2PacShakur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

From Washington Post:

Quote:

---

Two other people in the car with Floyd, which was parked outside Cup Foods, told police that Floyd was a habitual drug user, and both later said they believed Floyd "was under the influence of narcotics," according to the court papers. Floyd had been previously arrested for drug possession.

---

---

Sounds like an upstanding young man who didn't put himself in a bad situation at all.

---

I just believe police performing extrajudicial killings (allegedly) is a bad thing. Doesn't have anything to do with how upstanding a person is or isn't.

---

The key word.

Why is it in ALL of these cases that a crime is being committed? Maybe if you don't commit a crime ...

UTExan said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

Aggiehawg, sorry if you have already covered in this thread but what do you think about Judge Cahill so far and especially moving forward into the trial?

---

Very positive feeling about Cahill. Level headed and thoughtful. Refreshing to listen to a judge that actually knows what the hell he is doing.

---

I once saw a judge throw out a case against a police officer who shot a driver of a car backing toward him at speed. Makes me wonder if Chauvin might have gone for a bench trial.

---

Without knowing who would be the assigned judge, that's legal Russian Roulette.

Mornin' all.

Scott Johnson is a lawyer in Minneapolis and one of the bloggers at Powerline. He was granted permission to be one of the media observers of the trial in the center set up across the street.

His summary of yesterday's events is Here

He also appeared on Tucker's show last night. Video is in the same link, above.

It is expected that there will be some discussion before they resume jury selection this morning after the state supreme court denied Chauvin's petition for review late yesterday. Scott's take:

Quote:

---

At the end of the day we had two more jurors and word that the Minnesota Supreme Court had denied review of the Court of Appeals decision ordering Judge Cahill to consider reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge under the Noor case. When the lawyers appear before him this morning at 8:00, they will take up the question of how to proceed on the third-degree charge with Judge Cahill. My understanding (partial guess) is that the third-degree charge is coming back into the case when the Court of Appeals decision becomes final and the trial court reacquires jurisdiction over the issue. Whether the third-degree charge remains viable will not be determined until the Minnesota Supreme Court decides the Noor case itself later this year.

---

On the defense strikes - I think 2 of them were really unfair: the first lady with English Proficiency issues & the guy yesterday that said he'd watched some of these jury selection proceedings on tv should have been released by the judge for cause.

I agree, both of those were crap and I thought the judge should've done something if he could to the guy who disobeyed orders. I thought that sort of thing was frowned upon.

Nelson is arguing about the applicability of Noor in this case. Brings up possible ex post facto effects.

aggiehawg we so appreciate your help with this!
Please keep up the great work.

Nelson is making a persuasive argument that Noor is distinguishable on both factual and procedural grounds. Noor case and cases agreeing that depraved mind is satisfied if the fact shows the instrument used was inherently dangerous, i.e. a gun or a car. Procedurally, the case at bar is pretrial not post trial as in Noor.

Next question is whether a novel interpretation of the third degree murder statute can also be ex post facto, under Minnesota law. (No idea on that one.)

Cahill rules to reintroduce the third degree murder charge. He has changed his mind regarding the single person standard and that court of appeals decision have immediate precedential mandates. So when the court of appeals tells him to review his earlier decision, his discretion then becomes more limited.

To be clear, he's not agreeing with the court of appeals but that is their ruling and their inherent judicial discretion as to when precedential value attaches to their own decision. Single acts and a single person can within the "gambit" of the application of depraved mind. That is a departure from other case law but it is what it is.

Please note that the Noor is pending on appeal to the state supreme court to be decided in June of this year. So the issue is not completely settled yet but Cahill is stuck in limbo and has to follow what is the law today.

Sucks but that we are at.

so what is depraved mind and why is that a negative on the case, defense wise

Now talking about the May 2019 arrest of Floyd for in camera review by the judge. So the ultimate admissibility of materials including transcripts and body cam evidence remains undecided but Cahill agrees to conduct another review and the state assents to such in camera review.

