered (36%) compared to last summer (60%). Though slightly more believe it was an accident (8%, up from 3%), much of this shift has been to respondents saying they don’t know. Currently, 17% say they don’t know how to characterize Floyd’s death, up from 4% in June.

dyhiPsX.png


Hennepin County itself is approx just under 2/3rd democrat voters, just under 1/3rd Republican voters and circa 8% independents.

2nd degree murder looks like a reach - manslaughter is quite plausible. 3rd degree also likely has a shot as of course does not guilty.
 
Did wonder about this - the city/Mayor made some serious mis-steps already, they sacked all officers without due process, they were pressuring the local prosecutor to come up with charges even though the prosecutor, quite sensibly, state the case would be difficult and now the massive (politically motivated) settlement which seems to have been made as some sort of grand virtue signalling gesture before the trial ironically has the potential to undermine it.

The Twitter account bad legal takes was mocking someone the other day for posting this out but it seems there is some risk here. Will they now need to re-question the already selected jurors, will they push for a new trial location (the settlement will have been bigger news locally), will it be something they leverage in a future appeal if Chauvin is found guilty?

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021...-settlement-could-impact-derek-chauvin-trial/
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called it a milestone. The city council unanimously approved the settlement.

Announcing the settlement in the middle of jury selection for the murder trial of Derek Chauvin confused legal experts.

“It was absolutely terrible timing, I would say for both sides,” said Mary Moriarty, the former chief public defender in Hennepin County.

Prospective jurors in the trial can still be questioned about their thoughts on the settlement, but Moriarty says no one knows how the news will affect the seven already seated.

“Most jurors I think would perceive [the settlement] as the city’s belief that Chauvin did murder George Floyd and that they are liable,” Moriarty said.

It’s assumed that it’d be very difficult to insulate any jury from hearing about the settlement.

Joe Tamburino, a criminal defense attorney not affiliated with the case, lays out some options Chauvin’s team has.

“They could make a motion for a mistrial based on an argument that there was some influence on a jury,” he said. “They could make a motion to change venue. They could also ask to have the seven jurors who have been picked so far to come back and be re-questioned.”
 
It changed mine and my wifes perspective last night so I linked it on Facebook and loads have changed their view.
This footage should have been released immediately.

The thing is, in the original thread, without needing to look at the footage (which wasn't available), there was still reporting available detailing aspects of it - namely via the lawyers of one of the officers IIRC (sadly that thread was disappeared rather than simply being locked because some people get overly emotive at others having different opinions so we can't look back at it).

But that he was saying "I can't breathe" and dropped to the floor when they first tried to put him in the cop car was described/known before the full footage was leaked by the Daily Mail and IIRC I pointed it out.

It seems having the actual footage is a heck of a lot more powerful for changing people's minds on this. Not too surprising they only wanted select clips released to the media.
 
Interesting updates from this twitter account:

Inc this tweet from a few days ago - I guess they're checking the social media of every potenitla juror:

A juror from today... thought Floyd had been shot, WTF????

Lastly on the hefty pay out the defence are now using to try to get the trial moved and/or delayed - the prosecutor's son is on the city council and was involved with that pay out:

In other news, there are now 9 jurors:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...auvin-trial-live-half-jury-seated/4642884001/
In total, nine jurors have been selected to serve on Chauvin's trial. Five of the jurors identify as white, one as multiracial, one as Hispanic and two as Black, according to the court. Seven of the jurors are in their 20s or 30s, and two are in their 50s.

Also, stated openly in court:
The first potential juror questioned Monday was excused after immediately noting headlines Friday about
city leaders approving a $27 million civil settlement in Floyd's deathsomething the potential juror said indicated to her as the city being unable to win the lawsuit. The issue is something Chauvin's attorneys raised as potentially preventing a fair trial.
 
Last edited:
Interesting - the defence wants to make reference to behaviour in a previous arrest - when people were forming perceptions watching the initial footage lots of weight was probs put on "I can't breathe" and him calling out for his mama and generally getting very distressed - we've since learned that he was crying out I can't breathe and was getting distressed well before he was put on the ground. Now it seems there was similar panic/anxiety in a previous arrest:



^^^ that's pretty damning - swallowed drugs that time too, was also uncooperative and getting hysterical, claiming he'd been shot etc...

Puts the behaviour in the clip for this case into context a bit!

Leaving aside whether he is guilty of the charges or not. How is he ever going to get a fair trial? Honestly, I don't think he will if a jury is involved. I think the best thing to do is with 3 judges who have a higher chance of being impartial. They then come to their conclusion individually and whoever gets 2 or above that's the way it goes.

True, though I guess this is one of those cases where if you'd be guaranteed riots etc.. if there was no jury and some judges gave a not-guilty verdict - it would be all about how "the system" is racist/unfair etc.. Though I guess there will be riots regardless.
 
I think he means the entire video. The full 20+ minute version or however long it is.

Is there anything of relevance other than the kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes?

