I mean like, the jury is going to be immediately emotionally impacted by the prosecution’s case and turned off by the defense arguments. I mean like, the whole fucking thing is on video so that defense attorney was a clown for cross-examining that 17 year old about what she saw in an adversarial way. He was a clown for trying to go after the mixed martial arts guy’s expertise too. Who cares? The smartest thing he’s done so far is to keep his mouth shut and not cross-examine the 9 year old. The only chance the defense has in this case is causation. The defense isn’t going to fucking score points by trying to attack the bystanders who witnessed a murder, and come off as honest samaritans who witnessed a man dying, especially since what they’re testifying to doesn’t really go to the causation issue anyway.
To put a finer point on it, the defense in this case should be: “Derek Chauvin is an asshole, he should have been fired, and you can convict him of assault or whatever the equivalent is in MN, but he was in the wrong place at the wrong time because George Floyd died from complications due to drug ingestion and being Covid+.” I’m not saying that’s a great defense. But holy shit that’s a better defense then whatever the fuck spaghetti and meatball defense they’re trying here.
Does the eggshell skull rule apply to having ingested large amounts of illicit narcotics? Like, if Floyd had a heart condition that made him much more susceptible to death due to what Chauvin did to him, that’s textbook eggshell skull, tough luck Chauvin, them’s the breaks. Is being more susceptible to death due to taking illegal drugs the same?
I’m pretty relieved the Casey Anthony defense lawyer is nowhere near this case, that dude is elite.
But-for causation and proximate causation apply here. The simple answer is yes though, if Chauvin’s actions were a but-for cause, and a proximate cause of Floyd’s death, then he’s cooked. Proximate causation turns on whether or not Floyd’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Chauvin’s action. I don’t think here’s any proximate cause issue, it’s all but-for causation. It’s not a great defense, but it’s the only defense IMO.
If the defense can argue that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Floyd was always going to die as a result of him ingesting drugs and being covid positive, well that’s the only path to an acquittal imo. However, they’re not doing that. Or at least, they’re also trying to portray Chauvin’s actions as a reasonable response to the situation and not good enough for depraved indifference. That is a dog loser argument and makes them lose credibility. It is a stupid defense.
This is what I always used to call, in closing arguments, the “spaghetti and meatball” defense. It was the last refuge of a shitty defense attorney when dealt with a terrible case. It’s “throw everything against the wall and hopefully something sticks.”
Thanks, interesting.
But for this to work he would have to have died at the exact same time, right? If he was going to die a couple of hours later Chauvin is on the hook for murder, right?
In another case. The cops who beat an undercover cop pretty badly to the point where he had to get spinal fusion surgery will not be found guilty
That’s an interesting spin on it. I think the better way to think about it is, if Chauvin’s knee on his neck was a contributing cause of his death (which is what the coroner’s report says), then Chauvin is guilty. For Chauvin to get off, then the knee on this neck cannot have contributed to the death. So that’s kind of what you’re saying.
If someone jumps off a roof and you shoot them in the head as they fall by your window, then yeah, you’re guilty of murder. Probably anyway, I don’t know, that’s never really been tested.
Chauvin’s knee had to be a contributing factor in his death, and his action had to be unreasonable, right?
His knee had to be a contributing factor in the death, and the death had to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that knee. Mind you, I’m speaking from like common law here I have no idea about the technicalities of the MN depraved indifference murder statute and resulting caselaw.
That makes sense, my framing would be more for an intentional killing rather than a depraved and reckless accidental one.
If you’re Chauvin’s lawyer and they offer second degree murder and 20 years do tell him to take it?
Fuck yeah. But client’s don’t always listen to their attorneys or act rationally with respect to plea negotiations.
Edit: Also if I’m the prosecutor on a case like this, at this point in the trial, no way do I offer any kind of deal. This is a “you can plead guilty to the indictment and take your chances with the judge if you want” type of situation.
Holy shit, I just googled this to see if Chauvin was offered any plea and declined and the prosecutors actually made a deal with Chauvin for 3rd degree murder and Bill Barr blocked it. Crazy.
I haven’t been following the trial but I have been dreading it…
covid + drugs in system + having previously swallowed drugs + all the other officers didn’t think he was doing anything wrong or they would have stopped him = hung jury
…but I do think that the best case against a hung jury is that the jurors are too scared to pull the trigger in fear of personal fallout of getting found out.
Holy shit lol. Appears that was back when it was with the local prosecutor and they were trying to negotiate a global wrap where the feds agreed not to pursue charges in exchange for 10 years!?! That’s fucking insanity. When even Bill Barr knows it’s too fucking lenient you’ve got a problem. The case was taken over by the state, so the guy who offered that 10 years has nothing to do with the prosecution going on now.
it seems like the way to go here is to treat the trial like a poker hand evaluation. No outcomes discussed, the jurors see the events leading up to the decision and what decision was made, but are kept unaware of whether (e.g.) the victim died.
If you’re actually trying to kill someone, why should we care if you were successful or not (and, even more importantly, why should your punishment be lighter if you failed???)
This is why attempted murder has the same penalties as murder. At least it did when I went to law school.
I dunno, but the penal system of every modern country is driven by outcomes in addition to intent, not just intent.
Shouldn’t the defense lawyer be objecting to the questioning of this witness? The prosecutor is blatantly leading the witness right now.