aggiehawg said:

---

*This thread is very long and people may not know that the few, if any actual state employed attorneys are prosecuting this case. Mostly from private practice offering their services allegedly pro bono. IOW, Chauvin is being prosecuted by lawyers in private practice. How the hell is that allowed?

---

I've heard of a few in private practice that have been appointed as a special prosecutor. Maybe they did the same?

slappy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

*This thread is very long and people may not know that the few, if any actual state employed attorneys are prosecuting this case. Mostly from private practice offering their services allegedly pro bono. IOW, Chauvin is being prosecuted by lawyers in private practice. How the hell is that allowed?

---

I've heard of a few in private practice that have been appointed as a special prosecutor. Maybe they did the same?

---

I honestly don't know how this came about. The only actual member of the AG's office that I have seen at the lectern (twice or so) is the Black guy and I don't mean Ellison. Ellison just sits there in the courtroom like a bump on a log.

Ellison has something like 130 attorneys on his staff but he had to outsource this prosecution?

I do think there's an optics problem with the state having all of these people sitting there (including a jury consultant who wrote that execrable questionnaire) on behalf of the state and then just Nelson, Chauvin and one assistant for the defense. Very David and Goliath appearance. Jurors don't always react well to the prosecution appearing heavy handed like that, IMO. Could easily backfire.

And if they wind up with a hung jury? Already cherry picked who they considered "the best" how can the state come and retry him? Or worse from Ellison's perspective, that of an acquittal? Blame the white guys he hired (again supposedly for free) to prosecute a case he took away from the Hennepin County DA???

Just SMDH trying to understand the reasoning process for the state here. They could always just be incredibly stupid and shortsighted though. Bubbles tend to limit one's ability to take a 30,000 foot view of the situation overall. Reminds me of the failures of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden in the OJ trial. Massive miscalculation from the start and then they were dealt a crap judge in Ito.

Cahill has had a mixed performance so far, in my view. And I understand the immense challenges he is facing so I'm not equating him to Ito by any means. He's a good judge who knows the law well and is trying to navigate his way through the legal equivalent of reversible error minefield. But he is willing to revisit his earlier decisions in this case* so he is open to changing the rules to avoid those landmines as they present themselves. Giving the defense 3 more peremptory strikes and state one more is a sign of that.

*He originally refused to separate trials for Chauvin and the other three officers charged. Reversed that and separated them. He denied the early motion for a change of venue. That motion is now under advisement and he will issue a new decision on Friday. My gut tells me if he goes 0-for seated jurors tomorrow, he'll be much more inclined to agree that Chauvin can't receive a fair trial in Hennepin County right now so either grant the continuance and dismiss the jury as seated now and start over. Or grant the change in venue and start over in the new location. (Not sure of Minnesota law but Cahill could in theory remain the presiding judge, just in another location. I might be wrong about that though.)

In Minnesota, State Ex Rel. Wild v. Otis, https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1977/46898-1.html

Quote:

---

These consolidated appeals raise the issue of whether a private citizen may commence and maintain private prosecutions for alleged violations of the criminal law. We hold that he may not.

Prior to commencing the present action, plaintiff, J. J. Wild, requested the county attorneys of Ramsey and Hennepin Counties to approve criminal complaints which he had prepared against defendants, but the respective county attorneys refused to prosecute. Plaintiff then tried unsuccessfully to persuade the grand juries of the two counties to issue indictments. Finally, plaintiff filed complaints himself in an attempt as a private citizen to prosecute defendants.

The complaint against defendants filed in Ramsey County alleged a violation of the criminal laws against conspiracy to commit a crime, Minn.St. 609.175, subd. 2, and corruptly influencing a legislator, 609.425. The complaint against defendant Mr. Justice James C. Otis in Hennepin County alleged a violation of the criminal law against perjury, 609.48. The complaints requested that the named defendants be convicted and sentenced according to law. The respective complaints were dismissed by the district courts of Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, and these appeals from judgments followed.

---

Apparently it is okay if the state appoints the private attorneys to help them with the prosecution.

