aginlakeway said:

---

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

I was referring to the court of public opinion.

---

OK. But what does that have to do with the trial?

---

The Mob. He does not understand the difference between the old use of the "Mob" being Mafia and the current use of the "Mob" being domestic terrorists like Antifa and BLM assembled in Minneapolis and ready to rumble, loot, set fires and murder as many as they can.

I'll ignore this poster from here. Not serious and not informed.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Just a guess here, but the "antemortem" specimens were probably assays done off of blood taken by paramedics and/or nurses as he was coded. Postmortem samples were likely done by the medical examiner. I wouldn't try to read too much into it otherwise, especially if you're trying to determine time of actual death vs when is was declared.

---

Thank you so much for the response because I just want to know the truth.

But I have some quibbles and need help to resolve them.

First, if he is coding in the ambulance, he wasn't dead in the street, correct?

Second, when he codes in the ambulance, the HHC is advised of that, correct?

Third, do EMTs really take blood samples while a patient is coding? *(Asked the firefighter/EMT husband and the response was no.)

Fourth, we know when the samples were taken and where. Saying postmortem samples were done by the ME only raises other questions. Can you see where I am going here and how your response creates more doubt?

---

You can code a dead person a long time. Call it coding or call it resuscitation. My response was pure conjecture as to how/why they are labeling some samples antemortem and others postmortem. The source of the latter is almost definitely from the ME. Was Floyd not taken to an ED (I haven't followed those aspects of the case -he was dead)? ED staff might have drawn blood there, and the path report is calling those "antemortem". This isn't the aspect of the case I find interesting so I haven't researched much about it

For those interested in recaps of yesterday's session here are two summaries.

Andrew Branca's is HERE with video included. He notes state has 4 peremptory strikes left and the defense has 7 strikes. Seven jurors have been selected leaving five more for the jury and then four alternates.

Scott Johnson's is HERE. A snippet:

Quote:

---

The big news on Chauvin trial day 5 took place over at the Minneapolis City Clowncil, as our friends at Justice & Drew call it. The city settled the wrongful death case brought by George Floyd's next of kin for the world-beating sum of $27 million.

The Star Tribune reports: "Attorneys for the Floyd family hailed it as the largest pretrial settlement in a civil rights wrongful death lawsuit in U.S. history, saying the payout sent a powerful statement about the value of Black lives in America." The screenshot below depicts the Star Tribune above the fold on page 1 this morning, while we are about midway in the process of jury selection.

---

Quote:

---

If I were counsel for Chauvin I think I would want to revisit the issue of venue with Judge Cahill just about every day. The five prospective jurors interviewed yesterday yielded one woman juror number 42 who will sit on the jury. She is the seventh selected as we head toward 16 (including four alternates).

---

Quote:

---

Judge Cahill announced that the parties had agreed to the release of prospective jurors 58, 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, and 100 for cause. Twenty-three of the first 100 prospective jurors have accordingly been released for cause by agreement of the parties. It is representative of the venue problem that permeates the case.

Understanding the interest in the jury, Judge Cahill authorized release of the following information on the seven jurors seated so far.
No. 2: white male; 20s
No. 9: multi/mixed race woman; 20s
No. 19: white male; 30s
No. 20: white male; 30s
No. 27: black male; 30s
No. 36: Hispanic male; 20s
No. 44: white woman; 50s

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I'll ignore this poster from here. Not serious and not informed.

---

Wow! Strong rebuke for a miscommunication on my part. Have a good weekend.

ItsA&InotA&M said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I'll ignore this poster from here. Not serious and not informed.

---

Wow! Strong rebuke for a miscommunication on my part. Have a good weekend.

---

If I misunderstood your writing skills and your intent, please educate me as to what you actually intended.

Back to the top.

Defense asking for continuance or change of venue re: the settlement money.

Or they offer up a bunch of "remedies" - questioning the already sitting jurors, getting more strikes, sequestering the jury immediately, etc...

aggiehawg - you on here this morning?

AG Ellison's son is a member of the Minneapolis City Council???

Whoa!

Dang. I have errands to run that I can't put off. Hoping y'all post some updates so I can keep up with this morning's activity.

Doesn't seem like the Judge is giving the Defense anything re: the settlement. There is no way every one of these potential (and the ones already seated) jurors do not know about the settlement. Lead on every newscast & must be top headline in all of MN.

So the city settles before the case which will lead people to believe of guilt even before the trail starts. Yeah not political at all

P.U.T.U said:

---

So the city settles before the case which will lead people to believe of guilt even before the trail starts. Yeah not political at all

---

They know how weak their case is and are desperate to sacrifice this dude to try and prevent a repeat of last summer

Plus it wasn't their money

That settlement came as part of the trillion dollar Dem kickback package

schwack schwack said:

---

Defense asking for continuance or change of venue re: the settlement money.

