So we see where this is going.

More rigged *****

Defense strikes #28.

Next prospective juror is a female attorney, practicing. Sounds on the young side to me.

Has a two year old daughter.

peremptory or for cause?

peremptory

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

---

yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.

larry culpepper said:

---

peremptory or for cause?

---

It was peremptory but Juror #28 brought up that he takes a dim view when defendants don't testify but he would try to put those feelings aside.

Pro tip: If you want to get out of jury duty for a criminal trial, say that and stick to it.

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

---

I've always understood that attorneys are guaranteed strikes as jurors. However one of my old supervisors (attorney) was chosen in a civil trial.

For sure getting striked based on what she is saying lawyer or not.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

---

yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.

---

LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are not that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.

aggiehawg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

---

yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.

---

LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.

---

If she's on the jury, she's instantly the foreperson. And she'll be explaining all the legal concepts to everyone else.

UTExan said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

You do realize that the policy and the manual were changed after the Floyd incident, more than once in fact. The judge ruled that discussion of the changes to policy or training subsequent to event are inadmissible.

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

STATE'S RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Under MPD policies in effect at the time of Floyd's death, the most extreme uses of forceMRT, Neck Restraints, and Deadly Forceare reserved for the most extreme situations. Officers are trained to use the MRT only "where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained." Id. at 5-316(IV)(A)(1). "As soon as reasonably possible, any person restrained using the MRT who is in the prone position"that is, on his or her stomach"shall be placed" in "the side recovery position" if "the hobble restraint device is used." Id. at 5- 316(IV)(B)(1). Officers are instructed that, "as soon as possible," they must "[p]lace a restrained subject on their side in order to reduce pressure on his/her chest and facilitate breathing." Exhibit 3, 2019 MPD Use of Force Manual, at 3.

---

---

And the question is whether or not that was a causal factor in Floyd's death. Note the Hennepin County ME notation of natural diseases;
"Natural diseases
A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe
B. Hypertensive heart disease
1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular
dilatation
2. Clinical history of hypertension
C. Left pelvic tumor (incidental, see microscopic".

That's right. Severe arteriosclerosis. Combine the stress of an arrest (out of the officer's discretion for action) plus LD50 range of controlled substances present plus CV19 plus natural disease affecting his vascular system characterized as "severe": this is why I lean toward hung jury or NG of murder. They might have gotten manslaughter.

---

His health is irrelevant. As soon as the MRT technique was employed, Floyd was at increased risk to death (E: to add, any one under any health condition placed under the restraint is at increased odds for adverse outcomes so health of one is irrelevant). The restraint was justifiable (albeit incorrectly applied) to neutralize whatever threat Floyd was perceived. As soon as Floyd was no longer a threat, the restraint should be minimized or the recovery position introduced as instructed in the technique. You can argue the degree of "threat" Floyd presented while handcuffed with 4 officers around, but he wasn't a threat when Lane notice he looked passed out at 5:30 minutes. He certainly wasn't a threat when they checked for a pulse and couldn't find one.

After the threat was neutralized, did Chauvin's actions reduce the risk to Floyd and to Floyd's life? No, he continued the pressure denying any opportunity to decrease the threat to Floyd's life. When asked by Lane, twice, to put him in the recovery position and Chauvin denied the recovery position, he increased the risk to Floyd. When a off-duty firefighter asked if he could intervene to assess or provide care for Floyd and was denied, they increased risk to her (actually, I think the firefighter noted it before Lane.)

That's the case. From a UMinn law professor's primer:

Quote:

---

Second-degree unintentional (felony) murder

This crime is defined broadly in Minnesota, so it will not be hard for the state to prove. The state need only show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while Chauvin was committing a felony that posed a "special danger" to human life. The applicable dangerous felony here is third-degree assault. (In many states, felony assault is not deemed to be a crime sufficiently independent of the victim's death to qualify for felony murder, but Minnesota does not apply that rule.) Third-degree assault is defined as any assault causing substantial bodily harm. At some point while being held down Floyd lost consciousness; prior cases have held that this constitutes substantial bodily harm and poses sufficient danger to permit felony murder liability. The state does not have to prove that Chauvin intended substantial harm (although that might be provable here police use of an "unconscious neck restraint," cutting off blood flow to the suspect's brain, is designed to cause loss of consciousness). Instead, under Minnesota's unusually broad felony assault rules, the state need only show that Chauvin intentionally did an act that constituted fifth-degree (i.e., misdemeanor) assault, and that substantial bodily harm occurred as a result. Fifth-degree assault consists of intentionally doing an act that causes some degree of bodily harm (including pain, such as to Floyd's neck or to his face against the rough pavement) or that is intended to cause fear of immediate bodily harm.