Out of curiosity, if he is found not guilty, what are the odds that the other trials will never take place?

It's like a private criminal prosecution in the UK. Not something I ever thought I'd see here

Quote:

---

Apparently it is okay if the state appoints the private attorneys to help them with the prosecution.

---

Therein lies the rub. What is help? What is being in charge?

You are old enough to know what a Star Chamber is. Difference being here is that it isn't the judges sitting without legal authority, it is the prosecution possibility of doing that.

Look I don't want to get into a long back and forth with you on this tangent and derail this thread. If you like, scroll through and link where I provided the info on the outside lawyers being on this case and start a new thread if you think it merits further discussion.

Okay? (Please say, "yes.") I do appreciate your info, though. Thank you.

eric76 said:

---

Out of curiosity, if he is found not guilty, what are the odds that the other trials will never take place?

---

Good question. I think if the State does not get a conviction then I believe they will move to dismiss the charges against the others.

eric76 said:

---

Out of curiosity, if he is found not guilty, what are the odds that the other trials will never take place?

---

Very high. The crimes of which they are charged are derivative from Chauvin's actions that day. That they witnessed Chauvin committing a crime and became complicit by failing to stop it as the prosecution has alleged.

(It's BS BTW.)

Quote:

---

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this is an incredibly racist comment and should be removed from our boards. And I am not implying that you hold this belief, but even passing it on is wrong.

---

My thread. Not derailing to ask can you explain those statements?

Confused. Did you watch the jury selection today?

yes.

Whether or not it is a private prosecution is of limited interest to me. It amazes me that they would have that many lawyers volunteer their time in such a case, though. It doesn't seem to me that there is any justification to prosecute the officers.

I don't know how accurate it is, but years ago one lawyer told me that when the city hires a handful of city attorneys, the best ones go to handling the city's legal affairs and the worst handle prosecutions. His logic was that if the prosecutor doesn't get a guilty plea, the city is only out the time for the prosecutor, but if a lawyer makes an error in a contract, it could potentially cost the city millions.

eric76 said:

---

yes.

Whether or not it is a private prosecution is of limited interest to me. It amazes me that they would have that many lawyers volunteer their time in such a case, though. It doesn't seem to me that there is any justification to prosecute the officers.

I don't know how accurate it is, but years ago one lawyer told me that when the city hires a handful of city attorneys, the best ones go to handling the city's legal affairs and the worst handle prosecutions. His logic was that if the prosecutor doesn't get a guilty plea, the city is only out the time for the prosecutor, but if a lawyer makes an error in a contract, it could potentially cost the city millions.

---

Well, can't argue that. Too simplistic but get where you are coming from. Other layers that are in play, however.

Branca's summary of this afternoon, is HERE

Marvin said:

---

DuncanLEO said:

---

Readzilla said:

---

It is crazy to see the differences in culture and attitudes between actual african americans and black americans. And the fact he is questioning it pretty hard is terrible

---

Blacks from other countries hate american blacks for being lazy and entitled. Those black immigrants appreciate the opportunity the USA affords as opposed to real oppression...which isn't getting a free handout. They are here to work and contribute.

---

I don't mean to derail the thread, but this is an incredibly racist comment and should be removed from our boards. And I am not implying that you hold this belief, but even passing it on is wrong.

Carry on, and thanks again for all the updates.

---

But seriously, how far does everyone think we get into the trial before it gets played? I'll go within the first 30 seconds of the prosecution's opening argument.

Had internet problems this morning so I missed the first 45 minutes of argument over the admissibility of Dr. Vincent's testimony. She's a forensic psychiatrist expert witness being offered by the state.

What I am hearing right now is an actual state AG attorney (rare so far) and he is pretty unpersuasive. Not only that but Dr. Vincent's expected testimony is that his shortness of breath was the result of an acute panic attack, a mental health crisis and he really was not resisting arrest. Cahill is telling him that she goes there, then the defense would be allowed to have even more evidence allowed of the May 2019 arrest.

