why is the state even questioning her. just wasting time and trying to get the defense to waste a strike smh

Had to step away for minute and just rewound that exchange with the state's attorney back. He asks her if she could get past her opinions to at least give the defendant a "fair trial"??

Nope! Cahill booted her. Cahill also said he had defense use of strikes at 7 and state's at 4. I think that it incorrect. I think state has used five. I'll go back and double check.

Because of the honesty of this one young female juror right off the bat, the other prospective juror was let go because the judge didn't think they would have enough time. So they recessed for the day.

Readzilla said:

---

why is the state even questioning her. just wasting time and trying to get the defense to waste a strike smh

---

I don't think there was a chance in hell that Cahill would force Nelson to use a strike. She brought it up with the judge the moment he swore her in. She told the judge she could not be impartial, multiple times. But the state attorney wanted to try and rehab her by getting her to say she could find Chauvin not guilty if the facts didn't fit the law and the elements required? That she could provide Chauvin a "fair trial"??

Even phrasing it that way she still said no. If she was on the jury, Chauvin would not receive a fair trial is the only conclusion. He had to give up at that point because she made him look stupid.

Quote:

---

Jerk.

---

Exactly my thought.

For those interested here's Branca's post on this morning's session complete with video (edited for time only.)

Link

Deleted Scott Adam's tweet.

tallgrant said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

all this has taught me is to never put yourself in a position for a jury trial. you're leaving your fate in the hands of some very stupid people.

---

The first time I was summoned for jury duty, I went to the courthouse hoping not to be picked. As I waited to be interviewed, I realized that as inconvenient as it was, someone was exercising their constitutional protection to be tried by a jury. If it was me on trial, I would definitely want someone who would treat it intelligently and not just be whoever was too dumb to dodge jury duty. I decided to take it seriously, ended up being picked (I was in the first 10 jurors they interviewed) and never regretted serving.

---

Closest I ever came to actually getting on a jury was not a criminal case but a personal injury case. It was a woman who had clearly been down this road many times before. When asked I expressed a negative opinion about excessive awards for pain and suffering. It earned me a tongue lashing from the judge along with a strike from the defense.

Mission accomplished.

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

Jerk.

---

Exactly my thought.

---

And it was stupid to do so. There was no remote potential error in just waving off Judge Cahill when given the chance by him to do so. She's admitted her bias prevents her from being an impartial juror. ( Meaning she told people she was possibly on the jury (contrary to rules) and the blowback scared the hell out of her. My take on her "change of heart")

There was no "record" to make on reversible error in an honest prosecutor's mind, at least. To some extent, all prosecutors want jury members who are tilted in a certain way. That is usually law and order types. This is a case when the last thing the prosecution wants jurors who are America, Mom, home and apple pie patriots who believe in presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that he even questioned her further after her completely voluntary confession to the judge that she could not and would not be an impartial juror is quite telling and could just as easily come back to haunt the prosecution in a big way.

By that I mean they already hid the 302 from the ME that was damaging to the state's case. If something else comes out with the prosecution breaking the rules somewhere else? That dumb exchange is free game to corroborate intent to deprive Chauvin of a fair trial.

torrid said:

---

tallgrant said:

---

ruddyduck said:

---

all this has taught me is to never put yourself in a position for a jury trial. you're leaving your fate in the hands of some very stupid people.

---

The first time I was summoned for jury duty, I went to the courthouse hoping not to be picked. As I waited to be interviewed, I realized that as inconvenient as it was, someone was exercising their constitutional protection to be tried by a jury. If it was me on trial, I would definitely want someone who would treat it intelligently and not just be whoever was too dumb to dodge jury duty. I decided to take it seriously, ended up being picked (I was in the first 10 jurors they interviewed) and never regretted serving.

---

Closest I ever came to actually getting on a jury was not a criminal case but a personal injury case. It was a woman who had clearly been down this road many times before. When asked I expressed a negative opinion about excessive awards for pain and suffering. It earned me a tongue lashing from the judge along with a strike from the defense.

Mission accomplished.

---

lol, I had a judge get so exasperated with me he put his head down on his desk and after a few seconds told his clerk "just give the man his $6."

Quote:

---

lol, I had a judge get so exasperated with me he put his head down on his desk and after a few seconds told his clerk "just give the man his $6."

---

LOL. The Hubs did the same once. He's one of those guys who really doesn't believe that an innocent person wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops and taking the stand. (I've argued with him on that point for the first five years we were married. We are working on year 23 of marriage so you can do the math on how long since I knew it was a lost cause to change his mind on that.)

But he really believes that. He will hold a defendant's invocation of the 5th at trial against them. Then again, he's honest and up front about it and tells them upfront. He doesn't do it to get out of jury duty because he has been a juror on civil trials, a couple in fact.

