"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning," the judge added. "I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, particularly in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judicial branch in our function. Their failure to do so is abhorrent, but I don't think it has presented us with additional information that would prejudice the jury.
deranged.
the way it it wrote:
Whether chauvin is guilty or not, for the good of the country he needs to be found guilty. It will not be good if he is found not guilty!
Youre out of your mind.
Real talk; If Floyd didn’t try to use a counterfeit bill, destroy his body with fentanyl and meth and resist arrest he would probably still be alive.
How many bad choices did George Floyd make to be on the bottom of Derek’s knee? Too many to count. Even if you think Derek is guilty of murder, then at the very worst you can presume that he had a brief lapse in judgement which caused a person’s death. Floyd was given so many second chances to turn himself around from gangbanging.
woahnowpartner wrote:
Real talk; If Floyd didn’t try to use a counterfeit bill, destroy his body with fentanyl and meth and resist arrest he would probably still be alive.
How many bad choices did George Floyd make to be on the bottom of Derek’s knee? Too many to count. Even if you think Derek is guilty of murder, then at the very worst you can presume that he had a brief lapse in judgement which caused a person’s death. Floyd was given so many second chances to turn himself around from gangbanging.
Apparently you haven't followed the evidence or even seen the 9'29" video.
woahnowpartner wrote:
Real talk; If Floyd didn’t try to use a counterfeit bill, destroy his body with fentanyl and meth and resist arrest he would probably still be alive.If Till didn’t “whistle” at that white woman, if Turner didn’t rebel, and if MLK just stayed a “good negro” they would probably not have been responsible for their own deaths. Real klan like talk.
How many bad choices did George Floyd make to be on the bottom of Derek’s knee? Zero. Derek’s unreasonable and potential unlawful use of deadly force to kill/murder someone is Derek’s responsibility to bear. He is the cop not the punisher. He was trained to be responsible for every second someone is in his custody...be it with, without, or after ceased resistance.. Even if you think Derek is guilty of murder, then at the very worst you can presume that he had a brief lapse in judgement which caused a person’s death. Floyd was given so many second chances to turn himself around from gangbanging. I am all for this line of reasoning. Rehabilitation is good and hopefully he can come out a changed man after his time has been served.
This is an interesting piece. I have no idea who the source is, and they are clearly biased pro Chauvin, but anyhow;
I missed Jerry Blackwell's rebuttal, but throughour the trial i found him to be extremely orgainsed, clearly with in depth investigatin into everything (something Nelson lacked), and ready to fight every point (something nelson lacked). This bit explains that clearly, but is quite chilling as well; sorry its so long, but i think it is worth it.
Prosecutor Blackwell’s closing was, to this lawyer’s eyes, where the dynamite was packed into this day—mostly because it appears to me that Blackwell laid a strong foundation for a defense claim of prosecutorial misconduct.
Indeed, the defense made an oral motion for a mistrial on this basis, and while Judge Cahill hemmed-and-hawed about the appropriateness of Blackwell’s conduct, he ultimately responded as he’s done with every other defense motion for a mistrial—denied.
The basis for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct here is that Blackwell repeatedly suggested to the jury that the defense was outright lying—and a prosecutor is not allowed to make such arguments in closing in a criminal trial. Indeed, a prosecutor is far more constrained in making such suggestions about the defense than is the defense in making similar suggestions about the state.
This greater constraint reflects the greater apparent authority that a state prosecutor, representing the government, brings to the courtroom relative to a defense attorney merely representing a criminal defendant.
It’s worth recalling, on this point, that Blackwell is not really a prosecutor in the normal course of his legal career. Rather, he is a professional civil litigator who was brought into this case on a pro bono basis as part of the politics around this prosecution.
As a civil litigator, Blackwell would normally have a very broad privilege to attack the credibility or even integrity of opposing counsel’s arguments—a breadth of privilege that when applied in the context of acting as a prosecutor can easily slide into misconduct sufficient to warrant a mistrial or reversal of conviction even standing alone.
To my eye it looked as if Blackwell felt as if he were merely striking back at suggestions made by Nelson in his closing statement that the state was not being entirely truthful in its interpretation of the evidence in this case. It was as if Blackwell was outraged at what he might have felt was being labelled a liar and decided to give just as good right back.