^^^^^

I think this is part of the problem the US is going to have with the verdict especially if manslaughter or not guilty, lots of people just aren't familiar with the facts of the case and have just held onto opinions formed based on the initial pictures/viral footage.

I we can get a poster making terse, replies in this thread where additional info is available just image what the average SJW/woke type only consuming a few SJW focused news outlets and the virtue signalling posts of fellow woke types on social media will make of it or worse what some barely educated African Americans in various inner-city areas will make of it...
 
Since you don't bother saying what you're replying to and apparently don't know what you're replying to (judging by your comment about trolling), I'm going to pretend you're talking to yourself.

He's a bit confused about the quote function so perhaps it isn't clear what he was referring to, though given he can't describe whatever it was either it's a bit moot perhaps:

What's with the thing on this forum where people quote the previous post? Is it incase said person edits the post?
 
Update for today - no new jurors selected!

Judge isn't too happy about the reported settlement by the city or the leak that Chauvin tried to go with a plea deal previously.

https://www.startribune.com/record-...ction-in-chauvin-case/600035106/?refresh=true
The record-setting $27 million civil settlement between Minneapolis and the family of George Floyd weighed heavily Tuesday in Hennepin County District Court, bogging down attempts to seat jurors to hear the murder and manslaughter case against former police officer Derek Chauvin.

None of the seven potential jurors questioned Tuesday were seated. Judge Peter Cahill struck five of the candidates for bias or because they said serving would create a hardship, and defense attorney Eric Nelson used his strikes on the other two. Nelson has used 11 of his 15 strikes. Nine jurors have been seated with 14 needed for trial, including two alternates. Prosecutors have five strikes remaining.

Cahill again dealt with the pretrial fallout from the settlement. The judge said he would recall the seven jurors seated before Friday's announcement to question them Wednesday about their knowledge of last week's settlement. He is also expected to rule on defense requests to either move the trial or delay opening statements scheduled for March 29. The prosecution opposes both.

Cahill and Nelson expressed exasperation over city leaders' decision to announce the settlement just blocks from the courthouse where they are trying to seat the jury.

Nelson said his client's right to a fair trial is at risk. "You have elected officials — the governor, the mayor — making incredibly prejudicial statements about my client," he said.

Also the 2019 footage that was previously denied has been argued for by the defence and the judge is due to rule on that - particularly I guess the comments from the paramedic are relevant here re: George's previous response to swallowing drugs in that arrest:

In addition to Nelson's request to delay or move the trial, he also asked Cahill to reconsider allowing details from Floyd's May 2019 arrest in Minneapolis. Cahill previously denied testimony about the arrest, but opened the door Tuesday after hearing Nelson's arguments. He said he would rule Thursday.

In both May 2019 and 2020, Floyd swallowed drugs during his police encounters. In the earlier incident, captured on police body camera video, the drugs led to a "hypertensive emergency" and Floyd's hospitalization.

According to the evidence from the earlier arrest, Nelson said, a paramedic warned Floyd that his blood pressure was extremely high, and if he didn't calm down, he was at risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The cause of Floyd's death will be a core issue at trial. Nelson will walk carefully, but he will attempt to show that Floyd's ingestion of copious pills upon arrest — not Chauvin's knee on his neck — could have caused his death.

Nelson said the two arrests and Floyd's behavior were "remarkably similar." In both apprehensions, drugs were discovered in Floyd's car along with chewed-up pills in the back of the squad that tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl, along with Floyd's DNA.

Cahill said the relevance arguably was what "Mr. Floyd's bodily response to ingestion of a large amount of drugs might be."

^^^ that evidence and whether it is allowed at trial or not has got to be key - him swallowing drugs in the previous arrest, the resulting hypertension form the drugs + ending up in hospital as a result + the paramedic stating that he was risking a heart attack or stroke.

The main defence argument is going to be that he died from a drug overdose and so him doing the same thing in an earlier arrest and that being presented as him nearly dying there too could well cause reasonable doubt for the jurors.
 
End of this clip is also interesting re: the 3rd degree murder charge, a civil rights attorney mentioned that 2nd degree would be difficult to prove and then cites as reason against the manslaughter charge the jury being acutely aware of the anger in the community...


Not sure that's something to put across as a good thing per se - surely you want the jurors to feel OK about coming to any of the verdicts they feel appropriate without considering community anger etc.. but rather just the arguments from each side and the facts of the case presented to them.

Just to illustrate what the jurors are currently facing - there was a small crowd outside the courthouse to protest to ensure fair jury selection apparently, the courthouse is surrounded by fencing and national guard troops are deployed:

 
Last edited:
Judge not happy at all with the media's behaviour - including reporting on security arrangements inside the court and trying to look at lawyer's laptops, notes etc..


Also considering motion to move or delay the trial, to be announced on Friday. I guess if a delay or if the trial is moved then things could kick off this weekend (especially in the case where it is moved).


I wonder what the procedure is for moving a trial though if that does happen - like there are obvious factors here - if they were to move to a majority-black area or some area that is massively whiter than the current country it is held in then who decides that? Or indeed a strong Republican or Democrat area? Ideally should be similar demographics to the current county I guess.
 