Although the last time he was called and made it to the panel stage for a trial, he was dismissed for cause, not because of his stance on the invocation of the 5th but because he was my husband. I was good friends with counsel on one side although he'd only met them twice and both were while we were in court. We didn't socialize together. But he did know them.

aggiehawg said:

---

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

Jerk.

---

Exactly my thought.

---

And it was stupid to do so. There was no remote potential error in just waving off Judge Cahill when given the chance by him to do so. She's admitted her bias prevents her from being an impartial juror. ( Meaning she told people she was possibly on the jury (contrary to rules) and the blowback scared the hell out of her. My take on her "change of heart")

There was no "record" to make on reversible error in an honest prosecutor's mind, at least. To some extent, all prosecutors want jury members who are tilted in a certain way. That is usually law and order types. This is a case when the last thing the prosecution wants jurors who are America, Mom, home and apple pie patriots who believe in presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that he even questioned her further after her completely voluntary confession to the judge that she could not and would not be an impartial juror is quite telling and could just as easily come back to haunt the prosecution in a big way.

By that I mean they already hid the 302 from the ME that was damaging to the state's case. If something else comes out with the prosecution breaking the rules somewhere else? That dumb exchange is free game to corroborate intent to deprive Chauvin of a fair trial.

---

It wasn't. Wish people read it.

tallgrant said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

By that I mean they already hid the 302 from the ME that was damaging to the state's case. If something else comes out with the prosecution breaking the rules somewhere else? That dumb exchange is free game to corroborate intent to deprive Chauvin of a fair trial.

---

It wasn't. Wish people read it.

---

I think you're the biggest offender. Let's break down the sentence you're having difficulty with:

Dr. Baker "defined the mechanism of death as Floyd's heart and lungs stopping due to the combined effects of his health problems as well as the exertion and restraint involved in Floyd's interaction with police prior to being on the ground".

We're going to focus on the last clause in the sentence. When we look at the adjective "prior", it is referencing a compound subject. That compound subject is "exertion and restraint". What this means is that in the FBI's 302, Floyd's heart and lungs stopped working BEFORE Floyd goes onto the ground, and hence BEFORE Chauvin puts his knee on his neck. If that's truly the ME's opinion, this is a HUGE problem for the prosecution in this case.

You've mostly been saying "that's not what the 302 says." without anything to back it up. I think you can either break down why the rest of us read the grammar in this sentence differently, or else stop throwing out baseless ideas.

Edited to shorten the original quote and clean up some grammar

---

Yep. Huge problem. But I'm sure 2PacShakur will be along shortly to tell us why this is great news for the prosecution.

aginlakeway said:

---

Yep. Huge problem. But I'm sure 2PacShakur will be along shortly to tell us why this is great news for the prosecution.

---

No, he'll ignore the previous statement, skip down to the part of the report that says "All of these things [the products of Floyd struggling with police] increased the possibility of a bad outcome" and pretend he's refuted everything well.

Mornin' all!

Court won't reconvene until 9:00AM as there were no motions or other housekeeping matters the court needed to address before resuming jury selection. At the close of yesterday's session Cahill acknowledge he had been pushing the attorneys pretty hard with all of the early starts, so an extra hour would be welcome.

Andrew Branca has a recap and analysis, HERE and HERE Video clips are included.

Scott Johnson's is HERE

Both are critical of Judge Cahill's reluctance to remove prospective jurors for cause unless they are remarkably honest like the last juror from yesterday, #41, and come right out and say, "No, I cannot be impartial in this case."

While I share their frustration with Cahill's reluctance, I can also understand Cahill's uncomfortable position here. He has to conduct a criminal trial in an age of covid, with the threat of mob violence and juror intimidation and let's face it, there is no such thing as a pristine juror who just emerged from the cabbage patch who has never heard of George Floyd ot Derek Chauvin. Some degree of pre-judgment will be present.

So he is mindful of the balance he must maintain. Were this any other case, participation in protests, donating money, etc. would be deemed indicative of a strong opinion precluding one's ability to afford Chauvin his presumption of innocence. The flip side of that is was Cahill "punishing" prospective jurors for exercising their right to free speech were he to strike them for cause? And where is that line drawn?

Anyway, stay tuned for today's jury selection.

Hmm. Maybe by the time the trial proper begins March 29th, some of the covid measures will be removed?

Quote:

---

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Thursday he's planning significant rollbacks of COVID-19 restrictions on gatherings, following an update by state health officials showing that 70% of the state's senior citizens have now been vaccinated.

"They will be probably our biggest turn because we're at a point where we have not been since this thing started, and it will start to give guidance on larger gatherings starting as early as April," Walz said Thursday during a visit to a Twin Cities high school.

---

Quote:

---

The next three or four weeks will "determine how this pandemic ends," said Walz, who has scheduled a Friday morning briefing to talk about the changes, the Star Tribune reported.

