Three more jurors seated yesterday but the real news was this morning's rulings
As expected, the judge ruled against the motions for a change of venue or a continuance. He stands by his believe that there simply isn't a location that could be provided anywhere in Minnesota that would be any fairer than holding it in Hennepin county. I find this dubious for a variety of obvious reasons. Ultimately this could still be an issue for appeal if Chauvin is found guilty. He also suggested that a continuance would not serve anyone and that the pre-trial publicity is unlikely to fade. On those regards I have to agree.
What I found interesting is that the judge suggested that he was surprised to find that the news of a 27 million dollar settlement affected the Jurors in the manner that it did. He suggested that he probably suffers from judicial prejudice in his thinking based on his understanding that the criminal and civil suits are vastly different. I think he might also hold some judicial prejudice in his idea that a fairer trial could not be held elsewhere.
Those were the most important rulings, but there were some other rulings that are also quite important.
The judge also decided that the State cannot ask for testimony from a psychiatrist who was looking to testify to exactly that. Apparently this expert was going to testify that Floyd's behavior was not unusual under the circumstances and that his emotional state was such that it could and did lead to cardiac arrest. The obvious reasoning against this sort of testimony is that whether George Floyd died of a cardiac arrest or a drug overdoes is a medical (not psychological) determination.
The first ruling was an obvious blow to the defense who would certain benefit from a change in venue. The other rulings seem to work against the prosecution who would love to bring as much subjectivity to the matter of how or why George Floyd died and to bring forward as many people as possible across as many angles as possible to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was a trauma induced cardiac arrest that could have been avoided.
Ultimately, by constitutional parameters and everything the law stands for, the defense only has to show that it was a distinct possibility that Floyd died of a drug overdoes to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. This is not an argument that they need to necessarily win, but simply provide enough contestation of the prosecutions arguments to make the cause of death a question. Preponderance of evidence is not enough in a criminal trial.
36 comments:
Great to see our Lil Schitty now adds his expertise to the defense of Chuavin that they only have to add a glimmer of a drug overdose to free the killer!!!!!! Yep.....his boundless intellect again shows all how much his mind has been overtaken by dedication to party instead of country....Very sad indeed!!!!!
You would not have been seated as a juror, because of your pre existing bias.
The judge is following the law.
Preponderance of evidence is not enough in a criminal trial.
Good luck with that if you were his lawyer.
Most politicians are overtaken by dedication to party instead of country...
President Biden is an example of how great politicans have acted outside party lines.
He won because he promised he would be the President for all Americans, red or blue.
Most of the country is not following this.
Roger, I know why your SSI check and small defined benefit was suspended from your use.
The reason was easy to figure out.
The defense has only one point, Floyd died of a drug overdoes.
Eight minutes and 47 seconds, and the final autopsy report said he was strangled to death.
Reasonable doubt is a high hurdle.
One more time kputz, my Social Security and the defined benefit pensions of over $3,500 per month were never suspended, because they are defined for my life.
Fox news, it will never pass.
A California House Democrat plans to introduce legislation Friday to expel GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress over her past controversial social media postings that already prompted her removal from committees.
Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., said he authored the resolution because Greene, R-Ga., "had previously supported social media posts calling for political violence against the Speaker of the House, members of Congress, and former President Barack Obama."
Gomez signaled in January he'd draft a removal resolution and build support, and Friday will mark the formal introduction. He's gotten support from 72 Democrats as of Thursday afternoon, according to his office
Greene blasted the Democrats' effort to remove her from office. She likened it to the ongoing election challenge in Iowa, where the House is weighing whether to undo the victory for Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, who won her race by just six votes.
"There is nothing more threatening to Democrats than strong Republican women!" Greene said in a statement to Fox News. "Democrats are trying [to] overturn the will of the American people who voted for both myself and Congresswoman Miller-Meeks. This is a continuation of the House Democrats’ war on women!"
Gomez is authoring a "privileged" resolution, which means it could come up for a vote at any time. But he'd need GOP support to remove Greene since a two-thirds supermajority is required to expel a member of Congress.