Quote:

---

Please note that the Noor is pending on appeal to the state supreme court to be decided in June of this year. So the issue is not completely settled yet but Cahill is stuck in limbo and has to follow what is the law today.

Sucks but that we are at.

---

While I think Cahill's original ruling will win out at the Supreme Court, it's refreshing to see him approach the law and the hierarchy this way. It renews my faith in the rule of law. We saw Judge Sullivan last summer game the rulings of higher courts to suit his personal desires for the outcome; what Judge Cahill is doing is a lot better for several reasons.

Readzilla said:

---

so what is depraved mind and why is that a negative on the case, defense wise

---

Gives the state another bite at the apple, simply put. State is arguing that third degree murder depraved mind is barely different than murder 2, involuntary manslaughter as applied to this case.

In my view, such an argument suggests that if there is no definitional difference between the two why are there two separate statutes covering the same conduct? As a general rule of statutory construction legislatures are given credit for not being idiots (despite ample proof otherwise) and did not intend such replication.

Again Cahill is saying he agrees with the result of Chauvin CoA decision^ but not their rationale and how they got there but in any event he is bound by it for the time being.

* I know it is confusing but there are two cases on third degree murder with two separate decisions. First is the Noor case. Last fall Judge Cahill dismissed the third degree murder charge on the basis of the single person rule that doesn't rise to depraved mind. After he ruled, CoA issued decision in the Noor case that suggested single person rule could be brought under third degree murder statute. Prosecution then moved to reinstate that charge in the Chauvin case. Cahill said no and the state appealed that decision. Then last week, the CofA remanded the case back to Cahill to reconsider. Defense then appealed that CofA opinion to state supreme court. Late yesterday the state supreme court denied that petition so the CofA decision in the Chauvin case stands and Cahill feels duty bound to reinstate the charges.

Now all of that maneuvering may be for naught if the Minnesota state Supreme Court kicks out the third degree murder conviction in the Noor case when it hears it in a few months. Clear as mud, I know.

tallgrant said:

---

Quote:

---

Please note that the Noor is pending on appeal to the state supreme court to be decided in June of this year. So the issue is not completely settled yet but Cahill is stuck in limbo and has to follow what is the law today.

Sucks but that we are at.

---

While I think Cahill's original ruling will win out at the Supreme Court, it's refreshing to see him approach the law and the hierarchy this way. It renews my faith in the rule of law. We saw Judge Sullivan last summer game the rulings of higher courts to suit his personal desires for the outcome; what Judge Cahill is doing is a lot better for several reasons.

---

Agree. And Cahill was quite articulate in why he so ruled. The devil made me do it!

We are back with Juror #31.

aggiehawg said:

---

Readzilla said:

---

so what is depraved mind and why is that a negative on the case, defense wise

---

Gives the state another bite at the apple, simply put. State is arguing that third degree murder depraved mind is barely different than murder 2, involuntary manslaughter as applied to this case.

In my view, such an argument suggests that if there is no definitional difference between the two why are there two separate statutes covering the same conduct? As a general rule of statutory construction legislatures are given credit for not being idiots (despite ample proof otherwise) and did not intend such replication.

Again Cahill is saying he agrees with the result of Chauvin CoA decision^ but not their rationale and how they got there but in any event he is bound by it for the time being.

* I know it is confusing but there are two cases on third degree murder with two separate decisions. First is the Noor case. Last fall Judge Cahill dismissed the third degree murder charge on the basis of the single person rule that doesn't rise to depraved mind. After he ruled, CoA issued decision in the Noor case that suggested single person rule could be brought under third degree murder statute. Prosecution then moved to reinstate that charge in the Chauvin case. Cahill said no and the state appealed that decision. Then last week, the CofA remanded the case back to Cahill to reconsider. Defense then appealed that CofA opinion to state supreme court. Late yesterday the state supreme court denied that petition so the CofA decision in the Chauvin case stands and Cahill feels duty bound to reinstate the charges.

Now all of that maneuvering may be for naught if the Minnesota state Supreme Court kicks out the third degree murder conviction in the Noor case when it hears it in a few months. Clear as mud, I know.

