Derek Chauvin Trial - Day 12 - LiveStream

Same here. I mean I felt that way when we first learned St George had ingested a fatal dose of Fentanyl.

The MSM is so accustomed to making things happen as they wish, they feel they can sway public opinion into a guilty verdict that the jury will adopt.

Or maybe they should learn how to do what Spock did to knock them out.

They should provide Police issued pillows for the perps to lay their head on in the prone position.

The lawyer from Legalinsurrection blog said that the Judge instructed the jurors to pack an "overnight" bag for Friday, meaning the defense is almost done with their case. After that follows closing arguments, then sequestration.

If Nelson doesn't have any mic-drop witnesses tomorrow, I sure hope he's got a masterful speech in the works for the closing arguments.

(FWIW I believe there is plenty of reasonable doubt already. However I also believe there is a very strong likelihood that the jury is already contaminated-- by social movements/recent events, the media, et. al--- not to mention the presence of the juror who said he believes black lives matter more than white lives.)

Watching the legal arguments, seems tge prosecution are trying to impeach the defence witness tommorow.

Nelsen arguing there has been no disclosure, the judge ordered the state to reveal what they know.

1. Counterfeit bill. You have the right to a trial.

2. Autopsy shows there were no drugs in his stomach.

3. Aggressively? He had handcuffs on the whole time. I have seen other fight/resist to be placed in vehicle yet didn't die. Also Floyd went in one side and out the other. Just shut the damn door on him.

4. Bodycam shows that Floyd said he took a bunch of pill officers. Yet none in his stomach.

5. He was passed out/dead for over four minutes yet the officer was afraid?? Bullsheet. The other officers even said shouldn't we move him to his side?

It was excessive force.

Brodde couldn't keep his answers straight he was a horrible witness for the defense. He did not review all the evidence. The other experts showed that the officers caused Floyd pain, which would be excessive force per defense experts testimony.

When we were kids we never imagined in our wildest dreams something like this would happen in the USA where a cop is put on trial for going by the book and doing his job, just to appease a minority faction.

If people cannot see reasonable doubt here and the real culprit was St George and Fentanyl, then perhaps we truly are lost.

For all, there is a reason I'm not going to watch this, OJ Simpson, I didn't know who he was, my sister and niece did not know who he was, we all watch that trail, it was a total wretch and the media pronounce he was guilty before the trail, in between the end of the trail and even after being found innocent, and I agree with the jury, my sister agreed with the jury and so did my niece, we are not black, and we were not deaf or stupid not to see the setup.

The jury saw enough, we saw more, and all of us saw the mishandling of the evidence, people who should not have been on the crime scene that morning. It looks more like the guy who were delivering OJ ex-wives mothers glasses and was followed by some men to the house, he was attacked first, remember he was young and in good shape, he was known to visit workout gems, the envelope was torn open and then throw, as they were attacking and stabbing the guy, OJ ex-wife came down and saw. The one that was delivering the glasses had buzzed the main house for OJ wife to get the glasses, this is why she died.

She had this woman call Fay something living with her who was in hock for drug payment. Since all this was overheard I would guess in the restaurant they had dined in, they jump to the idea that was money or payment for the drugs, The torn envelope first thing, no reason for an arthritic OJ to even do this, nothing pointed to this, the drugged up Fay had gone to a drug rehab that day. The drug debt was not paid. All this was sticking out like a sore thumb. The glove was thrown over the fence, by one who should not have even been there. This was a made for TV trail get it, a Made for TV trail. FOR WHAT REASON, it was not long after Bill Clinton became president, so I don't know, it was the only thing on TV for a very long time!


By the way, two young and health people could have beat OJ to death, he was crippled with rheumatoid arthritis, to bend over was painful to him, without his medicine he would have been in pain most of the time, his hands as for his finger were misshaped with this arthritis.

Yet they pushed the narrative of guilt and even broke the constitution by allowing them to sue him after his innocent verdict, this was the point of what they did against the constitution, double jeopardy do you understand what that meant, a flagrant abuse of power by the government of the US. You allow one right for them to break, they will go after others. This one has to be revisited. It was totally against the Bill of Rights double jeopardy, being tried more than once for the same crime, if you are found to be not guilty, and they try you again in any court for your life or anything you own.

What are they after now?

But doesn’t it have to be a Unanimous verdict?

Is a mic-drop moment really necessary?

