For the lawyers. Why does the state get to open closing arguments and get rebuttal time after the defense closes?

In a civil case with a plaintive I sorta understand, but in a criminal trial this seems to clearly bias in favor of the state.

From the trial thread, I think it was said because of the high burden of proof on the state.

That said, in MN, it's supposed to be a more narrow rebuttal of the defense, and not the clearly rehearsed second closing we got today, which is why the state got admonished twice during it.

IANAL but it is due to the prosecution having the burden of proof.

They just do. I learned that listening to the "Lincoln Lawyer" series by Michael Connelly.

It's not about Justice, it's about convictions.

They have the burden of proof.

A lot of times the defense attorney will use it to make a point, saying that they get two shots because all of the burden is on them.

Baez did a masterful job of this in the Casey Anthony trial. I still remember some of the things he said. He said one of the hardest things to do as a defense attorney was to sit and listen to the prosecutions last argument because he knew he wouldn't have a chance to rebut it. He pressed over and over again that the system is set up this way because the defense isn't the one that has to make the argument. It's all on the prosecutors. If they don't convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, even when they have two tries, then you must find not guilty.

Because they have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has no burden except to show up

MSCAg said:

---

For the lawyers. Why does the state get to open closing arguments and get rebuttal time after the defense closes?

In a civil case with a plaintive I sorta understand, but in a criminal trial this seems to clearly bias in favor of the state.

---

Because Al Gore asked for them?

Gonna be hard to carry that burden when Floyd was saying, "I can't breathe," even before the action by Chauvin began. And the medical examiner for that county testified he died of drug overdose and no evidence found otherwise in or on Floyd's neck. I've never seen a county med examiner testify against the DA of the same county. Very unusual.

Do they get more TIME than the defense? If so, that's just wrong and in my opinion, unconstitutional.

As far as number, its common to allow 2 closings for the party with the burden (Prosecution or Plaintiff) split around the Defendant's closing. However, if both parties receive, say, 10 minutes, the P/P has to divide their time into a TOTAL of 10.

Is that not what's going on here?

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Do they get more TIME than the defense? If so, that's just wrong and in my opinion, unconstitutional.

As far as number, its common to allow 2 closings for the party with the burden (Prosecution or Plaintiff) split around the Defendant's closing. However, if both parties receive, say, 10 minutes, the P/P has to divide their time into a TOTAL of 10.

Is that not what's going on here?

---

Been doing it this way for 200 years folks. And we don't need to change it. Fair to both sides. Where have you people been? No, judges give the same total time to both sides no matter how many lawyers speak.

I'm just wondering... why was he constantly putting his knee on the guy even past the point of having a pulse? His heart had stopped and he didn't do anything to 'serve' him as a citizen.

He was cuffed - on the ground - surrounded by 4 cops... where was the threat?

Smells like a conviction to me. Prosecution did a good job showing calais indifference. No attempt to revive - no attempt to help - just a knee and a stare.

Bad cop and should be locked up.

Born&Raised said:

---

I'm just wondering... why was he constantly putting his knee on the guy even past the point of having a pulse? His heart had stopped and he didn't do anything to 'serve' him as a citizen.

He was cuffed - on the ground - surrounded by 4 cops... where was the threat?

Smells like a conviction to me. Prosecution did a good job showing calais indifference. No attempt to revive - no attempt to help - just a knee and a stare.

Bad cop and should be locked up.

---

In before the trademark AggieYankee1 edit!

The way closing arguments work is the prosecution goes over the evidence during his first remarks then, in the closing remarks, gets to rebut the defense arguments. It is also when the prosecution makes an emotional appeal to the jury.

And, as said above, it has been this way for over 200 years. No need to change it.

Quote:

---

calais indifference.

---

Calais is a city and major ferry port in northern France in the department of Pas-de-Calais, of which it is a sub-prefecture. Although Calais is by far the largest city in Pas-de-Calais, the department's prefecture is its third-largest town of Arras. The population of the city proper is 73,911, and that of the urban area is 128,931 (2017). Calais overlooks the Strait of Dover, the narrowest point in the English Channel, which is only 34 km (21 mi) wide here, and is the closest French town to England. The White Cliffs of Dover can easily be seen on a clear day from Calais. Calais is a major port for ferries between France and England, and since 1994, the Channel Tunnel has linked nearby Coquelles to Folkestone by rail.