Or they offer up a bunch of "remedies" - questioning the already sitting jurors, getting more strikes, sequestering the jury immediately, etc...

---

Cahill is taking the approach I predicted he would. Nelson is correct in that asking the jurors already seated if the announcement of the "unanimous" decision to settle a civil case for 27 million changes in any way their ability to be remain impartial. Cahill said he'll call them back in and do that at some point.

Cahill also said he would review his own introductory questioning to include what he termed a "tap dance" around the civil litigation. He can't assume they have read about the settlement and freely discuss it until they tell him or the attorneys they have, first. A real PITA because the court certainly doesn't want to prejudice any prospective juror by further informing them of something that they might not know.

Schleisher for the state made the argument for calm and reflection stating they don't control the City of Minneapolis nor the press and then said he wasn't sure whether the news of the settlement "cuts" against them or for them. Cahill interrupts him and says, "But it cuts! That's the problem."

Several times Cahill refers to the settlement at this time (in the middle of jury selection) as "unfortunate." Judge talk for "really f***ing bad." He's clearly not happy.

The other arguments this morning were over expert witnesses and the scope of their testimony. The term opening the door to the 404(b) evidence such as the 2019 arrest. That will be argued tomorrow.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

P.U.T.U said:

---

So the city settles before the case which will lead people to believe of guilt even before the trail starts. Yeah not political at all

---

They know how weak their case is and are desperate to sacrifice this dude to try and prevent a repeat of last summer

Plus it wasn't their money

That settlement came as part of the trillion dollar Dem kickback package

---

I might recommend someone follow that $27 million and make sure parts of it don't circle back to the city leaders. You know, just to be sure.

What a 3 ring circus.

Juror #51 is up.

Female.

She comes right out off the bat about the 27 million settlement. She has HR experience and deals with civil issues all of the time and knows the calculus that the city thought they would lose the civil case. Uses preponderance of the evidence.

She says she has strong opinions and lives near the third precinct and the Floyd Memorial. She would like to think of herself as impartial but the size of that settlement has changed her mind. Can't be impartial.

Cahill tosses her for cause.

This may be a recurring theme today.

Juror 52 is up.

Male.

Claims not to have heard anything about "related civil litigation" as Cahill phrased it.

Nelson is questioning him now.

#52 coaches youth sports and often has to resolve conflicts between parents. LOL.

So far so good. Very confident. Answers quickly and directly, no evasiveness that I can detect.

He's not sure what defunding the police could work so can't form an opinion. he has witnessed a cop body slam a young guy in what he deemed to be excessive force.

Very favorable opinion of BLM. But he doesn't view BLM as an organization, he just thinks of it as "a statement."

Blue Lives Matter was a reaction to the statement of Black Lives Matter. So he has a somewhat negative view of Blue Lives Matter.

My bet is Nelson passes him for cause. He's conferring with Chauvin now.

And he does.

State's turn.

Guys is in the banking industry. Sounds like a loan officer from his description of being able to help people achieve their goals.

Ditto for why he coaches youth sports. Help kids set a goal and work towards achieving it.

State passes for cause.

#52 is on the jury. From his voice I'm presuming he's Black.

Cahill goes into the morning recess.

Feel like 52 will be fair, but right now is leaning towards a state favorite

Juror #54 is up.

Sounds like an older man.

Fentanyl Floyd!

He cannot be sure he could be impartial.

Cahill tosses him for cause.

Juror #55 is up.

Female.

ETA: Guessing middle aged.

Single parent two kids, youngest in their teens. She works in the health care industry. She works for a clinic and works in patient relations. If a patient is upset with their treatment so her job is basically conflict resolution.

Sorry if already aasked/answered, but how many prospective jurors do they expect to vet during voire dire? Is it always the same number regardless of case, charges, etc.?

Says she was too disturbed by the video to watch the whole thing. Expresses concern about seeing graphic images but her role as a juror she would have to watch and pay attention.

J.D. c/o 05 said:

---

Sorry if already aasked/answered, but how many prospective jurors do they expect to vet during voire dire? Is it always the same number regardless of case, charges, etc.?

---

Generally depends on the nature of the case. This case has had so much media attention the panel from which the 12 jurors and 4 alternates is chosen is over 100 from what the judge has said.

Got it. Makes sense, thanks.

Good Poster said:

---

---

I was wondering why they didnt move to change venue before jury selection started. But then again, would a new venue really be that helpful, considering this case has gotten so much nationwide press?