---

Is third degree even really different from voluntary manslaughter? IIRC we dont have third degree in Texas. Seems like they are splitting hairs

#31 is a male. Says he has changed his opinions since he filled out the questionnaire and says his reasons may reveal identifying information so audio has been cut while he explains.

UPDATE: 31 is excused for cause by Judge's order. No objections.

Quote:

---

Is third degree even really different from voluntary manslaughter? IIRC we dont have third degree in Texas. Seems like they are splitting hairs

---

Well it was different under Minnesota case law before. When the original charges came down that included the third degree murder charge, many legal pundits steeped in Minnesota crim law raised their eyebrows because they did not see how it applied under the facts and the single person rule. When I was doing my own research, I too had questions about the quirkiness of the state statute and case law interpreting the same.

So let's say that prior to the kefluffle over both Noor and Chauvin cases, Minnesota's third degree murder statute was uncommon. As you stated, not all states make such distinctions.

#31 says something has changed his mind on every question.... on the surface seems like another possible juror that should be another possible judge strike.

Onto Juror #36.

Male, Hispanic, sounds younger. Soccer fan Real Madrid is his team. He was excited when he received the summons because it is such a big case. No fears for personal safety nor covid.

Used to be a manager so he had to resolve employees with personal disputes and the like.


ETA: Says after deliberations and full conversations with anyone disagreeing with him that he would be willing to stand on his principles and not just give in to go along to get along.

#36 - does this interaction seem a little more adversarial that some of the others?

edit: A LOT more

schwack schwack said:

---

#36 - does this interaction seem a little more adversarial that some of the others?

---

Not yet but Nelson is treading carefully here. Came close with the question as to if the juror had to rule today whether Chauvin is guilty or not, what would it be? He withdraws that. If that was a question during a regular voir dire in front of other prospective jurors, that would be a no-no in most jurisdictions.

Surprised me when he went there with this juror but Nelson knows what's in the questionnaire and I don't. But my gut tells me Nelson is digging to get him discharged for cause. Not quite there yet.

That was a very poorly crafted question about media's portrayal of discrimination. Juror #36 says he somewhat disagreed. But upon further questioning he says the media overemphasizes the bad stuff and doesn't mention the good things that are not discriminatory. Not the answer I expected. But can see where he read that question that way.

Hence a poorly worded question.

Juror had his car stolen from his house.

Nelson: Let me guess, was it during the winter?

Juror: Yes.

Overall positive experience with the police as they responded, gave chase and he ultimately got his car back with some dents in the back I assume stemmed from a pit maneuver.

He does have a favorable view of the criminal justice system.

Nelson passed for cause. Onto the state inquiry of #36.

ETA: Juror says Floyd should have complied with officers' orders he would have just been arrested and this wouldn't have happened. State make strike him because of that.

aggiehawg said:

---

Nelson passed for cause. Onto the state inquiry of #36.

ETA: Juror says Floyd should have complied with officers' orders he would have just been arrested and this wouldn't have happened. State make strike him because of that.

---

He is 100% correct.

State passes. #36 is on the jury.

Is it just me, or does the prosecutor's constant grin seem disingenuous? It bugs me.

edit - I mean , I get he is trying to establish some sort of rapport, but sheesh.

aggiehawg said:

---

State passes. #36 is on the jury.

---

Pleasant surprise there!

Juror #37 is a female.

Says she's unsure if she can put her pre-existing opinions because she can't unsee the video and the length of the time that it happened.

Then reverses herself and says she could put those opinions aside but not the facts that she has seen?

Single parent with little support group. Sequester could be a big problem.

When she received the summons, said "Oh man!" Concerned for her safety and her two children who are younger.

When she saw the fortifications it raised her level of concern but felt more safe once inside.

Says the property damage as a result of the riots was a positive thing because it had to happen to get the word out so everyone would know.

Warning signs.

Warning signs that she's an idiot, yes!

She's toast.

Quote:

---

Warning signs.

---

Mentioned "the movement".

Also has made up her mind & won't change it.

C'mon man - this is not fair.