Branca’s summary of testimony in the Chauvin trial last Friday
I’ve been recommending Andrew Branca’s trial summaries at Legal Insurrection because I think they’re especially clear and yet detailed. Today he’s posted one about the court proceedings last Friday, and once again it’s the clearest article I’ve read about what transpired that day.
My conclusion is that the prosecution’s case is not only weak, it’s so weak that it’s built on inconsistencies, unjustified conclusions, and in some cases perhaps outright lies. I also conclude that, if the jury is determined to convict – and it might be – those flaws in the prosecution’s case won’t prevent a guilty verdict.
This case has been subject to a greater amount of attention, misleading prejudicial information, and premature yet well-aired conclusions about Chauvin’s guilt (conclusions from both left and right, I might add, in a heated race to signal the most virtue) than I’ve seen in any case before in my lifetime. That’s saying something.
One wonders how yesterday’s looting and rioting by the usual suspects over the shooting of Daunte Wright (who had an outstanding warrant and, according to photographs posted on his social media, may well have been involved in gang-related activities), as well as the grotesquely irresponsible comments by Governor Walz, will affect the attitude of the jurors, who must already have been feeling great concern about the ramifications of voting for an acquittal.
Andrew McCarthy and Heather MacDonald covered their rear-ends early on by declaring Chauvin guilty. Shame on these summertime soldiers.
Again. It takes one juror with courage to hang this travesty.
The verdict is in: Tim Walz is guilty.
If the riots over Duante Wright are big enough, and long enough, there won’t be anything left to loot or burn. So, maybe that’s good for Chauvin’s defense?
Chauvin should immediately change his name to Hunter Biden. He will walk free in an instant.
The prosecution’s case is dispiriting to me, as are their witnesses testimony. I actually took the time to watch the entirety of Friday’s testimony rather than skim through it because Branca didn’t do his usual summary on Friday night or Saturday. Basically, the two pathologists gave completely contradictory testimony to the prosecution and to the defense’s cross. Both, when asked by the prosecution, declared that Floyd could not have died due to the drugs or his health conditions. However, when question by the defense both claimed to have literally signed death certificates declaring exactly those conditions, drug levels and cardiovascular ill health, as causes of death in the past. You really can’t contradict yourself more clearly than that. Did the jury get that point? I don’t know.
I can’t imagine any circumstance in which I would be willing to contradict myself like that even if I weren’t under oath. I would be far too embarrassed. To me, the direct examination answers from both pathologists look like, smell like, taste like, sound like, and feel like outright fabrications. I assert the prosecution has literally suborned perjury, and not just with those two witnesses. The previous witnesses have contradicted themselves nearly as bad as Thomas and Baker did on Friday, but the difference with Thomas and Baker is that we have the autopsy report Baker and his staff prepared long before the trial took place.
It is going to be interesting to see if the defense’s experts are so willing to contradict themselves in court the way the prosecution’s has to date. I know if I were the judge on this case, I would have no choice to order a verdict of acquittal either before or after the jury renders a verdict. I couldn’t live with myself were I to allow a conviction stand on this kind of farcical evidence.
Candace Owens did a good job of describing Floyd’s background last year. How many in the MSM talked about his previous drug convictions and crimes? When she said this, there was only one video of Chauvin , so she didn’t declare guilt or innocence, just that she wanted more facts. Meanwhile the media canonized St George and the riots started.
“Just the News” is cooking with oil.
Just a sampler….(It’s brutal out there)…
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/conservative-clergy-color-call-out-biden-and-abrams-lies-about-georgia
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/zuckerbergs-group-gave-whopping-74-million-detroit-expand-voting-city-key
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/detroit-absentee-ballot-instructions-election-workers-contradicts-witness
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/mexico-honduras-guatemala-increase-troops-along-borders-deal-biden
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/steve-scalise-led-delegation-republicans-down-border-says-biden-must-stop
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/nevada-republican-party-central-committee-slaps-nevada-sec-state-censure
Well, you get the picture…
…And finally, Gaia is not at all pleased by all this malarkey:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/volcano-keeps-erupting-caribbean-largest-explosion-yet-blasts-island
I’ve watched most of the trial, and I’m pretty sure that a few of the prosecution’s expert witnesses will provide sufficient cover for any juror who wants to convict. On the other hand, those same witnesses often contradicted each other and themselves.