Born&Raised said:

---

I'm just wondering... why was he constantly putting his knee on the guy even past the point of having a pulse? His heart had stopped and he didn't do anything to 'serve' him as a citizen.

He was cuffed - on the ground - surrounded by 4 cops... where was the threat?

Smells like a conviction to me. Prosecution did a good job showing calais indifference. No attempt to revive - no attempt to help - just a knee and a stare.

Bad cop and should be locked up.

---

If he was guilty of anything, it was not reacting fast enough to a man that just overdosed on drugs in his custody.

I don't think that is manslaughter or any type of murder since he is not the one that caused the death.

I'm not sure if that would be any crime... just something that future cops might learn from so they can try and aid someone sooner if something similar happens.

So where is the overdose evidence and which medical examiner said he OD'd?

Born&Raised said:

---

So where is the overdose evidence and which medical examiner said he OD'd?

---

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/new-court-docs-say-george-floyd-had-fatal-level-of-fentanyl-in-his-system/89-ed69d09d-a9ec-481c-90fe-7acd4ead3d04

Quote:

---

MINNEAPOLIS New documents filed in the George Floyd case give new information about the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's findings in Floyd's autopsy.

Handwritten notes of a law enforcement interview with Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, say Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system.

"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3," Baker told investigators.

In another new document, Baker said, "That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances."

---

3 ng/ml = fatal, according to the ME. Floyd had 11ng/ml, nearly 4x the fatal dose

Born&Raised said:

---

So where is the overdose evidence and which medical examiner said he OD'd?

---

Is this where I rage post full of grammatical and spelling errors, because you ignored my answer to your question?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's not about Justice, it's about convictions.

---

Disappointed, but not surprised, to see an ignorant post like this on TexAgs.

Born&Raised said:

---

So where is the overdose evidence and which medical examiner said he OD'd?

---

there is evidence he had a potentially lethal level of fentanyl in his system - that is undisputed.
there is evidence he had both an enlarged heart and excessive fluid on the lungs - that is undisputed

While none of the state's witnesses (medical examiners) said that was the cause of death they did say it contributed:

Quote:

---

Chauvin's defense attorney, Eric Nelson, has argued that Floyd died as a result of drugs and preexisting health conditions. And under cross examination, Baker said he believed those factors played a role.

"So in your opinion," Nelson asked, "both the heart disease as well as the history of hypertension and the drugs that were in his system played a role in Mr. Floyd's death?"

"In my opinion, yes," Baker said.

---

But Baker still stood by homicide as his cause of death.

But that does not equate to conviction for murder - that's his opinion.



And on the flip side...

Quote:

---

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's official autopsy made no mention of asphyxiation as a cause of death.

Baker said he "conveyed" to county prosecutors soon after the autopsy the "lack of anatomical findings" that would support the conclusion Floyd died of asphyxiation. After seeing the video, Baker said, in his opinion, the placement of Chauvin's knee would not cut off Floyd's airway.

---

So you have drug + health problems that played a part.
You have no anotomical findings that support asphyxiation.


The other autopsy and finding that do support asphyxiation and rule out the drugs, etc. were PAID FOR BY THE FAMILY.



You'll never clearly convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that he was asphyxiated to death. Not with those other conditions and not with those statements. You don't have to believe he OD'd outright to believe that all of that contributed and therefore it wasn't something that would have killed someone without those issues. Given that those are unknown issues to the cop I don't see how you can call it murder (premeditated).

It is somewhere in between - but that does not equate to murder for me.

Thank, sir for provided Concise feed back

However - there is a problem here

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

2nd the fact the officer did not provide ANY AID AT ALL - even after his heart had stopped and his actions contributed to his death - EVEN IF he did not mean to kill him - and killed him anyway, then that is still murder.

The point is absent the cops showing up and treating him let one officer did - he would have been alive.

That is murder. Plain and simple.

He refused to help him despite his repeated calls for help and despite his heart stopping. He didn't want to help him - he did not want to render aid - he did not want to do anything but keep his knee on his neck ... which is against every policy of policing in the state of Minnesota.