She symbolizes the current Republican party.
A post by Scott has been removed. I tried to reply but it was gone.
He said I didn't understand reasonable doubt.
I replied but his insnsult is gone.
I understand the law. As usual, you never admit being wrong, so you make false allegations.
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt. Nothing else.
Preponderance of evidence is not enough in a criminal trial.
Correct Roger...
Except I don't believe you understand what that means.
If means if you believe that it was more likely than not that Floyd died because of a knee to his neck, but you are not sure.
Then you are required to acquit the defendant.
Not find him guilty. In order to find him guilty you have to be more than reasonably sure that he died because of a knee to the neck and likewise be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not die of a Opioid overdose.
If the word and opinion of a medical examiner was all that was needed, then there would be no need for a trial. He would simply be guilty and burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, or killed in a summary execution like they do in third world countries.
But this is America Roger. We have a system of justice where accused are assumed innocent and where they have to be proven guilty. You are not allowed to just take a coroner at his word and hang someone.
You couldn't be sat as a juror because you refuse to understand the law. While you claim you do, you continue to demand that the defendant and defense counsel must "prove" his innocence. You believe that an assumption of innocence is disqualifying (when in fact it is the default set position that a jurist must have and take).
Preponderance of evidence is not enough to convict. It's more than enough to acquit.
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt. Nothing else.
The defense is not required to do anything.
The defendant is ASSUMED INNOCENT.
let me repeat this:
The defendant is ASSUMED INNOCENT.
Do you even understand what that means, Roger?
It's 100% up to the prosecution to convince a jury that that presumption is innocence is incorrect and it is 100% up the prosecution to convince the jury of his guilt to the degree that they have no reasonable doubt left that he might be innocence.
NEW YORK (AP) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relaxed its social distancing guidelines for schools Friday, saying students can now sit 3 feet apart in classrooms.
The revised COVID-19 recommendations represent a turn away from the 6-foot standard that has forced some schools to remove desks, stagger scheduling and take other steps to keep children away from one another.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming that I don't understand, is all you have, when proven wrong.
You are innocent until proven guilty
And yet you have been arguing the opposite for the entire thread.
In criminal matters:
You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt. Nothing else.
this is flatly false at every level it could be interpreted. legal, logical, rational and objective.
the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, placing the burden of proof entirely on the prosecution, not the defense.
alky, why do you insist upon losing this debate over and over and over again?
when we assume you to be stupid, it's an observation, not an insult.
NEW YORK (AP) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relaxed its social distancing guidelines for schools Friday, saying students can now sit 3 feet apart in classrooms.
LOL.
old and busted: six feet
new hotness: three feet.
neither supported by "science!!!"
LOL.
THWAP!!!
The defense can sit on its hands, never call witnesses, nor present evidence and if the prosecution failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt the jury must vote to acquit.
Claiming that I don't understand, is all you have, when proven wrong.
well alky, when you post shit like this:
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt. Nothing else.
what other conclusion are we to draw?
it stands to reason that if:
a defendant is presumed innocent...
then...
the burden of proof resides with the prosecution, not the defense.
and no, you've proved no one wrong on this topic. no one except yourself that is.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The defense has only one point, Floyd died of a drug overdoes.
also flatly false.
the defense has at least the following:
1) the toxicology report showing a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl in Floyd's system.
2) physical examination portion of autopsy report which reported NO trauma, as in FUCKING NONE, to the soft tissue or hyoid bone, or vertebrae in the neck region
3) the Minneapolis PD procedure manual which, at the time, made the knee to the neck an approved procedure and one in which officers are trained in the application of.
4) other pre-existing conditions Floyd suffered from which could have contributed to his death.
The prosecutions best chance for a conviction rests upon the proposition that the jury is packed with folks who "think" (or not) like you do alky. Dispensing with all rational thought, and requiring them to run on pure emotion and lack of reason, logic, and facts in evidence.
Under scrutiny this case is pure, unadulterated bullshit from top to fucking bottom.
