Other officers in George Floyd case arrested; charge upgraded on Chauvin

i just hope the new charges aren't overcharged to satisfy others. 2nd degree murder is much harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than 3rd degree.
I was explaining this to my DD the other day. They don’t want to over charge and tank the whole thing.
Agree.Yep, but you know what? It's not a given that the video will be admitted into evidence! The defense is most certainly going to attack it (and the person who took it) with everything they can think of.

Don't forget that the jury's decision can only be based on the evidence which is admitted for trial and presented to them. If that video gets thrown out...watch out!
What would be the reasons for it not to be admitted?
 
Minnesota has lesser includeds. So, if a jury were to decide that he didn't commit 2nd degree murder, they could convict him of any lesser offense, including 3rd degree or manslaughter. I know not all jurisdictions operate that way. But we do. It's what made the initial decision a little lame, IMO, because if you charge 2nd, you automatically get 3rd too. Why not try for the most that it's rational to get?
 


First hearing for the 3 recently arrested officers. Looks like the "blue wall of silence" is out the window as far as this case is concerned. At least two of the officers (Mr. Lane and Mr. Kueng )are blaming their superior, Mr Chauvin. The third officer, Mr. Thao, has been cooperating w/ investigators prior to his arrest, according to his lawyer.

Good read here that factually doesn't seem to bode well for the officer charged with 2nd degree murder:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
 


too prejudicial.

Evidence against a defendant is almost always "prejudicial." The only objection that can work (and I do not believe it WILL work here) is if the evidence has "limited probative value AND is highly prejudicial." In other words, if the proffered evidence does little to advance the question of guilt or innocence and is designed merely to inflame. An example would be admitting evidence that the accused is a cross dresser in a case where he stands accused of murder. Unless his cross dressing was a direct cause or result of the murder, it would not likely be admitted as it is of little probative value. In this case, there is a 10 minute video of the alleged crime occurring. There is not a snowballs chance in hell of keeping that out of the trial. And, of COURSE it's prejudicial. Like I said, all evidence is or a prosector is unlikely to be seeking its admittance. LOL.
 
I can't imagine where in the world they'll ever find an impartial jury?? We all saw this murder happen on film! What happens then? I know they move trials sometimes, but the whole world saw this. Would they offer him a plea?
 
I can't imagine where in the world they'll ever find an impartial jury?? We all saw this murder happen on film! What happens then? I know they move trials sometimes, but the whole world saw this. Would they offer him a plea?
In that jurisdiction can a defendant choose trial by judge alone for this type of felony?
 
When I saw the charges, I thought “what took so long?”
I can’t believe this all went down because of a counterfeit $20 bill! And who knows if he we even knew it was counterfeit. I have to wonder because if I ever had a counterfeit bill in my possession, I wouldn’t have known it. Those low value bills can be passed for a while without knowing.

undeniably racist in my opinion.
 
In that jurisdiction can a defendant choose trial by judge alone for this type of felony?

for any crime that allows a trial by jury, the accused can waive a jury and have a Court trial.

the video was played at the Rodney King beating trial in the 1990s but the jury still did not vote to convict. We had riots and then a federal civil rights trial before there was a conviction
 
I can't imagine where in the world they'll ever find an impartial jury?? We all saw this murder happen on film! What happens then? I know they move trials sometimes, but the whole world saw this. Would they offer him a plea?

I was wondering this as well. And I also wonder how the jury selection process would work in general, especially as far as diversity goes.
 
First hearing for the 3 recently arrested officers. Looks like the "blue wall of silence" is out the window as far as this case is concerned. At least two of the officers (Mr. Lane and Mr. Kueng )are blaming their superior, Mr Chauvin. The third officer, Mr. Thao, has been cooperating w/ investigators prior to his arrest, according to his lawyer.

Good read here that factually doesn't seem to bode well for the officer charged with 2nd degree murder:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article


Lane and Keung from what I understand had only been on the job for a few days. One 2 days and the other 4 days I believe? It puts an interesting twist on things for me. Wrong is wrong - no doubt and they did wrong BUT this makes me even angrier at Chauvin. To me it makes it even clearer what a dirty, disgusting cop he was. How dare he drag NEW COPS into a mess like this. He should have been completely on his game, making sure he was further training these men and very deliberately doing things by the book. Instead he murders a man.....
 
Lane and Keung from what I understand had only been on the job for a few days. One 2 days and the other 4 days I believe? It puts an interesting twist on things for me. Wrong is wrong - no doubt and they did wrong BUT this makes me even angrier at Chauvin. To me it makes it even clearer what a dirty, disgusting cop he was. How dare he drag NEW COPS into a mess like this. He should have been completely on his game, making sure he was further training these men and very deliberately doing things by the book. Instead he murders a man.....

100% agree. Chauvin has destroyed so much by his actions. But, I also have to question the actions of the police department. It has been revealed that this man had several complaints (18 I believe) about excessive use of force. So, why was he training new officers?
 