One expert witness, Tobin, concocted a convoluted pseudo-scientific model that explained everything but the phases of the moon–all with a false precision so obvious it should be used as a lesson in how not to do physiology. Even so, I’m not a physiologist, and I’d have trouble critiquing his model point-by-point. I’m sure that there are jurors who were swayed by all this, and that they’ll be impossible to dissuade in the jury room. Will there even be jurors who try to dissuade them? I think that’s the question.
The result? However unjust, I think that the jury will convict, but I’m still hoping for a hung jury. A lot will depend on the defense’s closing statement. Unfortunately, although Eric Nelson is a competent attorney who’s done a good job under tremendous pressure, he’s not a fire-and-brimstone defender who can win over a jury with stirring emotion. I’m pessimistic about the outcome.
One day I read Branca’s run down for that day along with WaPo’s. I read both VERY closely.
It was two totally different trials being described. The names were the same, the general circumstances were basically similar-ish. But the trial that the WaPo is covering, the prosecution is brilliantly painting the defense as guilty as soon.
Lee Also:
Branca has described that phenomenon and how the MSM does it. The form a trial takes is that the prosecution goes first presenting its case, and that’s all that’s happened so far. The prosecution calls its witnesses and does the direct examination. The defense is limited at this point to cross-examining them. And even the cross-examination is limited to questions about what has already been brought out in the direct examination. No new material. Then the prosecution rests and the defense gets its turn with its own witnesses, and the prosecution only gets to cross-examine.
However, the MSM pretty much is just reporting on or concentrating on what the prosecution’s witnesses are saying in direct, and glossing over, minimizing, or ignoring the cross-examination, which is the challenge to what they are saying. If you write it up that way, of course it seems like the prosecution is doing really well even if it is not.
My prediction is that, when the defense presents its case, the MSM will do the opposite. They will focus on the prosecution’s cross-examination of the defense witnesses and minimize the defense’s direct examination. In that way, they make the public believe it’s a slam dunk for the prosecution, and then if the verdict doesn’t align with that, people think the entire trial was racist and Chauvin is guilty and yet got off easy.
Cornflour:
It’s too early to tell and even later it probably will be impossible to tell. Juries are very unpredictable and this is a highly unusual case that is very high on emotional content. The evidence against Chauvin is terrible in terms of its quality, and if this hadn’t been a political cause celebre I doubt he would even have been charged with anything. We’ve only seen Nelson as a cross-examiner and in his opening statement. He may change his approach later on, but maybe not. It’s also hard to appeal to emotion when defending Chauvin, because he looks so cold in the video, although I imagine a good trial lawyer might be able to make him into a sympathetic figure.
I hope that Nelson’s team reads Branca’s reports, if only to get some hints on approaches they may not have already considered.
I suspect that Andrew McCarthy is not reading them at all.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/chauvin-prosecutors-have-answered-one-big-question/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=fifth
Branca, in the post Neo discusses, thinks that it certainly did not.
While most of us appreciate McCarthy’s expertise and learn much from his posts, it is increasingly obvious that his view of the law is limited by his own experience and specialties, and that 18 years away from active litigation is impacting his acumen.
Then again, he could be right, and Branca wrong; put any 2 lawyers in a room and you will get 3 opinions.
Then again, the jury is the deciding factor, and if they are afraid enough, it doesn’t really matter what happens in the courtroom.