Roger... you keep stating that there is a burden on the defense. That is not a matter of semantics. It's a blatant misunderstanding of the way our justice system works.
Let me review a situation we were just in. My younger son got into an accident back in October during an early snow storm. Quite a few inches of snow. People don't have snow tires on. Many accidents on the road. In his case he was slowing down to get ready for a turn, hit is brakes, hit some black ice, and slid into the next lane where he hit another car.
A cop was called to the scene. Talked to the other driver. Never talked to my 17 year old. But gave him a ticket for "failure to yield".
Instead of paying for it, he pled not guilty. The prosecutor refused to drop the charge and we ended up in an actual trial (with a judge rather than a jury deciding his guilt).
The prosecutor provided two witnesses. The driver of the other car and the police officer. We asked the driver one question (Did he see my son speeding or driving too fast for the conditions). We asked the police officer no questions.
When it came to our time to "put on a defense" - we rested.
No defense was presented.
He was found not guilty because the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving his case to (in this case) the Judge.
We were not REQUIRED to do anything. The judge even took the time to explain this to my son. It was entirely on the prosecutor to prove that case, which they didn't do because the driver did not testify to anything illegal and the cop made a "judgement call" that was wrong (considering he was not there).
In that case the police officer rendered an opinion (just as a medical examiner did). But the judge relied on the underlying facts (not his opinion) to determine guilt.
In a criminal trial such as the one against Chauvin, the medical opinion of the medical examiner will be relevant. But he will need to explain his reasoning (which quite frankly his autopsy does not provide). He will not just say I believe it because I believe it.
But he will need to explain his reasoning
reasoning being that he fears for his life, the life of his family and fears that BLM will burn his house to the ground.
this has been the part that has puzzled me. the autopsy report leads no clear thinking person to conclude homicide, yet the ME did, contradicting his own report.
If not driven by fear then by what?
One more time kputz, my Social Security and the defined benefit pensions of over $3,500 per month were never suspended, because they are defined for my life.
$3500.00 X 12 = $42,000.00/year
not six figures.
not even close.
Lydia divorced you because you’re fucking stupid
You are innocent until proven guilty.
You do not have declare innocence.
Provide reasonable doubt and the jury will decide whose to believe.
This is scary pitiful
Joe Biden falls three times stumbling up stairs of Air Force One
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-fall-air-force-one-b1819731.html%3famp
You do not have to declare innocence.
Provide reasonable doubt and the jury will decide whose to believe.
You still refuse to acknowledge that this statement is wrong.
Are you stupid or stubborn or both?
C.H. TruthMarch 16, 2021 at 12:17 PM
It's over $65,000 for life
Someone making $65,000/year would not be begging for money on Facebook, living in dive hotels, or relying on daughters to help them financially.
Reply
Replies
Roger AmickMarch 16, 2021 at 12:20 PM
Because I didn't have access to my social security benefits and pensions for a couple months"
KansasDemocrat March 19, 2021 at 10:01 AM
Roger, I know why your SSI check and small defined benefit was suspended from your use.
The reason was easy to figure out.
Reply
Replies
Roger AmickMarch 19, 2021 at 11:16 AM
One more time kputz, my Social Security and the defined benefit pensions of over $3,500 per month were never suspended, because they are defined for my life.
as RRB POINTS OUT.
"3500.00 X 12 = $42,000.00/year
not six figures.
not even close."
The ever lowering income of Alky established by his own posts.
C.H. TruthMarch 16, 2021 at 12:17 PM
It's over $65,000 for life
Someone making $65,000/year would not be begging for money on Facebook, living in dive hotels, or relying on daughters to help them financially.
Reply
Replies
Roger AmickMarch 16, 2021 at 12:20 PM
Because I didn't have access to my social security benefits and pensions for a couple months"
KansasDemocrat March 19, 2021 at 10:01 AM
Roger, I know why your SSI check and small defined benefit was suspended from your use.
The reason was easy to figure out.
