cz308 said:

---

I think I'm just mainly waiting for the evening TV entertainment of these idiots burning down their city. After the fact, they will cry about no one wanting to help them out.

---

They'll be burning down cities across the country.

Good Poster said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

cz308 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

cz308 said:

---

It is hard to listen to the CourtTv commentary during the break. They are about as bad as CNN.

---

CNN is unwatchable. And I voted for Biden. They are setting this country up to burn if he gets off on even one charge by acting like this is such a slam dunk. It isn't.

---

CourtTv is thinking the same. I think he'll be found guilty for two reasons. One, there is absolutely no way he gets a fair trial there. Two, they know the city will burn to the ground if he's found not guilty. I think it'll burn regardless though.

---

I think they'll convict on the lesser charge. Then errbody will riot anyway.

---

If the third degrees murder charge is the verdict, it might all be for naught depending on the state supreme court decision this summer in the Noor case.

---

Can you elaborate?

---

Noor was the officer that fired across his partner from inside the squad car and shot a woman in a dark alley. Turns out it was the 911 caller reporting she heard noises about a possible sexual assault. (Most notably, there's no where in the manual about allowing such a risky discharge of a weapon.)

But he was convicted under the third degree murder statute using the depraved mind standard. But caselaw in Minnesota had previously been one person rule meaning if the actions were directed to just one person it did not qualify under depraved mind definition. The state court of appeals threw a monkey wrench into that long-standing case law and now Noor's conviction is up for review by the state supreme court in June, I think.

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Floyd was waving his arms and shaking hi head. To me that means he was agitated.

---

Well, and why didnt he just...you know. Drive away. He has been sitting outside for what, 15 minutes?

---

Too high to drive, I guess.

---

Wasn't there a report that he couldn't stay awake and that the police had to rouse him from sleep when they arrived?

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Floyd was waving his arms and shaking hi head. To me that means he was agitated.

---

Well, and why didnt he just...you know. Drive away. He has been sitting outside for what, 15 minutes?

---

Too high to drive, I guess.

---

Wasn't there a report that he couldn't stay awake and that the police had to rouse him from sleep when they arrived?

---

Not on this arrest. It may have been on the arrest a year earlier which ended with Floyd at the hospital from an overdose.

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

And we're back.

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

They don't have a lot of work to do, to be honest. Prosecution hasn't brought up anyone credible or relevant.

It's the female prosecutor again. She actually works for the state.

Next witness Charles Mcmillian.

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

Who is this woman?

EDIT: Hawg answered

Name=Charles McMillan? 61 y/o?

61 years old went as far as third grade?

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

No joke!

He was a passing motorist.

Po-lice

... and Elton John impersonator.

Was just being nosy, I'm a nosy person.

I like this guy.

Admits he's nosey guy and just wanted to be a lookielou (my words) nosey was his word.

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

This is the prosecution's case in chief. Nelson is literally on defense and preparing for a long trial.

The best that the defense can do right now is get a prosecution witness to make a defense point for him.

Other than that, defense hopes that a prosecution witness makes a large mistake and can be impeached.

The defense should be losing at this point in almost every trial.

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

Hard to say without knowing what he's got in the way of ammunition. If he thinks he has some really compelling testimony that will decide the case, why bog things down trying to score points off unimportant witnesses when the prosecution is wasting the jury's time? As has been pointed out, it's just Nelson representing the defendant, and being seen by the jurors as someone who is trying to move things along, and not waste their time, can be a difference maker. Odds are that when the jurors deliberate, they will only be talking about a handful of key witnesses, none of whom have yet testified.

Cactus Jack said:

---

Was just being nosy, I'm a nosy person.

I like this guy.

---

He also says "Yes ma'am" and "No ma'am" instead of "Correct."

Troy91 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

This is the prosecution's case in chief. Nelson is literally on defense and preparing for a long trial.

The best that the defense can do right now is get a prosecution witness to make a defense point for him.

Other than that, defense hopes that a prosecution witness makes a large mistake and can be impeached.

The defense should be losing at this point in almost every trial.

---

Thanks, Perry.

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

The defense so far has been weak. Just my take.

I would have cross examined MMA Bro to a much greater extent.

tallgrant said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

Was just being nosy, I'm a nosy person.

I like this guy.

---

He also says "Yes ma'am" and "No ma'am" instead of "Correct."

---

And what a relief, eh??

"Correct!!"