In order to secure a guilty verdict the jury has to be unanimous. Anything less is either a mistrial or not guilty.

And no, a mic-drop moment is not necessary... but it sure would be helpful! (Just my opinion, of course)

Last Edited by Wharf Rat on 04/13/2021 06:04 PM

I saw that too!

So the prosecution needs to pull something from their bag of tricks?

The case isn’t strong enough to convict Chauvin.

They could retrofit the bodycams with audio and mini-speakers, flip a switch and soothing new age spa music calms the perp.

Maybe an lavender oil spritzer on the work belt for the finishing touch.

I don't think we're gonna see a hung jury here in some scenario where there's like a single hold out that prevents a conviction.

That person would certainly be identified, and their life would be in grave danger.

It's one thing if they all agree on not guilty, but if there's just one holdout I really think people would go after them.

Hello, R. Wordsworth.

I agree with your assessment. That being said, how could a situation like that not be grounds for a mistrial or an appeal? If any person who ends up voting on that jury feels pressured to convict, isn't that itself a miscarriage of justice?

I'm not a lawyer, but... am I way off base here?

Oh I totally agree, but I don't think you could even have a trial in this case without the jurors being pressured to convict.

There are multiple armed terrorist organizations with nationwide if not global reach who have threatened violence if Chauvin isn't convicted.

Actually both a guilty and not guilty (acquittal) require a unanimous verdict. A mistrial is if they can’t get every juror to agree. The court will pressure the jury to agree to a unanimous verdict. In other words they will tell them to keep considering the case.

Possibly. But some people are very stubborn and principled. I would tend to be like that. What is apparently not uncommon is the jury getting a holdout to agree to convict on one of the lesser charges. In other words, someone who wants not guilty on all counts getting convinced to vote guilty on the least serious crime in exchange for not guilty on all the other charges.

If Chauvin if acquitted, the shitshow will be worse than last summer.

Yeah but both the prosecution and the defense did their best during jury selection to weed out any stubborn and principled individuals.

I mean they had to find a dozen people that knew as little as possible about this case, and had yet to form any strong opinions.

That kinda means there's a good chance they're all idiots, kinda like the much sought after "undecided voter" during an election.

Maybe. Maybe not-- maybe it will start off the same but this time the majority of decent Americans will be done putting up with this shit and demand that violent riots be handled the way they are supposed to be handled.

Either way, the threat of riots and looting is not a valid excuse to condemn a man by way of a coerced jury.

Just my opinion, of course.

Last Edited by Wharf Rat on 04/13/2021 07:26 PM

I would love this to be true, believe me. I hope it is.

But I just keep going back to the juror --who is on this jury-- who said under oath that, "black lives matter more than white lives."

To me this is a huge red flag, seriously undermining that juror's impartiality.

and one of the jurors will be have a hot date
in 2 hours so he changes his vote to go along.

.

What's worse, is I think they're planning for this summer to be worse than last summer regardless of what happens here.

I mean do you see CNN trying to diffuse the situation with the Wright taser shooting now that we know it was an accident? Nope, they're running stores about how it was wrong for him to have been pulled over for an expired registration to fan the flames.

Friends of mine that don't follow this stuff closely were a bit relieved when Biden won even though they voted for Trump, thinking "Well at least all those race riots will die down!"

Here's the thing... remember 2016? Those race riots ended when Trump won.

They weren't staged to make him lose, they were the start of what was going to happen once Hillary was in power.

We're gonna see now what they had planned for 2017 if Trump hadn't squeaked out a win.

This. Nothing further.

That’s tiny. No offense to any men but GF was like 240? And 6’4”?

Close, but no cigar. If all jurors cannot agree, that's called a hung jury, and judges are loathe to allow that. If the foreman should declare that they cannot unanimously come to a verdict, the judge will instruct them to continue to deliberate over and over again until they decide unanimously.

Close, but no cigar. If all jurors cannot agree, that's called a hung jury, and judges are loathe to allow that. If the foreman should declare that they cannot unanimously come to a verdict, the judge will instruct them to continue to deliberate over and over again until they decide unanimously.

That’s what I said. If they can’t agree the court will pressure them to agree. Eventually though, if someone persistently holds out, the court will declare a mistrial due to a hung jury. Of course Minnesota could have some unique laws that are relevant to this issue.

Will the Jurors votes be counted on a dominion machine ?

That's funny :)