Anyone watching this? Is this guy currently questioning the witness the prosecutor or defense? She is nervous as hell
Me, a person who casually pays attention to the news: Wtf could they possibly be arguing about when a man was killed on video in this way?
Not watching, but I’m guessing it’s the same defense they always use. Whether or not the officer was scared enough to justify killing someone else. The officer’s life is more valuable than anyone else’s and if they’re even a little scared then they can murder someone and get away with it. Poor unlucky George just happened to be a big scary black dude. Freedom isn’t free and all that bullshit.
They’re also trying to say he died from the fentanyl in his system. Or at least that’s what a chud I know told me today from the unbiased news source he was reading Spoiler zerohedge
I imagine the opening remarks of the prosecution ultimately had little effect on the accuracy of your second sentence.
Maybe so, but it's the most important part of a trial. A bad opening when you have the burden of proof is tough to overcome.
You’d know much better than I do, but my brain just feels like even a great opening doesn’t mean much in cases like this
Not sure. I really haven't followed it that closely. I think he's charged with two degrees of murder, but I don't know the difference between the two in Minnesota or the lesser includeds.
I know there are limitations on the legal side but does anyone really believe he would’ve up and died that day had chauvin not kneeled on his neck? Gtfo
I remember hearing that the DA raised the initial charge to what’s currently being charged, and did so in response to public pressure. I’ve always worried that’s going to fuck the whole process in the end, but it would be a non-issue if they can still convict on lesser charges.
I believe the charges are 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter. Both murder charges carry the same sentencing guidelines, with manslaughter being less obviously.
He’s going to get off. People are rightfully going to be angry and will express that pain. Police will overreact and just fan the flames of that tension even more. It’ll lead on Fox News every night for a week and the culture wars will begin again. Eat Arby’s.
i imagine he'll get convicted of one of the charges if he gets completely acquitted the country will burn, again, and rightfully so
How do they pick a group of 12 people to impartially decide this one? Not asking sarcastically, honestly has to be extremely difficult.
He had a heart condition and was on the weed drugs, so that killed him and not the cop on his neck for ten minutes. Seriously
If he gets off we’re going to burn this motherfucker to the ground. Every city, every town, every suburb
It’s situations like this and any of those random congressional hearings that are supposed to show our democracy at its best. But all it does is affirm the frightening reality that the people in positions of power to influence policy or even help to determine someone’s freedom are mostly fucking morons and/or egotistical assholes.
You’ll never get a better representation of how racist this country is than when a black man dies at the hands of a white man
Theoretically how could Chauvin be acquitted? He leaned on a guy's neck with his knee for 8+ minutes and then the guy died of asphyxiation
That would be condemning the many based on the actions of the few. But I agree with you on the sentiment. Again the many vs the few thing. Or more appropriate, the innocent vs the guilty.
You have to prove both the culpable act and the culpable state of mind. That's where it can get hairy. Second degree murder requires intent without premeditation or if there's no intent, then the death has to be caused during the commission of a felony. That's going to be harder to prove than murder 3, which is "Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree ..." I think that charge is more than likely the one that convicts him. Still, the "depraved mind, without regard for human life" is still not easy to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eh opening statements are overrated. All about closing. You can't argue in openings so it's going to be more bland
Totally disagree. Juries make up their minds before closings. Volumes of jury research support that. You're not allowed to "argue" in an opening, but you can certainly frame your case. Closings are more about empowering your jurors to argue your position in deliberations. If you've done your job in your opening, you've got more on your side in the room.
Respect your opinion but as someone whose conducted 100 jury trials, 15 or so of them homicide and a police misconduct case, I think opening statements haven't had too much impact on barely any of my cases. Can't say you should go out there and not care, but it's not make or break by any means in my experience
My experience is admittedly all civil, and I do put a lot more stock and emphasis on opening than most. But, I've seen a ton of plaintiff's lawyers put themselves in a tremendous hole by mailing it in. I agree with you that most openings don't "make or break" the case, but I think that's also because most lawyers half-ass their openings.
Let's be honest though, this case is all about the jury and the video. Prosecutor can fuck this case up doing too much. It's not about you, I'd keep it simple and to the point and not throw up a bunch of witnesses who don't advance the ball and drag it on. Despite how much voir dire they do and good answers they get, there for sure is going to be jurors on there who are going to vote one way or other despite what anyone says this trial. This case was probably won or lost during jury selection