Evidence against a defendant is almost always "prejudicial." The only objection that can work (and I do not believe it WILL work here) is if the evidence has "limited probative value AND is highly prejudicial." In other words, if the proffered evidence does little to advance the question of guilt or innocence and is designed merely to inflame. An example would be admitting evidence that the accused is a cross dresser in a case where he stands accused of murder. Unless his cross dressing was a direct cause or result of the murder, it would not likely be admitted as it is of little probative value. In this case, there is a 10 minute video of the alleged crime occurring. There is not a snowballs chance in hell of keeping that out of the trial. And, of COURSE it's prejudicial. Like I said, all evidence is or a prosector is unlikely to be seeking its admittance. LOL.
Thank you for the explanation.
I can't imagine where in the world they'll ever find an impartial jury?? We all saw this murder happen on film! What happens then? I know they move trials sometimes, but the whole world saw this. Would they offer him a plea?
You’d be surprised at the people who are oblivious to the world around them. A couple weeks ago I watched a 20/20 (or one of those shows) on Lizzy Borden. They decided to try her in modern times. I was floored they found ten people who had never heard of her. Even my middle schoolers know who Lizzy Borden is but when I mentioned it to my older DD she had no clue.
When I saw the charges, I thought “what took so long?”
I can’t believe this all went down because of a counterfeit $20 bill! And who knows if he we even knew it was counterfeit. I have to wonder because if I ever had a counterfeit bill in my possession, I wouldn’t have known it. Those low value bills can be passed for a while without knowing.

undeniably racist in my opinion.
They have changed so much and I use cash so little I would have no idea what a proper $20 looks like now. In my days as a clerk/cashier I came across many fake bills. I would just hand them back and tell them they couldn’t use them, they weren’t real. It never occurred to me to call the cops. Most people were shocked they had fake bills. I think maybe once I felt like the person actually knew they had a fake.
 
Thank you for the explanation.

You’d be surprised at the people who are oblivious to the world around them. A couple weeks ago I watched a 20/20 (or one of those shows) on Lizzy Borden. They decided to try her in modern times. I was floored they found ten people who had never heard of her. Even my middle schoolers know who Lizzy Borden is but when I mentioned it to my older DD she had no clue.

They have changed so much and I use cash so little I would have no idea what a proper $20 looks like now. In my days as a clerk/cashier I came across many fake bills. I would just hand them back and tell them they couldn’t use them, they weren’t real. It never occurred to me to call the cops. Most people were shocked they had fake bills. I think maybe once I felt like the person actually knew they had a fake.
A friend of mine got a fake 20 as change from a restaurant. She went to spend it somewhere else and they told her it was fake. They kept it. But they didn’t call the police on her, she was just out $20.
 
What would be the reasons for it not to be admitted?
There are many steps to admissibility, and damning evidence like that video will be attacked at every step. Some of the attacks will address the legitimacy of the evidence itself; other attacks will address the witness who filmed the video. For example:
  • Who took the video?
  • Where has the video been since it was originally filmed?
    • Is the chain of custody of the video intact?
    • If there is any gap in the chain of custody, where was the video and who had access to it?
  • Is the video the original video or a copy of the original?
  • Has the video been altered in any way?
  • Does the video capture the entire event, or just one part of the event like the last 10 minutes of an hour-long encounter?
  • Do the lines of sight give an accurate picture of what was going on?
  • Does the video capture the totality of the events, or is it zoomed in so that you can only see the officers and Mr. Floyd?
    • If it's narrowly focused on the officers, what is going on outside the camera frame?
In particular, if there are gaps in the chain of custody of the video, that might be grounds for inadmissibility. For example, if the originator of the video filmed it, and didn't turn the video over to the police immediately, that would raise questions that could make it inadmissible.

Evidence does not fall from the sky in a courtroom. It must be introduced by a legitimate witness to the collection (or creation in this case) of the evidence. That witness is also subject to cross-examination, and you can bet it will be brutal.
  • So who is this witness who is offering the video as evidence?
  • What is their connection to George Floyd?
  • Do they have any history of interaction with any of the officers involved?
  • Do they have a criminal record?
  • Are they currently wanted or on probation?
  • Were they offered anything in return for their testimony? (For example, leniency in a pending case...very common.)
  • Are their descriptions of the events consistent?
  • Are there inconsistencies, weak areas, or downright lies in any of their descriptions?
That video is THE key to the case, and it will be attacked in every imaginable way by the defense.

Imagine this criminal case without the video in evidence!

Don't think a trial will be a slam-dunk, because it will not be.
 
Last edited:
A friend of mine got a fake 20 as change from a restaurant. She went to spend it somewhere else and they told her it was fake. They kept it. But they didn’t call the police on her, she was just out $20.
Technically I think you’re supposed to keep it. Same as you’re supposed to cut up/keep a bad credit card, at least way back when. I never did. I didn’t want that confrontation. Let them take it up with wherever they got it or their credit card company.
 
You will keep yourself in the dark if you avoid the news. Information is light. There is a Media Bias Chart that rates news organizations. Google it. Go for news organizations that include factual reporting, complex analysis, and neutral or balanced views. ABC, CBS, NPR, CNN.com, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post and quite a few others fall into those categories. Don't sow the seeds of discontent by claiming you can't trust the media. It's a smokescreen.

I agree and I don't feel that huge distrust of the media that many do. However, one issue is that sources like CNN do fact-based reporting but also have editorial content and in the very slick "infotainment" style that they use, it can be difficult to tell the difference. This is miostly a presentation issue though.

I remember visiting Japan and I watched a litle of the news - it was so dry and surprisingly unpolished. They had a big earthquake while they were there and while I couldn't understand the language, I noticed they let a scientist talk for like 45 uninterrupted minutes, and he had flipcharts - not digital - just paper flipcharts. The anchors ocassionally chimed in with a question and only smiled and nodded at his responses. It was surprising and also refreshing to see.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top