Chauvin trial summations and the fascism of Maxine Waters

I like Peter Cahill. If you aren't watching the trial, and most people aren't, he is the judge on the trial. He seems not only to have the temperament we want in a judge. I do not know if he has done his job well though, because there were a number of issues that he didn't resolve and it seems like didn't address. But, I don't blame him most. The prosecutors did their job and I believe they feel justified in the actions they took, even if I didn't appreciate all of them. It's the defense attorney who I think has blown this trial. I say that, even thinking that Chauvin is most likely guilty of manslaughter. I write this during the instructions and summations (I can do both) and that's why I say most likely.

What did the defense attorney not do well? Lots. The foremost problem was not getting the action stayed and moved. I heard his motion. It was not robust or heart-felt enough. It was not passionate. It can't be told by me if he even believed it himself. But, this trial needed to be moved. It was too emotional, too dangerous, too frightening in Minneapolis to try this. The judge should have granted it on his own, so some blame lies with him too. During the jury selection itself the City of Minneapolis settled the civil case for $27 million, an unheard of number, in what looks like an act of appeasement and payoff to the rioters not to do it again. Whoever you were, your death would have been offered a a fraction of that amount. The problem grew greater over the trial. Another black person was shot, this one pretty clearly by accident, and almost immediately, the officer had to resign and was charged with manslaughter. 

More violence and rioting occurred. It was during this trial. The National Guard is in the street and has been shot at during this trial.  A curfew has been called during this trial. A fascists (and I don't apologize for using the word - that's what she is), Congressperson Maxine Waters, came to Minnesota and urged, if there is not a conviction, harder confrontation (there was violence, fires and over a billion dollars in damage to Minneapolis after the Floyd death - what's harder?). The city is girding itself to protect itself from riots if there is an acquittal. Many think that there will be riots regardless. I don't know. I do know they will happen and worse if there is an acquittal. 

The jurors seemed to feel protected (during jury selection) being in what was essentially an armed camp for the trial. So, they know they are in one, and they have to know what is outside leading to that situation. They have to be afraid of what will happen to the city and possibly to themselves if there is an acquittal. If there is acquittal (and I'm not suggesting there should be) then the jury is remarkably courageous in a way we do not expect from people. They already knew of the dangers as they were not sequestered through the summations, had been questioned during jury selection as to their fears, and Maxine Waters made sure of it, if anyone thought it had passed. Only after the jury had the case did we learn that defense counsel did ask for a mistrial and put it on the record. Like everything he does, there was no anger, no indignation, just a congenial statement of the facts. He should have made an impassioned plea and mentioned the national guard being shot at. He should have given her exact quote (the prosecution response was correct in that) and explained that since people died after Floyd's death because of rioting and because over a billion dollars in damage was done to the city, she obviously wants more.

The motion should have been granted, even if I think Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter -  I don't see any intent to cause grievous bodily harm - Chauvin most likely thought the ambulance would be there in 3 minutes, not 9. He should have moved him onto his side. This is my opinion, but I think Floyd would be alive if he was moved to his side when he had long ceased struggling. Obviously it should have been done when he stopped moving, more obviously when one officer couldn't find a pulse and more obviously when the same officer suggested they turn him over and Chauvin said, not yet.

Maxine Waters is a criminal in my view. If anyone dies as a result of rioting or under-policing, the death is on her (and now Pelosi, who said no apology was necessary) and anyone egging them on. And no, Donald Trump did not do that - he urged "peaceful "protest with no history of rioting by the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers except to fight back against Antifa and other fascist groups. They haven't tried to kill police in Portland (or anywhere) and haven't burned down buildings.  I already thought Waters was a fascist. She just keeps doubling down because in our sick country, she gets a pass. 

That Chauvin was merely following policy defense was a non-starter. I think it hindered the defense. It wasn't improved much in the summation because it did not explain the last four minutes (no pulse, etc.) The defense needed - had to - work on the basis that Floyd started dying in his car; that's why his friends couldn't wake him. When the police came, because of his history, adrenaline shot through him and he struggled with them (not maliciously in my view and certainly not with an intent to hurt or threaten anyone) until he died of the overdose. I am not saying I think that is what happened, but what the defense attorney's job was. To raise a reasonable doubt of that was the only hope Chauvin had. And that's his attorney's job.

Throughout, I was shocked by the lack of passion by the defense counsel in objecting to the leading questions by the prosecution that were unrelenting (the judge ordered them to with the teenagers - I disagree with that, but it's not what I mean here). He sat silently while more than one non-professional witness testified as an expert - e.g., the MMA fighter. He pleasantly cross-examined witnesses, even made jokes, and showed he was a nice guy to everyone. At the end of the case, he said to one prosecution as his walk-away line - "Fair enough." FAIR ENOUGH? This was one of the main expert witnesses. How does "fair enough" help his client? It means, well, that's fair. 

