Derek Chauvin Trial

[Pinchy]

Originally Posted by Mr Tom Morrow

I see his friend who was in the car with him refused to testify today.
A complex case and far too much showboating going on by both the Prosecution and Defence Lawyers. Wouldn’t be allowed over here.
Finally I disagree with Trials being broadcast on TV.

See more...

Have you watched the trial or are you going by media clips? Because I have found the prosecution and defence impressive. The defence especially as he is essentially a one-man-band and has so little to work with.

[Stitch & Smudge]

Originally Posted by bonnies mum

DH & I are following this. Incredibly upsetting and quite horrific at times. Have to say I am not really buying the Defence arguments- can’t get past the knee on the neck.

See more...

As bad as I find that it all comes down to control of the suspect. He was a big guy who had already managed to extricate himself from a police car after all. However once he became unresponsive his force becomes excessive. I guess that he could argue that he believed that he was acting but there were other officers present who could have checked for vital signs. It’s far more complex than it first appears.

[DisneyStacey]

Originally Posted by cornishfrogboy

I am with Mr Morrow.

A very complex case that in being heard has exposed the inherent weaknesses of the US judicIal system. It would seem that the Judge either has no, or has decided to exert no control over any rules of evidence and that the whole trial is being dominated by the ‘showboating’ of all involved as they seek camera footage in order to improve their personal profiles and thus gain greater fees later.
Homicide law is also I understand, rather different to our own straightforward Manslaughter/ Murder / not guilty options, as below.

first-degree murder
Any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime, is typically first-degree.

Second-degree murder
Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.

Voluntary manslaughter
Sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be voluntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter
A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.

The above can even differ from State to State, but in Minnesota it is as above.

IMHO it comes down to this.

What did Chauvin actually intend doing when he knelt on the guys neck? Did he intend to cause ‘really serious harm’, to incapacitate him or simply to restrain him.

Was this action in line with any training that he received from the Police? ( We were taught ‘sleeper’ holds in the very early years of my Police service before they were discontinued and this consisted of rendering a person unconscious by squeezing his jugular vein).

Did this action cause his death, regardless of whether he may have died later from the controlled drugs that he ‘gobbed ’ before his arrest.

Whilst Mr Floyd was clearly many things, none of the savoury or pleasant, that is in my opinion irrelevant to the trial. It is about what Chauvin did and why.

What I fear is that it may be politically best that he be convicted in exactly the same way that OJ was cleared in order to prevent widespread unrest/ looting/ further deaths in riots should the ‘wrong’ verdict be reached and in addition, are the Jurors frightened of ‘consequences’ in the event that they aquit.

This trial should most certainly not have been televised, but held in open court with public galleries and I sincerely hope that such stupidity never occurs within our own judicial system.

People are asking why the Police Colleague may be refusing to give evidence. In this heated matter I would suggest this, namely that all present fear being dragged into this and thus, he is invoking the 5th Amendment upon legal advice. Were I he, then I would do exactly this. This is not a melodrama and I would be protecting my own interests.

Explanation of 5th amendment...
A form of privilege, set out in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, that gives an individual the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements that could be used in a criminal proceeding to help establish that the person committed a crime.

For me, Manslaughter fits my understanding of what he did and why.

See more...

That’s a really insightful, helpful and informative post - thank you!

[Loftus]

Originally Posted by cornishfrogboy

I am with Mr Morrow.

A very complex case that in being heard has exposed the inherent weaknesses of the US judicIal system. It would seem that the Judge either has no, or has decided to exert no control over any rules of evidence and that the whole trial is being dominated by the ‘showboating’ of all involved as they seek camera footage in order to improve their personal profiles and thus gain greater fees later.
Homicide law is also I understand, rather different to our own straightforward Manslaughter/ Murder / not guilty options, as below.

first-degree murder
Any intentional murder that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder, a charge that may be filed against a defendant who is involved in a dangerous crime where a death results from the crime, is typically first-degree.

Second-degree murder
Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned.

Voluntary manslaughter
Sometimes called a crime of passion murder, is any intentional killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed". Both this and second-degree murder are committed on the spot under a spur-of-the-moment choice, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second-degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be voluntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter
A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.

The above can even differ from State to State, but in Minnesota it is as above.

IMHO it comes down to this.

What did Chauvin actually intend doing when he knelt on the guys neck? Did he intend to cause ‘really serious harm’, to incapacitate him or simply to restrain him.