However, Nelson needs to set up a trial record for appeal, and he seems to be doing a good job of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
AesopSpouse reported to me this morning that a Fox News anchor recently (today?) interviewed two people about the defense’s possible approaches to the prosecution’s medical experts’ testimony. When the (black male) respondent started suggesting some positive aspects, the “reporter” closed him down.
I can’t find it, of course, but someone else might have seen it, and can correct or confirm.
The post below, however, is a good description of Nelson’s tactics, and reveals one damaging witness admission that he will probably build on later.
https://www.fox23.com/news/chauvins-trial/AQSFCFAV22DQWDU5FHDNIQRBKE/
Nelson is very experienced.
He’s up for my “Perry Mason” barrister-of-the-year award.
American lawyers, unlike British ones, are not officially divided into barristers and solicitors, but it’s a traditional specialization that their clients should take into account.
Wikipedia has a good article on the general subject, but I love the way they start out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister#United_States
It is no longer plausible, however, to claim that police restraint did not cause Floyd’s death. In the legal sense of causation, it surely did.
The man had a lethal level of fentanyl in his blood, a perfectly ordinary level for an overdose death. Stick a fork in Andrew McCarthy. He’s done.
We found the Fox report again; it was a “live” segment that is running on top of another story, and could disappear at any moment.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/will-derek-chauvin-testify-at-murder-trial
But this is the segment by itself, which I found by looking up clips attributed to the talking head, Arthel Neville.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6248413634001#sp=show-clips
Neville definitely shuts down Mr. St Paul when he tries to speak about the same points that Branca raised concerning the medical testimony. Then, after she asks him to speculate about this coming week’s possible testimony, she shuts him down again, and her body language when he is talking, plus the direction in which she pushes the narrative, pretty much makes it clear she thinks the viewers should conclude that Chauvin is guilty.
Found another report with the same anchor and experts.
https://thestpaullawfirm.com/tv/fox-news/chauvin-trial-wraps-up-first-week-of-testimony/
Apr. 04, 2021 – 5:29 – FOX News legal analyst Mercedes Colwin and defense attorney Richard St. Paul weigh in on the trial on ‘FOX News Live’
Both are experienced lawyers, but IMO St. Paul is an advocate, and Colwin is an analyst.
This case comes too close to home. The destruction that has occurred in Minneapolis and it’s suburbs, Brooklyn Center, has turn a once nice City into Detroit.
Chauvin is unlikely to receive a fair trail and this is a travesty. Emotions are funny things. They draw people in to the words of pain, which is understandable, but facts get lost between the tears. It is in these moments that courage and leadership is required. Minnesota’ Governor, Minneapolis’s Mayor and City Council lack both the courage and leadership. Minneapolis was never a City of riots. These riots have been allowed by white liberals in power virtue signalling, on the backs of small businesses and once nice neighbourhoods.
I can’t imagine any circumstance in which I would be willing to contradict myself like that even if I weren’t under oath. I would be far too embarrassed.
We live at a time when our professional class is shot through with people incapable of that sort of embarrassment. A great many of them are in gatekeeper positions.
A lot of our gatekeepers don’t even seem to be embarrassed at outright lying under oath.
Why should they be, when they suffer no negative consequences and even get praise and new posh jobs with the media or think tanks?
Hardly a day goes by now when I don’t think of Yeats’s disdainful description of
“One who, were it proved he lies
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in another’s eyes”
Get a load of this bs byline at USA today
“Derek Chauvin trial: A role model. A mamma’s boy. A football player. Younger brother recalls George Floyd for jurors”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/12/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyds-brother-philonise-testifies/7193356002/
Well that is from his brothers testimony. Saint George!
jack – if Hunter Biden’s bio can be sanitized for public presentation, then so can Floyd’s.
It’s what ideologues do.
Check out the posts Barry links here:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/04/12/roundup-17/#comment-2550264
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/04/12/letting-hunter-biden-off-is-a-message-to-us-peasants-n2587716