Reply
Replies
Roger AmickMarch 19, 2021 at 11:16 AM
One more time kputz, my Social Security and the defined benefit pensions of over $3,500 per month were never suspended, because they are defined for my life.
as RRB POINTS OUT.
"3500.00 X 12 = $42,000.00/year
not six figures.
not even close."
The ever lowering income of Alky established by his own posts.
Well it was up to Roger to prove reasonable doubt so that he could unsuspend his payments that were never suspended and then he could successfully prove his reasonable doubt that he never begged for money.
Thirteen jurors, five men and eight women, have been selected for Chauvin's trial. Given the circumstances of Floyd’s death — a Black man dying under the knee of a white police officer — the racial makeup of the jury is a key concern. Seven of the jurors identify as white, two as multiracial and four as Black, according to the court. As many as four people could be chosen to serve as alternates.
The court added its 13th juror Friday. The white woman in her 50s is a self-described animal lover with a passion for affordable housing.
With her, the court needs one more juror. Here's a quick look at who else is on the jury:
A white woman in her 40s who works in insurance and said she loves the state of Minnesota
A Black woman in her 60s who retired from marketing and said she loves spending time with her grandkids
A white nurse in her 50s who works with ventilated COVID-19 patients
A mixed-race woman in her 40s who works in company reorganization
A Black man in his 40s who works in management and has lived in Hennepin County for two decades
A white woman in her 50s who works in healthcare and likes to ride her motorcycle
A Black man in his 30s who works in banking and teaches youth sports
A white woman in her 50s who works at a nonprofit and is the single mother of two teenage sons
A Black man in his 30s who works in tech and immigrated from Africa to the U.S.
A white auditor in his 30s
A mixed-race woman in her 20s who said she was "super excited" to serve
A white chemist in his 20s who plays Ultimate Frisbee
As of Friday afternoon, the defense has used 13 of its 18 peremptory challenges, which it can use to strike potential jurors without having to explain why. The state has used seven of its 10.
Jury selection encountered some setbacks earlier in the week. The court did not select any jurors Tuesday amid debate over whether they could be unbiased in such a high-profile case. And on Wednesday, the court cut two jurors because they said they were influenced by the city's historic $27 million settlement with Floyd's family.
Attorneys for the defense and prosecution have spent the past week and a half questioning potential jurors about their views on racism, discrimination, policing of communities of color and Black Lives Matter. But on Thursday, Eric Nelson, the lead defense attorney, told a prospective juror that the trial is "not about race."
Judge allows some evidence from George Floyd's 2019 arrest
Jurors will be allowed to hear some evidence related to George Floyd's arrest in May 2019, Cahill said Friday. He ruled in January that the jury could not hear the evidence but heard fresh arguments this week after new evidence was uncovered related to Floyd's 2020 arrest.
Cahill said the two arrests are "remarkably similar," but jurors can hear evidence from the 2019 arrest only related to Floyd's medical state – not his emotional behavior – since it pertains to the cause of death in the 2020 incident.
The judge ruled that a portion of an officer's body camera video of the 2019 incident could be admitted. Jurors can also see a photo from that incident showing pills on the seat of a car and hear what Floyd's blood pressure was then, as well as why a paramedic at the scene recommended Floyd go to the hospital.
"The whole point here is we have medical evidence of what happens when Mr. Floyd is faced with virtually the same situation," Cahill said. "The May 6th, 2019, incident is relevant only to that extent. Mr. Floyd's emotional behavior, calling out for his mother – all of that is not admissible."
Previously, Cahill ruled on motions to include evidence about Chauvin's history. Evidence related to 16 incidents involving Chauvin and the three other former Minneapolis police officers charged in Floyd's death cannot be brought up at trial, Cahill ruled in January.
Prosecutors also sought to admit evidence of eight incidents involving Chauvin to demonstrate that the former officer did "intentionally assault Mr. Floyd in a manner inconsistent with training." When Cahill ruled in January, he admitted evidence from two of the incidents. The six others involved Chauvin's use of force or restraint techniques, including when he restrained people by applying pressure to the neck area.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
You are guilty of being gaslighted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Post a Comment