He is guilty - plain and simple

Born&Raised said:

---

Thank, sir for provided Concise feed back

However - there is a problem here

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

2nd the fact the officer did not provide ANY AID AT ALL - even after his heart had stopped and his actions contributed to his death - EVEN IF he did not mean to kill him - and killed him anyway, then that is still murder.

The point his absent the cops showing up and treating him let one officer did - he would have been alive.

That is murder. Plain and simple.

---

Quoted this before AY1 can edit, since all need to see her brand new definitions of murder, not found in any state laws in the United States.

Not to mention her extensive medical knowledge concerning what George Floyd took, and when, and how quickly it should have acted on his system.

Born&Raised said:

---

Thank, sir for provided Concise feed back

However - there is a problem here

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

2nd the fact the officer did not provide ANY AID AT ALL - even after his heart had stopped and his actions contributed to his death - EVEN IF he did not mean to kill him - and killed him anyway, then that is still murder.

The point is absent the cops showing up and treating him let one officer did - he would have been alive.

That is murder. Plain and simple.

He refused to help him despite his repeated calls for help and despite his heart stopping. He didn't want to help him - he did not want to render aid - he did not want to do anything but keep his knee on his neck ... which is against every policy of policing in the state of Minnesota.

He is guilty - plain and simple

---

Quoting in full, because this is legendary. Two Teas kind of legendary.

Quote:

---

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

---

What????? This is absolutely absurd. there's a time limit for death on drug overdoses? Is this some new science?

Quote:

---

2nd the fact the officer did not provide ANY AID AT ALL - even after his heart had stopped and his actions contributed to his death - EVEN IF he did not mean to kill him - and killed him anyway, then that is still murder.

---

No, it's not. That is negligent homicide or manslaughter

Quote:

---

He refused to help him despite his repeated calls for help and despite his heart stopping. He didn't want to help him - he did not want to render aid - he did not want to do anything but keep his knee on his neck ... which is against every policy of policing in the state of Minnesota.

---

Not sure if this is true(policy), but not doing something against policy is very different from murder.
Again, negligent homicide or manslaughter at best

Holy cow, i can see why morons like Biden get elected.

Born&Raised said:

---

Thank, sir for provided Concise feed back

However - there is a problem here

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

---

According to the ME. Floyd had 11ng/ml of fentanyl in his system. Anything over 3 ng/ml is considered fatal, but that doesn't mean INSTANEOUSLY fatal.

You can almost track the posts above for the past hour to when she was first triggered, to that one, with ever decreasing sanity/reasoning in each post.

But she's just here to present 'the other side' for the purposes of democracy (about this criminal trial).

This is the best thread of the day by far. The one thing I pity a little is her keyboard.

Born&Raised said:

---

Thank, sir for provided Concise feed back

However - there is a problem here

If what he took was fatal - you have the problem of him being still alive when the cops got there. So if it was fatal FOR HIM - he should have died before the cops got there.

2nd the fact the officer did not provide ANY AID AT ALL - even after his heart had stopped and his actions contributed to his death - EVEN IF he did not mean to kill him - and killed him anyway, then that is still murder.

The point is absent the cops showing up and treating him let one officer did - he would have been alive.

That is murder. Plain and simple.

He refused to help him despite his repeated calls for help and despite his heart stopping. He didn't want to help him - he did not want to render aid - he did not want to do anything but keep his knee on his neck ... which is against every policy of policing in the state of Minnesota.

He is guilty - plain and simple

---

FATAL dose does not mean immediate. It takes time and varies by person.


The officer not providing aid - yeah that he is probably guilty of. Still not murder. Murder implies intent. Manslaughter would be more appropriate- causing someones death without intent. Failure to render aid is not intent to murder those are not the same thing. At all.

As for refusing to help him - sorry that's not actually his job. He is not a medical person. They called for medical assistance. I wouldn't have the first clue how to help someone medically - you can't convict me of murder for watching someone die from an overdose. Not to mention these days you have to be careful of not contracting something (HIV, COVID) and they often deal with people faking conditions to get a chance to escape or to inflict harm on the officers. Drug addicts and people on drugs do crazy **** all the time.

I've been to Calais. Derek Chauvin is no Calais.