I'm confused on how anyone can be watching this feed and consider the defense to be "losing." The burden is on the prosecution and they haven't provided any evidence that this was murder. And frankly they haven't even provided any evidence that this was manslaughter. The commentary on CourtTV has done a better job of making a case for manslaughter than the prosecution, from what I've seen.

How is the defense losing?

He almost blew it up with "i can't ..... breathe"

Quote:

---

Hard to say without knowing what he's got in the way of ammunition. If he thinks he has some really compelling testimony that will decide the case, why bog things down trying to score points off unimportant witnesses when the prosecution is wasting the jury's time? As has been pointed out, it's just Nelson representing the defendant, and being seen by the jurors as someone who is trying to move things along, and not waste their time, can be a difference maker. Odds are that when the jurors deliberate, they will only be talking about a handful of key witnesses, none of whom have yet testified.

---

Agree that there is a calculus involved for Nelson. Endless objections not only irritate the jury they also irritate the judge. If the prosecution is doing something like repeatedly asking leading questions, he can ask for a sidebar and have Cahill tell the state to tighten up their questions.

That occurred and I have noticed the questioning by state has been tighter today.

This is a good witness in that he's clearly (IMO) pulling from memory, not guessing. If he's not sure, he says he not sure. Didn't make up a story about fish gasping for air. Not overly rehearsed.

aggiehawg said:

---

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Floyd was waving his arms and shaking hi head. To me that means he was agitated.

---

Well, and why didnt he just...you know. Drive away. He has been sitting outside for what, 15 minutes?

---

Too high to drive, I guess.

---

Wasn't there a report that he couldn't stay awake and that the police had to rouse him from sleep when they arrived?

---

Not on this arrest. It may have been on the arrest a year earlier which ended with Floyd at the hospital from an overdose.

---

It was this arrest.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/29/defense-argues-george-floyd-took-percocet-during-arrest/

Quote:

---

Defense lawyer Eric Nelson said during opening arguments that Floyd's pals told police that they had trouble waking him up after he took the drugs on May 25, 2020, the day he died while in police custody.

"Mr. Floyd's friends will explain that Mr. Floyd fell asleep in the car and that they couldn't wake him up to get going," Nelson told the jury. "They thought police might be coming."

"They kept trying to wake him up," he said. "In fact, one of these friends, Shawanda Hill, called her daughter, Shakira Prince, to come and pick her up because they couldn't keep Mr. Floyd awake."

"While they were in the car, Mr. Floyd consumed what they thought to be two Percocet pills," Nelson said, referring to Hill and another friend, Maurice Hall.

Chauvin's defense argued Floyd put drugs in his mouth in an effort to conceal them from police.

An autopsy later found fentanyl and methamphetamine a narcotic concoction known as a "speedball" in Floyd's system, Nelson said.

"The evidence will show that when confronted by police, Mr. Floyd put drugs in his mouth in an effort to conceal them from police," the lawyer said.

---

Exhibit 38 is a picture of the witness. Outdoor surveil cam.

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

The defense so far has been weak. Just my take.

I would have cross examined MMA Bro to a much greater extent.

---

I get the other points. I'm not sure how far I would take it and especially against really emotional people on the bench. I probably would have been more aggressive on the MMA guy and the firefighter. Especially after she got snippy with the judge. Really hammered her. That definitely has it's own risks. Really this should (not that it will, but should) come down to the expert testimony later.

I'm just relaying what I've heard. Both parents are attorney's, lots of family friends too.

Troy91 said:

---

The defense is losing in that they have produced no witnesses nor any evidence.

The prosecution is dragging this out so much on minor issues but all of the topics have been theirs.

I have 21 years as an attorney in Texas for the Perry Mason fans.

---

Wouldn't that be because it is the defense's turn to produce witnesses or evidence?

Shouldn't the state be "winning" at this point?

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

AC Hopper said:

---

Not real impressed with the cross examination ... are you?

---

General consensus from the attorney's I know and follow is that Nelson's strategy seems weak so far. I dunno.

---

The defense so far has been weak. Just my take.

I would have cross examined MMA Bro to a much greater extent.

---

My best cross ever was of an attorney on attorney's fees in a civil case. They had incurred $300k, total, but only part of that was on a recoverable claim. They asked for $80k at mediation. At trial, the lawyer testified for 45 minutes at 4:00 on Thursday, going on, and on, and on, about his qualifications. Asked for $10k at trial, something like $5k on appeal, etc..

My cross was: "No questions, your honor"

Jury gave him $1k, and no appellate fees. Answered no on 47 questions, and gave the plaintiffs 2k for a dead cow. Sometimes less is more.