All things Derek Chauvin trial



Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
3,545
Points
113
It would be easy for the prosecution to explain what this means, and also show that the defense was grasping at straws with no basis.

I think you're giving lay people too much credit. If you have to give explanations for YOUR EVIDENCE, it's tricky evidence to put in front of a jury.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
9,932
Reaction score
4,479
Points
113
I think you're giving lay people too much credit. If you have to give explanations for YOUR EVIDENCE, it's tricky evidence to put in front of a jury.
Perhaps. If it were me, I'd point out that the attempt to manufacture a theory out of nowhere (and an easily disprovable one at that), calls that entire witness' testimony into question.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
3,545
Points
113
Perhaps. If it were me, I'd point out that the attempt to manufacture a theory out of nowhere (and an easily disprovable one at that), calls that entire witness' testimony into question.

Of course. But I mean, criminal defense is almost always just throwing sh!t against a wall. Hell, most civil defense work is almost always throwing sh!t against the wall. If I was the prosecution, I wouldn't want to waste time explaining to the jury why a piece of evidence that on its face to a lay person is bad evidence, is actually really good evidence.

I would go to great lengths to not say the statement "oxygen saturation of 98%", not because it means anything but because it could be confusing to lay people.
 


Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
10,862
Reaction score
2,501
Points
113
I think you're giving lay people too much credit. If you have to give explanations for YOUR EVIDENCE, it's tricky evidence to put in front of a jury.
No doubt. You know the saying, a jury isn't 12 of your peers, it's 12 people who weren't smart enough to avoid jury duty. In this case, it's 12 people who have in the back of their mind that their house could be fire-bombed shortly after the verdict.
 


Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
9,094
Reaction score
1,544
Points
113
No doubt. You know the saying, a jury isn't 12 of your peers, it's 12 people who weren't smart enough to avoid jury duty. In this case, it's 12 people who have in the back of their mind that their house could be fire-bombed shortly after the verdict.
If jury members were to see a financial impact of their decision, they would all be better of if they found the defendant guilty.

Finding him non-guilty would be bad for them financially. In theory.
 

TheRealMcCoy

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
219
Reaction score
100
Points
43
Guessing that if you did....you wouldn't have brought it to this thread as some kind of game saving defense.
Did I do that? I don’t think I attached any intent with the post...at all...go back and look at it. Did I type any thoughts to go along with it?
 



bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
44,462
Reaction score
5,516
Points
113
If jury members were to see a financial impact of their decision, they would all be better of if they found the defendant guilty.

Finding him non-guilty would be bad for them financially. In theory.
You are correct. What a shameful way to find justice. This is mob justice. If there was ever a case where there is reasonable doubt - this is it. Did Chauvin kill Floyd or was it the drugs? We'll never know. My guess is that he is found guilty out of convenience, none the less. It is a sad day for America when people believe they have to choose to save their city from burning by sacrificing a man's life.
 



stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,741
Reaction score
6,871
Points
113
You are correct. What a shameful way to find justice. This is mob justice. If there was ever a case where there is reasonable doubt - this is it. Did Chauvin kill Floyd or was it the drugs? We'll never know. My guess is that he is found guilty out of convenience, none the less. It is a sad day for America when people believe they have to choose to save their city from burning by sacrificing a man's life.

No...it's not. The prosecution has had several expert witnesses explain how and why Floyd died. The only people with doubt are right wing deplorables....who despite the video and all of the evidence....still make excuses for this public lynching. Just fucking disgusting.
 




Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
10,478
Reaction score
4,630
Points
113
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.
Which side were you on in these cases?
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
3,545
Points
113
Which side were you on in these cases?
That's not how it works.

Our largest client was a generic pharma company, so I defended them. There is considerably more work (for every firm) in ANDA defense work. It's intrinsic in the generic business model (almost 100% of their products are litigated). However, I also represented brand manufacturers.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
27,612
Reaction score
6,790
Points
113
You are correct. What a shameful way to find justice. This is mob justice. If there was ever a case where there is reasonable doubt - this is it. Did Chauvin kill Floyd or was it the drugs? We'll never know. My guess is that he is found guilty out of convenience, none the less. It is a sad day for America when people believe they have to choose to save their city from burning by sacrificing a man's life.
Hope it keeps you up at night. :)
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
3,545
Points
113
In theory. But they could go on OAN or Fox News with their plight and come out ahead too. In theory.

If they find him not guilty, the jurors will be considerably more famous. People will demand answers from them.

If they are looking for post-trial fame, I think they would get more attention with a not guilty verdict. But who knows?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
10,478
Reaction score
4,630
Points
113
That's not how it works.

Our largest client was a generic pharma company, so I defended them. There is considerably more work (for every firm) in ANDA defense work. It's intrinsic in the generic business model (almost 100% of their products are litigated). However, I also represented brand manufacturers.

How it works is Pharma pays off the government to get a big moat around their business and then the lawyers make bank litigating it.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
3,545
Points
113
How it works is Pharma pays off the government to get a big moat around their business and then the lawyers make bank litigating it.
That's certainly not untrue. It's one of the biggest problems in the pharmaceutical industry - government involvement. The various state governments were complicit in the opioids epidemic (which is a completely different animal from ANDA litigations).
 









TheRealMcCoy

Active member
Joined
Apr 11, 2021
Messages
219
Reaction score
100
Points
43
Says the poster who made an account to spew hard right wing garbage on a Gopher sports forum. Clown doesn't begin to describe you and the other infowars sheep.
I’m a die hard Gopher fan that can’t stand liberals. I don’t really have much experience with Infowars. Checked it out a couple times. Left wingers seem to use the same 5 labels or so for anyone on the Right.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
57,283
Reaction score
13,231
Points
113
I’m a die hard Gopher fan that can’t stand liberals. I don’t really have much experience with Infowars. Checked it out a couple times. Left wingers seem to use the same 5 labels or so for anyone on the Right.
"Checked out" InfoWars, but "not much experience".

Goes well with:

"Not familiar" with the Proud Boys.

"Haven't heard about" 4Chan.

"Don't know much about" QAnon.
 




Top Bottom