Last edited:
12 jurors have now been selected, only need 2 more for a total of 14 - 12 + 2 alternates ( couple of previous jurors from the original bunch were re-questioned about the city's settlement and then dismissed the other day)

The decision on moving or delaying the trial is due tomorrow seems unlikely given they've nearly got the full jury selected now. Can't find the tweet/statement now but the judge was getting a bit miffed at the prosecution's objections and at one point highlighted that they've got 10 lawyers on their side vs the defence's 1.

https://www.startribune.com/3-new-j...l-as-judge-urges-silence-on-27m-se/600035717/

Jury pool so far has more black jurors relative to the population:


edit - the above is only 11, there are actually now 6 white, 4 black and 2 mixed.

That could perhaps be a good thing if the verdict ends up being manslaughter or not guilty vs if the jury was all white or almost all white.

edit - watch from about 6:50 mins in, judge got a little bit miffed with the prosecution's objection here:

 
Last edited:
One useful article, in the youtube video I posted previously the judge got visibly angry with the prosecution and mentioned that they have something like 10-12 attorneys on their side vs 1 on the defense side (ergo he can't reasonably be in court all day and go grab transcripts of stuff he'd like to comment on that has only just occurred, such as the city's settlement comments).

He's pretty outnumbered but it isn't quite as bad as that - the 4 attorneys for the 4 officers are paid for by the police union and are able to collaborate + they have some access to a few others in the pool of 12 attorneys used by the police union.... but yeah not exactly the same as having some all-star cast of prosecutors working full time on the thing - the state really is throwing resources at this trial + has some veteran prosecutors working for free too!

https://apnews.com/article/police-t...al-injustice-0740d5d5bc0c8ba5f0319b2eff7ae821
Ellison, Minnesota’s first African American elected attorney general, is in court but Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank is leading the prosecution. Frank heads the state’s criminal division.

The prosecution is bolstered by outside attorneys working for free. They include former U.S. acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal; former federal prosecutor Steven Schleicher; and Jerry Blackwell, who last year won a posthumous pardon for a man wrongly convicted of rape in connection with the Duluth lynchings of 1920, and is a founder of the Minnesota Association of Black Lawyers.

In addition to Katyal, the prosecution has received court approval for at least six other out-of-state attorneys to serve as co-counsels, according to court records.

[...]

IS NELSON WORKING ALONE?

Only on the surface, Peters said.

Different attorneys were assigned to each of the four officers. Those four attorneys have worked together behind the scenes from the outset, Peters said, and Nelson continues to consult with them.

Nelson also has access to the other eight attorneys who are part of the MPPOA’s 12-attorney rotation.

Granted it isn't like Chauvin's attorney can just get, say, Lane's attorney to do admin work for him etc.. w.r.t. the sort of thing the prosecution was referring to and the judge took issue with but they can consult with each other etc..
 
As announced yesterday, the decision on moving the venue or delaying the trial is due first today at 8:15 am, then onto jury selection at 9am (which seems to indicate that perhaps the judge's decision as of yesterday was that the trial carries on).

Ironically, that the trial has been live streamed daily so far is perhaps one reason to not move it or delay it as other potential jurors might well have had more exposure, this was something the prosecution opposed but it's an aspect perhaps in their favour re: this decision.

https://www.startribune.com/potenti...trial-to-be-relocated-or-postponed/600035986/
However, some legal scholars and lawyers said they don't expect Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill to grant defense attorney Eric Nelson's requests for a delay and change of venue given the reach of Floyd's story and the two weeks the court has already invested in selecting jurors. Chauvin's trial started March 8 and is scheduled to last as long as two months.

"I do not think that Judge Cahill is likely to change venue or grant a continuance," said Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. "I think he will admonish everyone to be careful about their public statements, and he will continue to question jurors about their knowledge of the settlement and anything else in the media, but given how far along we are, it would be a major disruption to change venue or grant a delay, and I doubt Judge Cahill is willing to go that far."
 
Judge is seemingly only allowing very limited stuff from the 2019 video, not allowing his general behaviour etc.. but seemingly will allow bits with regards to him swallowing drugs - stuff leading up to conversation with paramedic is not admissable, tape of the paramedic isn't admissable either (as it shows Floyd's similar emotional behaviour) - can enter the info about the drugs, statement form the paramedic, high blood pressure etc.. Is allowing evidence shows that Floyd has very high blood pressure after the drugs, not allowing statement from Paramedic warning him re: heart attack.

Paramedic can testify why she told Floyd to go to the hospital, stuff about his behaviour at the hospital and whether he was violent etc.. isn't admissable.
 
As expected, Judge isn't going to postpone trial (doesn't think publicity will die down et.c.) also won't move the trial, hard to have avoided it anywhere in the state.

Did make some further comments re: the 2019 video - pointing out, for example, that if the prosecution were to introduce arguments about Floyd's behaviour/state of mind etc.. from their Psychiatrist then that would open up the 2019 video to the defence to use to refer to behaviour etc.. (which he isn't currently allowing)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom