Merry Christmas Week, y'all!!

In a trial that has seemed like hurry up and then wait, today could be jam packed. Judge Chu has likely given time limits for closing statements to counsel but haven't seen those reported yet. In any event, we know from past experience that Matthew Frank will drone on for every second he's allowed to whereas Gray/Engh will be concise and take less than half that time.

We will also have Judge Mommy charge the jury and given her low slow speech cadence, who knows how long that might take? Only two counts in this case and it is not complicated at all. My guess is that the charge should take about half and hour or. But at some point today, the jury gets the case to begin deliberations.

Branca will not be live commenting today as he is attending to his wife who has a surgical procedure today. Professor Jacobsen is filling in for him HERE.



Rekieta and crew (sans Branca) will be live at 8:45 or so.



Here's to hoping for a quick verdict of acquittal for Kim Potter.

Rekieta is live.

Rekieta is saying the last two jurors chosen are the altenates.

Court is in session.

Judge Mommy is charging the jury.

She just said that police policies and procedures are not law. Violations of those are not a violation of the law.

(Although given certain circumstances, they could be.)

Good instruction for the defense.

Also giving the superceding event instruction.

I think these instructions are very favorable to defense

Dan Scott said:

---

I think these instructions are very favorable to defense

---

Agree.

Surprised that Eldridge is giving the closing.

Professor Jacobsen:

Quote:

---

To "cause" death means act was substantial factor in death, without superceding cause. "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury that has high probability of death or substantial bodily harm.
Count 1 Manslaughter First Degree while committing misdemeanor offense. Elements are death, defendant caused, caused by committing crime of reckless handling of firearm. "Recklessly" if under totality of circumstances commits intentional act that creates a substantial risk that she is aware of" (this is why expert testimony so important that she may not have been aware at the time, did it from embedded action). No intent to kill needed.
Count 2 Manslaughter Second Degree death, cause, "culpable negligence" creating unreasonable risk and consciously took a risk. "Intentional" conduct that ordinary and reasonable person would recognize. No intent to kill needed.

---

Quote:

---

Deadly force by police officer lawsful if to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself or another. No intent needed. Judge from perspective of reasonable police officer on the scene at the time. No crime if used force authorized by law.

Use of taser authorized to use reasonable force in lawful arrest, effecting lawful process, enforcing order of court. Executing an arrest warrant is lawful obligation of officer. Reasonableness of force is based on reasonable police officer on the scene at the time. Whether use of taser appropriate is not a defense to the criminal charges in the case.

---

I see Sergeant Johnson in that shot.

I don't get the world view of these DAs that leads them to overcharge respectable citizens and fail to charge agitators. They're tearing society apart a little bit more with each of these cases as the pervert the idea of law and order.

The state was arguing in this case that the cops should've let the criminal go. The exact opposite to the point they make every time they charge a crime (to include trying to put Potter behind bars)... And that's just one of many logically inconsistent positions theyve take this trial...

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I don't get the world view of these DAs that leads them to overcharge respectable citizens and fail to charge agitators. They're tearing society apart a little bit more with each of these cases as the pervert the idea of law and order.

The state was arguing in this case that the cops should've let the criminal go. The exact opposite to the point they make every time they charge a crime (to include trying to put Potter behind bars)... And that's just one of many logically inconsistent positions theyve take this trial...

---

And Frank and Eldridge have argued the opposite from their position in the Chauvin trial. Both cops, so why are the standards different? They were all about the Graham v. Conner factors in Chauvin but not in Potter. They were all about the BCA procedures in Chauvin but not in Potter.

I really don't like her. Frank at least comes off as a nice guy. This lady gives me a b-word vibe.

Dan Scott said:

---

I really don't like her. Frank at least comes off as a nice guy. This lady gives me a b-word vibe.

---

School marmish. Annoying voice.

We are about 50 minutes into her closing. Jury charge took about 26 minutes. Defense will go next and the state up again last. Then the alternates are struck and the case goes to the jury.

This might go to the jury before lunch.

ETA: Face to match the school marm.

Chu calls a 20 minute break.

Chu needs to correct the jury instructions... Geez...

Chu is saying she needs to reread a particular instruction on character for honesty.

"There was no evidence on Potter's character for honesty." Judge can't tell the jury that! Prejudicial.

Okay, Chu will not tell the jury there was no evidence of Potters character for honesty.

More on the jury instruction snafu. One that the judge created, BTW.

Professor Jacobsen:

Quote:

---

Judge says a mistake on evidence of character instruction she just realized. No evidence of character for honesty, she did not allow that evidence, but jury instruction mentions it. Will give jury new instruction after the closings. Defense doesn't want jury told there was a mistake, just give them the new instruction. Judge says will think about it over break, instruction wrong, no evidence on character evidence for honesty. Prosecution doesn't object to saying evidence of peacefulness and law abiding, doesn't think should say no evidence of honesty, may lead juror to wonder why no evidence (they don't know about the judge's evidentiary rulings).

---

Gray up for the defense.

Gray is ripping the prosecution a new one.

"The presumption of innocence is a Constitutional right!"

Superceding cause being explained. Had Wright stopped resisting arrest, he would not have been shot.

When Potter tells Wright he has a warrant and that's when Wright began resisting. Superceding cause.

Was a legit stop, all conduct by officers was legal and pursuant to their duties until Wright was informed by Potter there was a warrant for his arrest.

Gray is telling an excellent story

Asking why did the state show all of this evidence about the car crash evidence? Has nothing to do with this case, they want to "run you down a rabbit hole," echoing the words Eldridge used repeatedly in her closing.

"Caused" the death of Wright? Wright, as superceding cause of death.

Don't really like that approach of blaming Wright for his own death. Not the best appeal to the jury.

Going after the experts and telling jury they can assess the credibility of those respective experts. Really attacking Stoughton's credibility as an expert.

"How can you recklessly handle a gun you don't know you have?"

Hitting on conscious or intentional act.

Gray is about done and asked the jury not to clap when he finishes.

He thanks the jury for their attention on behalf the Potter family and counsel.

Ten minute break before state's rebuttal.

I thought that was a great close. Gray can be hard to listen to but told a fantastic story and I think made the jury instructions easy to follow providing ammo for jurors for why it should be not guilty.

Frank is up for rebuttal. Rare to split closing statements between counsel. Continuity is the preferred method.

That having been said, Frank tends to drone on and on and it is getting close to lunchtime.

Frank seems unprepared to me.

Wait what? Frank is saying Johnson had control of the gear shift and thus the car? Then it was okay for her to fire, even by the state's own position.

Is that Ellison in the back. Looks like he's scrolling Twitter