All things Derek Chauvin trial

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
57,335
Reaction score
13,279
Points
113
His haughty "election will be overturned, trust me" rants eventually ran out of steam, too.
Hey! Just because Germany hid the secret sever with the real results doesn't mean Trump didn't win. By a lot!
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
951
Points
113
It would make zero sense for him to testify.

The defense's only defense is the angle that Floyd ODd and the scene was incredibly chaotic. Derek Chauvin can't really speak to those points any more than is already known.

I was surprised the prosecution called so many witnesses. I think they actually made the case (accidentally) that the scene was chaotic.

But yeah, Eric Nelson is a really good lawyer. It's a tough case but zero chance Chauvin testifies (unless of course he demands it).
Yup. The defense is the science, plain and simple. The drug use/abuse, the level of toxicology, the heart issues, the heart failure/heart attack, et al. There is zero that Chauvin can offer in the way of supporting the science behind Floyd's death. No reason he would take the stand
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
9,986
Reaction score
4,525
Points
113
It would make zero sense for him to testify.

The defense's only defense is the angle that Floyd ODd and the scene was incredibly chaotic. Derek Chauvin can't really speak to those points any more than is already known.

I was surprised the prosecution called so many witnesses. I think they actually made the case (accidentally) that the scene was chaotic.

But yeah, Eric Nelson is a really good lawyer. It's a tough case but zero chance Chauvin testifies (unless of course he demands it).
With a loss with Amy Senser, and a possible loss here, does that hurt him?
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
614
Points
113
It would make zero sense for him to testify.

The defense's only defense is the angle that Floyd ODd and the scene was incredibly chaotic. Derek Chauvin can't really speak to those points any more than is already known.

I was surprised the prosecution called so many witnesses. I think they actually made the case (accidentally) that the scene was chaotic.

But yeah, Eric Nelson is a really good lawyer. It's a tough case but zero chance Chauvin testifies (unless of course he demands it).
The only reason I thought that there was a slim chance that he might testify is because he needs to counteract the unconcerned look he had on his face as he knelt on Floyd from that photo we have all seen since the day this incident happened. That look conveys that he wasn't too concerned about the onlookers and he wasn't too concerned about George Floyd. He may have been, but he never showed it and neither he nor any of the other MPD officers there that day testified about it. They did have the Park Police officer testify, but I don't think that was very persuasive since he was across the street and never acted on his concern in any way.

I think there is a real problem with trying to blame the bystanders. The message is, if you see something you think is wrong, stay in your lane and shut up. It would be easier for a juror to see himself as someone who would stand up for the helpless, than to be a person who sees wrongdoing and says nothing.
Agree that the typical juror in this case is going to identify more with those bystanders than with either Floyd or the cops. If I were defending Chauvin I would be reluctant to make any argument that suggests those bystanders were the problem. Nelson risks alienating the jury and I don't think the testimony (or lack of testimony) and other evidence in this case supports that conclusion.
 

2nd Degree Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
614
Points
113
With a loss with Amy Senser, and a possible loss here, does that hurt him?
It does not in my opinion. Criminal defense lawyers lose a lot more cases that they win and this is a tough defense case where the state has fully utilized its resource advantage.
 


USAF

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
4,097
Points
113
It does not in my opinion. Criminal defense lawyers lose a lot more cases that they win and this is a tough defense case where the state has fully utilized its resource advantage.
Resource advantage = facts
 


Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,046
Reaction score
6,027
Points
113
I think there is a real problem with trying to blame the bystanders. The message is, if you see something you think is wrong, stay in your lane and shut up. It would be easier for a juror to see himself as someone who would stand up for the helpless, than to be a person who sees wrongdoing and says nothing.
No doubt it is a desparate defense. I have faith in the jury to do what is right.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,810
Reaction score
3,577
Points
113
With a loss with Amy Senser, and a possible loss here, does that hurt him?
No. It shouldn't. Maybe to some folks but not to people who would actually hire him.

If that were the case, good lawyers would never take difficult cases. I think Eric Nelson gave Amy Senser and Derek Chauvin their best chance to win but the evidence was pretty overwhelming.
 




goldengophers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
631
Points
113
No. It shouldn't. Maybe to some folks but not to people who would actually hire him.

If that were the case, good lawyers would never take difficult cases. I think Eric Nelson gave Amy Senser and Derek Chauvin their best chance to win but the evidence was pretty overwhelming.
Defense attorney should be measured like hitters baseball. It goes without saying that competent and rigorous defense attorneys are key to a strong legal system, no matter the defendant.
 


Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,810
Reaction score
3,577
Points
113
Defense attorney should be measured like hitters baseball. It goes without saying that competent and rigorous defense attorneys are key to a strong legal system, no matter the defendant.