---

Link

Hawg- great and interesting perspective...
Sometimes I hate how attnys put things....and then there's instances where I'm truly fascinated by points and perspectives thrown out here for all of us heathens to chew on...
Thnx again...
As they would say in Roman times: Let the orgy commence!!!!

Come Out Roll said:

---

Hawg- great and interesting perspective...
Sometimes I hate how attnys put things....and then there's instances where I'm truly fascinated by points and perspectives thrown out here for all of us heathens to chew on...
Thnx again...
As they would say in Roman times: Let the orgy commence!!!!

---

No matter what Cahill does or does not do he'll still be under fire from one side or another. He accepts that. His goal, his sole goal in my mind is to not commit any reversible error on his part. Hard to do in a normal trial but under these conditions, a daunting task.

We are up with Juror #42. Female.

Hate the way Nelson keeps phrasing the question about past experiences wherein they were called upon to determine who was telling the truth and who was not. He's asking them to recall a specific event instead of just a general question. They also falsely believe they will be asked to go into further detail. Puts them on the spot and nothing comes to mind.

Needs to generalize it more.

So far, so good. Straight forward and yes and no answers. Not wishy-washy.

Nelson is asking her about the fact she knew about the second autopsy by Dr, Baden paid for by Floyd's family. Nelson asks her is she can disregard that if there is no evidence adduced at trial regarding that second autopsy.

Sounds to me that Dr. Baden had been kicked to the curb and he will not be a witness for neither the prosecution nor defense, as it stands now.

She firmly believes police reform is needed. She attended peaceful protests in Duluth related to Floyd's death. She did not carry a sign.

But says she can put those opinions aside and focus on the evidence produced in the courtroom.

aggiehawg said:

---

She firmly believes police reform is needed. She attended peaceful protests in Duluth related to Floyd's death. She did not carry a sign.

But says she can put those opinions aside and focus on the evidence produced in the courtroom.

---

PERJURY

She has had friends who were treated differently by police and they were Black.

Unsure about defunding the police without further research but still believes some type of reform is needed.

Has a great uncle who was a cop in Minnesota but not Minneapolis. He did tell her stories about his days as a cop.

Unsure if the state will strike her anyway.

aggiehawg said:

---

She has had friends who were treated differently by police and they were Black.

---

Show me the proof that their treatment was based on skin color.

She can't.

aggiehawg said:

---

So far, so good. Straight forward and yes and no answers. Not wishy-washy.

Nelson is asking her about the fact she knew about the second autopsy by Dr, Baden paid for by Floyd's family. Nelson asks her is she can disregard that if there is no evidence adduced at trial regarding that second autopsy.

Sounds to me that Dr. Baden had been kicked to the curb and he will not be a witness for neither the prosecution nor defense, as it stands now.

---

Good riddance! He got his paycheck from the family as people died and businesses were looted and burned to the ground all summer. No need to give him and his conclusions based on incomplete data a stage any more.

Good Poster said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

She has had friends who were treated differently by police and they were Black.

---

Show me the proof that their treatment was based on skin color.

She can't.

---

She's a prospective juror not a witness. Can't cross examine her in that manner.

Quote:

---

she felt she had a higher calling to be on the jury.

---

I had a feeling of duty when I got picked - not a higher calling. Big difference.

He's going to run out of strikes before the jury selection is complete.

Kool said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

So far, so good. Straight forward and yes and no answers. Not wishy-washy.

Nelson is asking her about the fact she knew about the second autopsy by Dr, Baden paid for by Floyd's family. Nelson asks her is she can disregard that if there is no evidence adduced at trial regarding that second autopsy.

Sounds to me that Dr. Baden had been kicked to the curb and he will not be a witness for neither the prosecution nor defense, as it stands now.

---

Good riddance! He got his paycheck from the family as people died and businesses were looted and burned to the ground all summer. No need to give him and his conclusions based on incomplete data a stage any more.

---

Dr. Baden has done enough to ruin his reputation. My guess is that once the tox report came out, he knew he would have to testify contrary to what he had written in his report, conveyed that to the prosecution because he was unwilling to further damage his career by tap dancing on the stand.

TBH, I have not researched if the defense could call him anyway in a crim trial. I know they could in a civil trial as all expert witnesses retained by the parties must hand over their materials and findings before trial. But here, Floyd's family is not a party, the state is. Unsure.

In a recess. Apparently, Juror #43 had transportation issues and is late.

DAMNETT JUROR #43

tallgrant said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Yep. Huge problem. But I'm sure 2PacShakur will be along shortly to tell us why this is great news for the prosecution.

---

No, he'll ignore the previous statement, skip down to the part of the report that says "All of these things [the products of Floyd struggling with police] increased the possibility of a bad outcome" and pretend he's refuted everything well.

---

He may not have time if he's partying in East St Louis. The thought of even visiting that crap hole is depressing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Pro tip: If you want to be on a jury, don't say you are on a mission from God.

---