I have no personal animus to Mr. Nelson, the defense counsel. To the contrary, the prosecution ran with the ball until someone tackled them, leading every witness to an embarrassing degree, and only rarely was there an objection from the defense. The prosecutor who cross-examined the defense witnesses knew to roll his eyes, say "Really?" when he didn't like an answer. It seemed to me the prosecutors were just better attorneys.

I also can't understand how in the world, especially in a murder trial, the prosecution could put on George's girlfriend on the stand to testify as to their first kiss and how wonderful he was, and his brother to testify about their mother - when Derek can't get into evidence George's criminal record showing that he wasn't so wonderful. From Wikipedia: "Between 1997 and 2005, he was convicted of eight crimes. He served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated assault in a home invasion." 

Now, I am not suggesting that George's record, which neither Derek nor the other officers seem to know, had anything to do with the case. But, neither did George snuggling with his mother and neither did his first kiss with his girlfriend. The court had already ruled that most of the complaints against Derek shouldnot come in but also that George's record shouldn't come in. What's the difference? Well, for me, whenthe prosecution started putting in evidence of how wonderful George was, it opened the door to what a jerk he could be - highly dangerous and with little regard for human life. I did not see a motion to allowwhat had previously been ruled inadmissible should now be? Did I miss it? I don't think so. 

I tried to give defense counsel the benefit of the doubt during the case. Maybe, I thought, he is waiting for his own witnesses, who would be wonderful. They weren't. There was no excuse.

The Murder 3 charge also continues to baffle me. This is what the law says:

"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced . . . ."

The judge initially said that it didn't apply to this case. But the higher court came back with a ruling that he should apply a previous case of theirs according to the facts in this case. The defense attorney did argue that well. He explained that the use of a gun and car in the other cases could have damaged other people and didn't exist in this case. It was a knee to a body. No one else was endangered. The judge did not explain away his point, but acted as if the higher court had ordered him to reinstate the charge. The judge has been fair in this case and I don't accuse him of wrongdoing, just being wrong.

I didn't get it then and I don't know. In summation, the prosecutor said that they had proved danger to others as if he had just explained it all. He hadn't. That kind of behavior by a prosecutor I will never appreciate. They have duties to make sure the trial is fair that a defense attorney does not have. 

I do not see intent to cause bodily harm here necessary to find Murder 2. There is no evidence of it and the prosecutor is relying on hyperbole, for example, claiming that Derek mocked George's complaints. They have shown me no possible motive to explain why Derek would want to do it. The prosecutor's suggestion that it was because he was angry at the crowd can't be found - for me - just because he says so. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If he can imagine that Derek was mad at the crowd, jurors can reasonably imagine he wasn't.

I do easily see negligence that led to George's death. Nothing that the defendant's witnesses offered us made a reasonable doubt as to the prosecutor's case that by his negligence, George Floyd died. 

What about the drugs in George's system? I think the prosecutors witnesses did a very good job of explaining why he died and that it wasn't drugs, certainly not the only reason. Though no one denies that he had fentanyl and methamphetamines in his system, defense could not touch the fact that it was quite little, dangerous as those drugs were. 

But, what of my scenario that George started dying in his car from drug use - certainly possible - and that after the burst of adrenaline from the cops showing up - and then returned to dying? Well, in order for me to find that a reasonable doubt as to his death, I would need to hear the defendant's experts tell me that. I didn't hear it. I just heard some questionable opinions that were child's play for the prosecution to cross. I didn't hear it in the summation either.

I thought the summation was defense counsel's best work. He continued to be the same person he was throughout the trial. He slowly went through the case. But, did he raise a reasonable doubt? Not as to the last few minutes of the case, in my view, not as to why Floyd died. It just isn't possible, without at least passably convincing testimony from witnesses to the contrary, conclude that it was reasonable to continue keeping George prone with weight on his neck or back with 4 minutes to go up until the time he died. I can't help but believe firmly that he would be alive if he had been rolled on his side. We know what we saw. Oddly, he left out some very common sense attacks on the inconsistencies of the prosecutor's own experts, the rush to judgment (they arrested his client in three days before almost any of these experts had done almost any work). Frankly, the whole case should have been about that from defendant's point of view.

The rebuttal for the prosecution was handled by Jerry Blackwell, who opened for them. He is a special prosecutor, a private attorney, who signed on for this case. He's the most effective of the prosecution team, my opinion I think, but probably the consensus. However, I didn't think he did much with it. I would have showed the last 4 minutes again.

These are my thoughts as deliberation starts. I can't predict what will happen. I hope justice is done, and I also hope that still more people don't die as a result of Floyd's death because of people like Maxine Waters. 

As always, apologies for the font and highlighting issues above. I have no control over it as far as I can tell.