Was this action in line with any training that he received from the Police? ( We were taught ‘sleeper’ holds in the very early years of my Police service before they were discontinued and this consisted of rendering a person unconscious by squeezing his jugular vein).

Did this action cause his death, regardless of whether he may have died later from the controlled drugs that he ‘gobbed ’ before his arrest.

Whilst Mr Floyd was clearly many things, none of the savoury or pleasant, that is in my opinion irrelevant to the trial. It is about what Chauvin did and why.

What I fear is that it may be politically best that he be convicted in exactly the same way that OJ was cleared in order to prevent widespread unrest/ looting/ further deaths in riots should the ‘wrong’ verdict be reached and in addition, are the Jurors frightened of ‘consequences’ in the event that they aquit.

This trial should most certainly not have been televised, but held in open court with public galleries and I sincerely hope that such stupidity never occurs within our own judicial system.

People are asking why the Police Colleague may be refusing to give evidence. In this heated matter I would suggest this, namely that all present fear being dragged into this and thus, he is invoking the 5th Amendment upon legal advice. Were I he, then I would do exactly this. This is not a melodrama and I would be protecting my own interests.

Explanation of 5th amendment...
A form of privilege, set out in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, that gives an individual the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements that could be used in a criminal proceeding to help establish that the person committed a crime.

For me, Manslaughter fits my understanding of what he did and why.

See more...

Chavin has also been charged with second degree unintentional murder - so the prosecution does not have to prove that he intended to kill him, they have to show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death whilst assaulting him.

He also faces a reinstated charge of third degree murder, for which they need to show he caused the death of Floyd whist acting in an eminently dangerous way.

[cornishfrogboy]

Originally Posted by Loftus

Chavin has also been charged with second degree unintentional murder - so the prosecution does not have to prove that he intended to kill him, they have to show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death whilst assaulting him.

He also faces a reinstated charge of third degree murder, for which they need to show he caused the death of Floyd whist acting in an eminently dangerous way.

See more...

I listed all options for simplicity. The post would have been ‘lopsided’, had I just plucked out the relevant ones.

As before, my own personal view remains towards ‘involuntary manslaughter’ . I did not formulate the charges. If the jury believes that it is in fact ‘ involuntary manslaughter’, then I believe (but am not certain in US law), that they must aquit.

[Loftus]

I admit I find the idea of unintentional murder a bit of an oxymoron.

[Stitch & Smudge]

Originally Posted by cornishfrogboy

I listed all options for simplicity. The post would have been ‘lopsided’, had I just plucked out the relevant ones.

As before, my own personal view remains towards ‘involuntary manslaughter’ . I did not formulate the charges. If the jury believes that it is in fact ‘ involuntary manslaughter’, then I believe (but am not certain in US law), that they must aquit.

See more...

Absolutely agree with you on this but 1000’s in America won’t. If this is the way it goes I’ll expect to see more “peaceful protests”.

[Pinchy]

I think he is going to have to give evidence if he is going to stand any chance of avoiding having the book thrown at him. The idea that he was either intimidated or distracted by that crowd is laughable given what we know. If he takes the stand he may be able to convince at least one juror. However the defence is supposed to be finished tomorrow so I don't think there is time.

[cornishfrogboy]

Originally Posted by Pinchy

I think he is going to have to give evidence if he is going to stand any chance of avoiding having the book thrown at him. The idea that he was either intimidated or distracted by that crowd is laughable given what we know. If he takes the stand he may be able to convince at least one juror. However the defence is supposed to be finished tomorrow so I don't think there is time.

See more...

I would agree, but then again, I was invariably on the Prosecution side of the Court.

In the U.K., then yes, he would (imho) have to take the stand in these circumstances as a means of damage reduction. He needs to mitigate as far as possible his actions on that day, at that time and the best way to do that is to explain what he did and why to the jury, convince them that he is a good guy, if you like.
Whilst a Jury is generally told by a Judge not to take any inference from a failure to take the stand (but not always), it is pretty much invariably the case that they do.

Normally a defendant does not take the stand when it is the position of the Defence that the Prosecution have not or cannot prove their case and that therefore he has no need

This is the USA and my viewpoint may not be relevant.

[Pinchy]

I'm watching on catch-up but the current witness is talking about carbon monoxide poisoning from the police car exhaust. I wondered why the prosecution pointed out it was a hybrid earlier in the trial. Whatever next!