Unfortunately for Blackwell, just as the burden of proof in a civil trial is equally shared between the parties—a preponderance of the evidence—but the burden of proof in a criminal trial is wildly (and appropriately) balanced against the state—beyond a reasonable doubt—the degree to which the defense in a criminal trial can suggest less than complete honesty on the part of the state is wildly greater than the extent to which the state can do the same to the defense.
And Blackwell sure engaged in his fair share of belittling the defense argument. While not calling Defense Counsel Nelson a liar to his face, he belittled the defense argument as a mere “story” that, unlike reality, should not be given credence.
Even one such implication would be improper, but might be let slide by defense counsel. Two or three are grounds for an objection, and Nelson did object at that point, and had that objection upheld by Judge Cahill. But Blackwell simply would not stop—in all he contemptuously belittled the defense argument as a mere “story” roughly 20 times.
And that is way over the line.
Further, Blackwell falsely attributed arguments to the defense that they simply had not made, creating strawman arguments that when presented by a state prosecutor have the effect of calling out the defense as outright liars, although here it was the state doing the lying.
Blackwell also falsely characterized the actual testimony of witnesses, claiming they said things they hadn’t said, or purporting to paraphrase their testimony using different words that profoundly changed the apparent meaning and weight of the testimony.
He also went so far as to suggest that reasonable inferences of the evidence made by the defense—specifically, that squad car 320 was running when Floyd was placed prone beside the vehicle—was a statement made without evidence because there was no testimony from any witness that the vehicle was running.
This could easily be understood to be a claim that the defense was wrongfully making claims of fact absent any evidence—in other words, that the defense was just making crap up—but in fact, it’s perfectly fine for anyone to make reasonable inferences from available evidence, and Nelson explicitly inferred the vehicle was operating based on the body worn camera showing that the driver never reached for the keys to turn off the vehicle once it pulled up at Cup Foods.
Really, this entire manner of argument by Blackwell struck me as one made by a person who didn’t believe the merits would carry them to beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus was compelled to resort to fabrication and ad hominem attacks in an effort to win—both of which are conduct in which perhaps other attorneys might engage, but which is prohibited for prosecutors.
pupil3142 wrote:
This is an interesting piece. I have no idea who the source is, and they are clearly biased pro Chauvin, but anyhow;
https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-day-15-wrap-up-case-is-in-the-hands-of-the-jury-verdict-watch-begins/I missed Jerry Blackwell's rebuttal, but throughour the trial i found him to be extremely orgainsed, clearly with in depth investigatin into everything (something Nelson lacked), and ready to fight every point (something nelson lacked). This bit explains that clearly, but is quite chilling as well; sorry its so long, but i think it is worth it.
Prosecutor Blackwell’s closing was, to this lawyer’s eyes, where the dynamite was packed into this day—mostly because it appears to me that Blackwell laid a strong foundation for a defense claim of prosecutorial misconduct.
Indeed, the defense made an oral motion for a mistrial on this basis, and while Judge Cahill hemmed-and-hawed about the appropriateness of Blackwell’s conduct, he ultimately responded as he’s done with every other defense motion for a mistrial—denied.
The basis for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct here is that Blackwell repeatedly suggested to the jury that the defense was outright lying—and a prosecutor is not allowed to make such arguments in closing in a criminal trial. Indeed, a prosecutor is far more constrained in making such suggestions about the defense than is the defense in making similar suggestions about the state.
This greater constraint reflects the greater apparent authority that a state prosecutor, representing the government, brings to the courtroom relative to a defense attorney merely representing a criminal defendant.
It’s worth recalling, on this point, that Blackwell is not really a prosecutor in the normal course of his legal career. Rather, he is a professional civil litigator who was brought into this case on a pro bono basis as part of the politics around this prosecution.
As a civil litigator, Blackwell would normally have a very broad privilege to attack the credibility or even integrity of opposing counsel’s arguments—a breadth of privilege that when applied in the context of acting as a prosecutor can easily slide into misconduct sufficient to warrant a mistrial or reversal of conviction even standing alone.
To my eye it looked as if Blackwell felt as if he were merely striking back at suggestions made by Nelson in his closing statement that the state was not being entirely truthful in its interpretation of the evidence in this case. It was as if Blackwell was outraged at what he might have felt was being labelled a liar and decided to give just as good right back.