I have also been to Dover.

Martin Cash said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's not about Justice, it's about convictions.

---

Disappointed, but not surprised, to see an ignorant post like this on TexAgs.

---

Keith Ellison would vehemently disagree with you.

In my listening to the closing arguments and reading other things, 2nd degree murder in Minnesota doesn't require an intent to kill.

And I believe Chauvin was trained in CPR.

Horn_in_Aggieland said:

---

In my listening to the closing arguments and reading other things, 2nd degree murder in Minnesota doesn't require an intent to kill.

And I believe Chauvin was trained in CPR.

---

He was also trained by the MPD on when to stop CPR. One of the conditions was "if it was unsafe". Nelson did a good job of using the EMT's decision to stow-n-go and other testimony to demonstrate it was an unsafe situation.

Quote:

---

The other autopsy and finding that do support asphyxiation and rule out the drugs, etc. were PAID FOR BY THE FAMILY.



You'll never clearly convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that he was asphyxiated to death. Not with those other conditions and not with those statements. You don't have to believe he OD'd outright to believe that all of that contributed and therefore it wasn't something that would have killed someone without those issues. Given that those are unknown issues to the cop I don't see how you can call it murder (premeditated).

It is somewhere in between - but that does not equate to murder for me.

---

Dr. Baden's conclusion of asphyxiation was based solely on abrasions to Floyd's face and he announced his conclusion before the tox report and tissue sample analysis was complete. He didn't rule out overdose because he never even looked for it. For an ME is his renown, that was gross malpractice which is why the state opted not to put him on the stand, wisely in my view.

Here's the problem with asphyxiation as the cause of death. Dr. Tobin, the pulmonologist, first testified that Floyd suffered a brain injury induced by hypoxia, a lack of oxygen to the brain. Now that condition can occur under multiple circumstances, blocked airway, like choking, cut off if blood flow to the brain (both carotid arteries), the presence of carbon monoxide which prohibits O2 from bonding with the hemoglobin in the blood or severe suppression of the respiratory system subsequent to fentanyl overdose.

ER doc Langenfeld testified as to Floyd's blood gases including the fact that Floyd had double the expected amount of CO2 in his blood at 85%. Again, a finding that could support a number of reasons Floyd was not properly making the respiratory exchange taking the CO2 out and putting the O2 into the blood flow. That came out during the cross be Nelson.

Upon redirect of Langenfeld, the prosecutor went off on a tangent about Floyd's head being near the exhaust and suggested that was the reason for the high CO2 number. (Which is idiotic because car exhaust increases levels of carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.)

Dr. Fowler (defense expert) submitted a report back in February questioning why a carboxyhemoglobin test was never done to rule out carbon monoxide. His take a forensic pathologist was that Floyd's manner of death should have been classified as undetermined since there were so many factors to consider, some which had medical results and other that did not.

Even the ME Baker said the analysis of what killed Floyd was a "multifactorial" one. So Nelson asked Fowler on direct about the fact there was no carboxyhemoglobin test and what that meant. Fowler said it simple meant he could not rule it out. Pretty innocuous statement. But the prosecution didn't see it that way.

They flipped out, lied to the court about some "newly discovered evidence" and put Dr. Tobin on the stand. (Risking the wrath of Cahill and the very real possibility of a mistrial to do so.) This time Dr. Tobin testified that Floyd couldn't possibly have a large amount of carbon monoxide in his blood because Floyd has such a high level of O2 in his blood gases, 98% in fact.

98% O2 blood saturation content means Floyd was not hypoxic., i.e. had low oxygen levels in his blood.

Quote:

---

2nd degree murder in Minnesota doesn't require an intent to kill.

---

But in Chauvin's case it does require an underlying felony. A very weak part of the prosecutions case. Legit bust, use of force fine, de-escalated force a few times, followed his training in constantly reassessing all of the factors present at the scene. Traffic, crowd, positioning of other officers, people who were behind him. (There was growing crowd on the curb across the street at the Speedway to his rear.)

The prosecution without being specific, claimed that such lawful restraint at sometime, somehow morphed into aggravated assault, a felony. I never heard much about their theory on aggravated assault. Kind of dropped the ball on that element, in my view.