I disagree (respectfully). A defense attorney (non-public defender) could certainly pick and choose their cases to have a better "winning percentage". You also might push to "win" when something could easily settle out of court (cheaper & easier for client).
 





goldengophers

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
631
Points
113
I disagree (respectfully). A defense attorney (non-public defender) could certainly pick and choose their cases to have a better "winning percentage". You also might push to "win" when something could easily settle out of court (cheaper & easier for client).
That's true, I am reacting more to the public sentiment in high profile cases where people wonder why any defense attorney would choose to defend this person (Chauvin, OJ, ect.).
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,867
Reaction score
6,910
Points
113
That's true, I am reacting more to the public sentiment in high profile cases where people wonder why any defense attorney would choose to defend this person (Chauvin, OJ, ect.).
$$$$$ of course

Chauvin probably got bankrolled by police union and all kinds of gross people.
 


short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
11,644
Reaction score
3,397
Points
113
the issue with Chauvin taking the stand is that he would be opening himself up to cross-examination. So anything he might gain from testifying could potentially be negated on cross.

As noted, the defense is going all-in on the medical testimony in hopes of creating reasonable doubt. that, and the idea that "the angry crowd" somehow distracted Chauvin.

the closing arguments may give us more of an indication into the defense's strategy.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,810
Reaction score
3,577
Points
113
Confirms he didn't die of car exhaust poisoning.

Yeah, it's an interesting piece of evidence.

It also could work to confuse the jury. I have no idea of oxygen saturation levels have anything to do with whether or not someone dies of low oxygen levels but I do not that the optics of it (to an untrained ear) doesn't sound great. Scientifically, it might mean absolutely nothing. But the jury is not full of scientists.

When I was a baby litigator, I pretty much exclusively tried ANDA litigations. These are just litigations where brand drug manufacturers are suing generic drug manufacturers for patent infringement. The science mattered - - no doubt. But sometimes the things scientifically that didn't matter (but kind of sounded like it would to the untrained eye), mattered much more.

I think this is just an interesting piece of evidence. If I were Eric Nelson, I'd be pretty excited that it got in. It'd be the #1 reason why i'd bring up the carbon monoxide defense.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,810
Reaction score
3,577
Points
113
the issue with Chauvin taking the stand is that he would be opening himself up to cross-examination. So anything he might gain from testifying could potentially be negated on cross.

As noted, the defense is going all-in on the medical testimony in hopes of creating reasonable doubt. that, and the idea that "the angry crowd" somehow distracted Chauvin.

the closing arguments may give us more of an indication into the defense's strategy.
Yeah. I can't imagine a scenario where Derek Chauvin would give you more on direct than he would cost you on cross.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,867
Reaction score
6,910
Points
113
It also could work to confuse the jury. I have no idea of oxygen saturation levels have anything to do with whether or not someone dies of low oxygen levels
There can be a difference from not getting enough oxygen because what you're breathing in doesn't contain enough, and not getting enough oxygen because oxygenated blood isn't going where it needs to! 💡
 


saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
9,986
Reaction score
4,525
Points
113
Yeah, it's an interesting piece of evidence.

It also could work to confuse the jury. I have no idea of oxygen saturation levels have anything to do with whether or not someone dies of low oxygen levels but I do not that the optics of it (to an untrained ear) doesn't sound great. Scientifically, it might mean absolutely nothing. But the jury is not full of scientists.

When I was a baby litigator, I pretty much exclusively tried ANDA litigations. These are just litigations where brand drug manufacturers are suing generic drug manufacturers for patent infringement. The science mattered - - no doubt. But sometimes the things scientifically that didn't matter (but kind of sounded like it would to the untrained eye), mattered much more.

I think this is just an interesting piece of evidence. If I were Eric Nelson, I'd be pretty excited that it got in. It'd be the #1 reason why i'd bring up the carbon monoxide defense.
He's been on a ventilator. All this shows is that the oxygen was binding to the blood in a normal fashion, and not hindered by CO, as alleged.
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,642
Reaction score
2,076
Points
113
Defense attorney should be measured like hitters baseball. It goes without saying that competent and rigorous defense attorneys are key to a strong legal system, no matter the defendant.
Miguel Sano?
 

BarnBurner

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
15,665
Reaction score
2,311
Points
113
How much is your hourly rate to assist in putting Chauvin behind bars, Shill?
 




saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
9,986
Reaction score
4,525
Points
113
Yeah, it's an interesting piece of evidence.

It also could work to confuse the jury. I have no idea of oxygen saturation levels have anything to do with whether or not someone dies of low oxygen levels but I do not that the optics of it (to an untrained ear) doesn't sound great. Scientifically, it might mean absolutely nothing. But the jury is not full of scientists.

When I was a baby litigator, I pretty much exclusively tried ANDA litigations. These are just litigations where brand drug manufacturers are suing generic drug manufacturers for patent infringement. The science mattered - - no doubt. But sometimes the things scientifically that didn't matter (but kind of sounded like it would to the untrained eye), mattered much more.

I think this is just an interesting piece of evidence. If I were Eric Nelson, I'd be pretty excited that it got in. It'd be the #1 reason why i'd bring up the carbon monoxide defense.
He didn't want the evidence entered. I find this doubtful.
The defense argued against Dr. Tobin’s return, saying the prosecution just wanted to get the pulmonologist “in front of the jury again to talk about things he’s already talked about.”
Source--New York Times.
 




Top Bottom