Unfortunately for Blackwell, just as the burden of proof in a civil trial is equally shared between the parties—a preponderance of the evidence—but the burden of proof in a criminal trial is wildly (and appropriately) balanced against the state—beyond a reasonable doubt—the degree to which the defense in a criminal trial can suggest less than complete honesty on the part of the state is wildly greater than the extent to which the state can do the same to the defense.
And Blackwell sure engaged in his fair share of belittling the defense argument. While not calling Defense Counsel Nelson a liar to his face, he belittled the defense argument as a mere “story” that, unlike reality, should not be given credence.
Even one such implication would be improper, but might be let slide by defense counsel. Two or three are grounds for an objection, and Nelson did object at that point, and had that objection upheld by Judge Cahill. But Blackwell simply would not stop—in all he contemptuously belittled the defense argument as a mere “story” roughly 20 times.
And that is way over the line.
Further, Blackwell falsely attributed arguments to the defense that they simply had not made, creating strawman arguments that when presented by a state prosecutor have the effect of calling out the defense as outright liars, although here it was the state doing the lying.
Blackwell also falsely characterized the actual testimony of witnesses, claiming they said things they hadn’t said, or purporting to paraphrase their testimony using different words that profoundly changed the apparent meaning and weight of the testimony.
He also went so far as to suggest that reasonable inferences of the evidence made by the defense—specifically, that squad car 320 was running when Floyd was placed prone beside the vehicle—was a statement made without evidence because there was no testimony from any witness that the vehicle was running.
This could easily be understood to be a claim that the defense was wrongfully making claims of fact absent any evidence—in other words, that the defense was just making crap up—but in fact, it’s perfectly fine for anyone to make reasonable inferences from available evidence, and Nelson explicitly inferred the vehicle was operating based on the body worn camera showing that the driver never reached for the keys to turn off the vehicle once it pulled up at Cup Foods.
Really, this entire manner of argument by Blackwell struck me as one made by a person who didn’t believe the merits would carry them to beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus was compelled to resort to fabrication and ad hominem attacks in an effort to win—both of which are conduct in which perhaps other attorneys might engage, but which is prohibited for prosecutors.
BS!! Blackwell is more than with legal reason to say the defense team is making up a story. Why? Because they are! A story has a narrative and the defense definitely has one...actually they have many but confusion is actually part of the strategy. And in any case with racial implications it usually works because it’s not about reasonable doubt...it is more about having a “reasonable” excuse to turn a blind eye.
Another part of the defense strategy is to find any little excuse for any appeals if the verdict don’t go their way (I actually feel that the US is still too covered in racial denial as a whole to see any consistent progress in the justice system). I say mistrial. This country’s judicial system has legally found ways to let ppl off for lynchings...with a history like that why expect anything different?
Reflection_ wrote:
BS!! Blackwell is more than with legal reason to say the defense team is making up a story. Why? Because they are! A story has a narrative and the defense definitely has one...actually they have many but confusion is actually part of the strategy. And in any case with racial implications it usually works because it’s not about reasonable doubt...it is more about having a “reasonable” excuse to turn a blind eye.
Another part of the defense strategy is to find any little excuse for any appeals if the verdict don’t go their way (I actually feel that the US is still too covered in racial denial as a whole to see any consistent progress in the justice system). I say mistrial. This country’s judicial system has legally found ways to let ppl off for lynchings...with a history like that why expect anything different?
apologies, i missed a small part out. This shows that you cant 'belittle' the defense in any way. You can just say their case has no merit, but you cant 'pooh pooh them', which is what this lawyer is saying Blackwell did. But i do agree with a lot of your comments;
Under Minnesota law this issue of prosecutorial misconduct is governed by the state supreme court decision of State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739 (MN Supreme Court 2010) which provides in relevant part:
A prosecutor has special responsibilities as a representative of the people. Specifically, in final argument to the jury, a prosecutor is governed by a unique set of rules which differ significantly from those governing counsel in civil suits, and even from those governing defense counsel in the very same criminal trial. These special rules follow directly from the prosecutor’s inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment, but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice. Prosecutors must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against defendants. Although a prosecutor can argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed
Armstronglivs wrote:
woahnowpartner wrote:
Real talk; If Floyd didn’t try to use a counterfeit bill, destroy his body with fentanyl and meth and resist arrest he would probably still be alive.