He's saying he's rebutting the assertion of the defense only that's in the prosecution's case in chief before the defense presents anything. Dumb argument.

Cahill takes it under advisement until tomorrow morning. Ten minute recess before jury selection begins.

Scott Johnson's summary of yesterday is HERE.

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, we were back where we had started. For those keeping score at home, the self-identified race, gender and decade of age information for the selected jurors in the trial so far is as follows:
No. 2: white male; 20s
No. 9: multi/mixed race woman; 20s
No. 19: white male; 30s
No. 27: black male; 30s
No. 44: white woman; 50s
No. 52: black male; 30s
No. 55: white woman; 50s
No. 79: black male; 40s
No. 85: white woman [amended by the court Thursday morning to "multi/mixed-race woman"]; 40s

---

Juror 86 is up. Female.

She has had extensive exposure to the case both before and after she received the questionnaire as she lives in a household that has the news on all of the time. She's negative towards Chauvin and has formed an opinion and saw the 27 million settlement that pushed her farther against him

Cahill excuses her for cause.

Quote:

---

argument over the admissibility

---

Nelson summed it up with the old "what's good for the goose..." defense.

Juror #87 is up.

Female, very soft spoken. Says she hasn't heard about any settlement. Says she can exclude her opinions and be impartial.

But one of the people on the witness list is her neighbor and works in law enforcement but she can treat his testimony like anyone else's.

Nelson is up.

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

argument over the admissibility

---

Nelson summed it up with the old "what's good for the goose..." defense.

---

Yes. Talk about opening the door. My impression is that this Dr. Vincent is a Black woman with Critical Race Theory permeating her views. State is arguing so hard to make this case all about race despite no such allegation has been raised against Chauvin or the other officers. They are trying to set up a jury nullification argument like in the OJ trial.

Back to Juror #86 is a stay at home mother of five.

One of her sons went to a Floyd protest. I like this juror, seems reasonable.

aggiehawg said:

---

One of her sons went to a Floyd protest. I like this juror, seems reasonable.

---

Nelson is really working hard to force the state to use a challenge. This is a good juror for the defense.

Van Buren Boy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

One of her sons went to a Floyd protest. I like this juror, seems reasonable.

---

Nelson is really working hard to force the state to use a challenge. This is a good juror for the defense.

---

Disagree. He likely wants her on the jury and doesn't want the state to strike her. But the state likely will anyway.

I don't know if it is applicable to all of the state's use of peremptories but Nelson might consider a Batson challenge. We'll see.

Nelson confers. Expect him to pass her for cause and he does.

State's up.

aggiehawg said:

---

Van Buren Boy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

One of her sons went to a Floyd protest. I like this juror, seems reasonable.

---

Nelson is really working hard to force the state to use a challenge. This is a good juror for the defense.

---

Disagree. He likely wants her on the jury and doesn't want the state to strike her. But the state likely will anyway.

I don't know if it is applicable to all of the state's use of peremptories but Nelson might consider a Batson challenge. We'll see.

---

Sorry. That's what I meant. I agree with you.

Have not been able to watch yet. What about this juror makes her look bad for the state?

She feels the media exaggerates things to create controversy and they are not always as unbiased as they think they are..

Readzilla said:

---

Have not been able to watch yet. What about this juror makes her look bad for the state?

---

White, stay at home mother of five, reasonable and thoughtful and respects police. That's enough.

yeah sounds like a horrible juror for them lol. Cant have any free thinkers

Readzilla said:

---

yeah sounds like a horrible juror for them lol. Cant have any free thinkers

---

She also has never seen the video just some still shots. So she is about the blankest slate for a juror as we've seen. State wants jurors who already have a negative view of Chauvin.

dang they are trying to get her to talk about believing the cops more

Stupid question by state, I know they think it shows some bias but asking a cop for directions and asking a bystander's and takes the word of the cop over the bystander's word is simply a matter of the cop on his beat knows his way around.

She says her son was on the bridge when the truck came through.

State strikes her.