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

GeorgiAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?

---

yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.

---

LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.

---

If she's on the jury, she's instantly the foreperson. And she'll be explaining all the legal concepts to everyone else.

That's always a fool's errand, trying to assess who will be a foreperson of a jury, in my experience. I was wrong many times..

---

2PacShakur said:

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

---

It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.

Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?

As someone who's extremely ignorant of court proceedings, I would want her on the jury for the defense team. She seems like a no nonsense type.

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

---

It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.

Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?

---

I believe that would be called murder too.

if all these juror selections are true, mistrial incoming.

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

---

It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.

Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?

---

Murder is still murder even if the victim was breaking the law. If the subject is not a direct threat to the cop's safety then deadly force is almost never justified. And unless there's a huge piece of evidence we're not aware of, it's clear that Floyd was not a threat to any of the police officers' lives.

I'm not jumping to conclusions as I will await the arguments made at trial regarding drug toxicity, etc. I just had to point out that just because Floyd was breaking the law does not mean he deserved everything that came after

Brief recess. Appears the defense passed on cause since she will be coming back after the break. We'll see what the state says. Court will reconvene at 3:15

idk how i feel about her. The other jurors are going to look to her for clarification for a lot of things and may side with her just because shes a lawyer

2PacShakur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

---

It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.

Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?

---

I believe that would be called murder too.

---

Who committed murder?

You realize that Floyd had a length criminal history who was being arrested and resisted arrest.

But feel free to keep defending him. This NEVER happens if Floyd didn't resist.

Done with you.

Readzilla said:

---

idk how i feel about her. The other jurors are going to look to her for clarification for a lot of things and may side with her just because shes a lawyer

---

Probably because I have such a low opinion of lawyers in general as I have encountered more bad lawyers than great ones, I would be hesitant to put her on my jury for just that reason.

Possibility the jury follows her lead and she's flat out wrong in her analysis.

I am another that has never watched the video. Just like that first chosen juror, I didn't care to see it but have seen stills from it like everybody else.

I've also been on a murder jury. It's damn stressful.

Back on the record with #29

said she put slightly disagree with the fact MPD uses more force on blacks because she doesnt have enough info to say yes so she would have to disagree. Seems telling that she would follow reasonable doubt

As expected, the state strikes her.

aggiehawg said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

peremptory or for cause?

---

It was peremptory but Juror #28 brought up that he takes a dim view when defendants don't testify but he would try to put those feelings aside.

Pro tip: If you want to get out of jury duty for a criminal trial, say that and stick to it.

---

I prefer showing up with a hang em high t-shirt on.

Not really, but I do list all my relatives in law enforcement which is very extensive. Crime scene investigator, Chief of Police, Sheriff's county bailiff, retired Patrol Officer, ...
Somehow I typically am not selected for jury duty.

Prosecutors exercised their strike. Darn, I was hoping they'd keep her.

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.

---

It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.

Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?

---

I believe that would be called murder too.

---

Who committed murder?

You realize that Floyd had a length criminal history who was being arrested and resisted arrest.

But feel free to keep defending him. This NEVER happens if Floyd didn't resist.

Done with you.

---

I wont call it murder (yet), but there is a problem with this line of reasoning. "If he didnt break the law this never would have happened." Technically true, but two wrongs do not make a right. If a subject is breaking the law, the cop is not supposed to kill them unless the subject is a direct threat to their safety. In other words the fact that Floyd had a criminal history and was resisting arrest did not give Chauvin carte blanche to do whatever he wanted

State Supreme Court has denied the petition for review of the court of appeals decision on the third degree murder charge. So that issue is still outstanding.

Dumb_Loggy said:

---

Prosecutors exercised their strike. Darn, I was hoping they'd keep her.

---

They have a crappy case. They wouldn't want a lawyer in the jury room reviewing it.

was that 3 or 4?

aginlakeway said:

---

Can we keep this thread to what is actually going on in court please?

---

Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stage coach tilter!



Sorry, just want to make sure that we can keep personal insults and attacks if we are getting back to the thread being about what is going on in court.

Readzilla said:

---

was that 3 or 4?

---

Lost track. 4, I think.