Let it Rupp wrote:
johnny99 wrote:
I didn't follow the trial all that closely, but there were one or two things during the trial that, if I were representing Chauvin, I would bring up on appeal to argue that he didn't get a fair trial (the announcement of the $27 million civil settlement during jury selection comes to mind). But I would expect to lose, because on balance he did get a fair trial.
You were wrong about the definition of substantial factor, can we at least agree about that now?
Unless you provide me evidence that the definition of substantial causal factor means something different in Minnesota, then no. The link you gave did not include a definition at all.
You're not getting it.
The definition of causation, of which substantial factor is a part, was given to the jury by the trial judge. It's during a part of the trial sometimes called the Jury Charge; it comes at the end of the trial, after the lawyers have given closing statements or summations and before the jury deliberates. The exact language of the charge on causation in this case is in the link I provided. There is no other definition. You and I can argue this point, but when a judge instructs a jury, he or she gives to the jury the legal standard that the jury applies to the facts. Your opinion and my opinion about what the law is (or what it should be) are irrelevant; all that matters is what the judge told the jury about causation and substantial factor. And that's at the top of page 4, again in the link in my prior post.
Your claim that an act can only be a substantial factor in causing injury if it would have caused the injury without any other contributing factors is not the law in Minnesota. We know that because that was not part of the judge's instruction to the Chauvin jury.
I will give you a link that you've already seen, because I posted it in another thread where you were trying to make the same claim about the causation issue in this case. This is from a law professor at the U of Minn.:
Causation
Each of the three homicide charges requires proof that Chauvin’s actions were the factual and proximate cause of Floyd’s death. Factual causation is shown if Chauvin’s actions, of kneeling on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, were a “substantial causal factor” contributing to Floyd’s death. This standard can be met even if other factors (e.g., Floyd’s alleged drug use and pre-existing heart condition) were also contributing factors in his death. The state must also prove that Chauvin’s actions were the proximate cause of Floyd’s death – that his death was not the direct result of some independent, intervening person’s act or other factor that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen. No such intervening cause seems to have been operating here (only the additional, contributing causes noted above).
https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/news-views/george-floyd-homicide-prosecutionsThe author cites this case on the causation issue:
State v. Smith, 119 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. 1962) [defendant’s acts were factual cause of victim’s death, despite other causal factors including vulnerability of which defendant was unaware]
There's nothing in any of this about a cause of an injury being a substantial factor only if it would have caused the injury without any contributing factors, because that's not the law in Minnesota.