How many bad choices did George Floyd make to be on the bottom of Derek’s knee? Too many to count. Even if you think Derek is guilty of murder, then at the very worst you can presume that he had a brief lapse in judgement which caused a person’s death. Floyd was given so many second chances to turn himself around from gangbanging.
Apparently you haven't followed the evidence or even seen the 9'29" video.
Yeah! But woahnowpartner, you missed the parts where he resisted going in the police car and thrashed around on the ground requiring three police officers to hold him down. So, besides trying to pass the funny money, using drugs excessively, and resisting arrest - you might be right!
Armstronglivs wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
apologies, i missed a small part out. This shows that you cant 'belittle' the defense in any way. You can just say their case has no merit, but you cant 'pooh pooh them', which is what this lawyer is saying Blackwell did. But i do agree with a lot of your comments;
Under Minnesota law this issue of prosecutorial misconduct is governed by the state supreme court decision of State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739 (MN Supreme Court 2010) which provides in relevant part:
A prosecutor has special responsibilities as a representative of the people. Specifically, in final argument to the jury, a prosecutor is governed by a unique set of rules which differ significantly from those governing counsel in civil suits, and even from those governing defense counsel in the very same criminal trial. These special rules follow directly from the prosecutor’s inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment, but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice. Prosecutors must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against defendants. Although a prosecutor can argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed
One can but hope that the jury's verdict will stuff your incessant toxic musings in support of Chauvin down your throat.
Armstronglivs, what do you think the correct verdict would be and why? Please base it on facts from the case, not your emotional rantings.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
One can but hope that the jury's verdict will stuff your incessant toxic musings in support of Chauvin down your throat.
Armstronglivs, what do you think the correct verdict would be and why? Please base it on facts from the case, not your emotional rantings.
She can't. She must behave like the agitator she is.
2435 wrote:
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs, what do you think the correct verdict would be and why? Please base it on facts from the case, not your emotional rantings.
She can't. She must behave like the agitator she is.
Yeah, that's what I thought but figured I should give he/she a chance to layout the case for us. I'm guessing just insults will be thrown back never realistic advise or anything factually based.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Apparently you haven't followed the evidence or even seen the 9'29" video.
Yeah! But woahnowpartner, you missed the parts where he resisted going in the police car and thrashed around on the ground requiring three police officers to hold him down. So, besides trying to pass the funny money, using drugs excessively, and resisting arrest - you might be right!
You missed the part where he repeatedly complied with police requests. He attacked no one, threatened no one. And he is dead over a fake 20 dollar bill when it wasn't even proven he knew it was a fake. But in your books, it's ok for the police to take a person's life because they feel like it. They had no cause.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
One can but hope that the jury's verdict will stuff your incessant toxic musings in support of Chauvin down your throat.
Armstronglivs, what do you think the correct verdict would be and why? Please base it on facts from the case, not your emotional rantings.
The facts are that it was a homicide, and the prosecution has proven that over the purely fanciful conjecture by the defence.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
2435 wrote:
She can't. She must behave like the agitator she is.
Yeah, that's what I thought but figured I should give he/she a chance to layout the case for us. I'm guessing just insults will be thrown back never realistic advise or anything factually based.
The case was laid out in court, if you followed it, and not through the prejudiced rambling, like yours, polluting this thread. Fortunately, the decision will be made by a court and not through the repellent diatribes of social media sites such as this.
Reflection_ wrote:
woahnowpartner wrote:
Real talk; If Floyd didn’t try to use a counterfeit bill, destroy his body with fentanyl and meth and resist arrest he would probably still be alive.If Till didn’t “whistle” at that white woman, if Turner didn’t rebel, and if MLK just stayed a “good negro” they would probably not have been responsible for their own deaths. Real klan like talk.
How many bad choices did George Floyd make to be on the bottom of Derek’s knee? Zero. Derek’s unreasonable and potential unlawful use of deadly force to kill/murder someone is Derek’s responsibility to bear. He is the cop not the punisher. He was trained to be responsible for every second someone is in his custody...be it with, without, or after ceased resistance.. Even if you think Derek is guilty of murder, then at the very worst you can presume that he had a brief lapse in judgement which caused a person’s death. Floyd was given so many second chances to turn himself around from gangbanging. I am all for this line of reasoning. Rehabilitation is good and hopefully he can come out a changed man after his time has been served.
Liberals are so desperate to find racism they have to put words in others mouths to find it. That's how you know how incoherent their worldview is.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You missed the part where he repeatedly complied with police requests. He attacked no one, threatened no one. And he is dead over a fake 20 dollar bill when it wasn't even proven he knew it was a fake. But in your books, it's ok for the police to take a person's life because they feel like it. They had no cause.
Well summarized. This should be an easy case to try. But it's naturally been politicized and the reTrumplican party has made it ok for every racist and biggot to share their opinion. The man murdered Floyd.
pupil3142 wrote:
Reflection_ wrote:
BS!! Blackwell is more than with legal reason to say the defense team is making up a story. Why? Because they are! A story has a narrative and the defense definitely has one...actually they have many but confusion is actually part of the strategy. And in any case with racial implications it usually works because it’s not about reasonable doubt...it is more about having a “reasonable” excuse to turn a blind eye.
Another part of the defense strategy is to find any little excuse for any appeals if the verdict don’t go their way (I actually feel that the US is still too covered in racial denial as a whole to see any consistent progress in the justice system). I say mistrial. This country’s judicial system has legally found ways to let ppl off for lynchings...with a history like that why expect anything different?
apologies, i missed a small part out. This shows that you cant 'belittle' the defense in any way. You can just say their case has no merit, but you cant 'pooh pooh them', which is what this lawyer is saying Blackwell did. But i do agree with a lot of your comments;
Under Minnesota law this issue of prosecutorial misconduct is governed by the state supreme court decision of State v. McDaniel, 777 N.W.2d 739 (MN Supreme Court 2010) which provides in relevant part:
A prosecutor has special responsibilities as a representative of the people. Specifically, in final argument to the jury, a prosecutor is governed by a unique set of rules which differ significantly from those governing counsel in civil suits, and even from those governing defense counsel in the very same criminal trial. These special rules follow directly from the prosecutor’s inherently unique role in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the prosecutor not act as a zealous advocate for criminal punishment, but as the representative of the people in an effort to seek justice. Prosecutors must avoid inflaming the jury’s passions and prejudices against defendants. Although a prosecutor can argue that a particular defense has no merit, a prosecutor may not belittle the defense, either in the abstract or by suggesting that the defense was raised because it was the only defense that might succeed
Two things:
(1) It a pure stretch of the imagination to say using the term story is equal to belittlement. They may not like the word but it is not belittling the defense counsel.
(2) Pulling this case law is also a stretch. The state in this case used specific words direct at the defense counsel:
“ There’s a reason why attorneys’ arguments, closing arguments, opening statements, questions and so forth are not evidence and cannot be considered by you as evidence. Because the attorneys will, oftentimes like to manipulate the evidence, make it what it isn’t–hoping hopes that you don’t recall the evidence that was presented and then misrepresent the evidence to you and ask you to rely on their representations of the evidence as if that’s the truth.
There’s a reason why arguments aren’t evidence and that is because, one of the reasons is because when the evidence that comes from the witness stand if it doesn’t fit and an attorney stands up and gives you an explanation when that question was–when the opportunity for introducing that evidence was offered and passed by, it gives them the advantage by filling in the blanks for you in their own words when their clients can’t do it for themselves.”
This is a far cry from using the term “story”. It does not directly or indirectly belittle the defense.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs, what do you think the correct verdict would be and why? Please base it on facts from the case, not your emotional rantings.
The facts are that it was a homicide, and the prosecution has proven that over the purely fanciful conjecture by the defence.
The facts are you didn’t even watch the trial and made up your mind from the start. Look up the definition of homicide when it is used in medical findings. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.
You have never provided a single piece of evidence to support your claims. All you do is repeat “9.29” and “racist. “
You have no defense against the facts that’s there was no damage to Floyd’s neck, he was breathing just fine despite complaints about breathing prior to being restrained, and the state’s best witness is a hack who used screen shots from a video to tell us what Floyd had for lunch.
Liberals are so desperate to find racism they have to put words in others mouths to find it. That's how you know how incoherent their worldview is.
I am not a political bandwagon fanboy!!! My loyalty is to what is right and what is wrong (while understanding that in some cases this is a subjective position and applying such understanding with discretion). I have not put any words in anyone’s mouth to find racism. What I am is black in the US and that racism bull—- finds me. So take several seats back and let the adults speak!!