Why are the prosecutors for George Floyd going to trial?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the Hennepin DA knows what there doing.

The video evidence, while extremely bad, can still (potentially) be countered, should the "guidelines"\training which were in place at the time have permitted (or worse, required) this sort of restraint.

At this point, the only "evidence" we have seen has been that which supports the prosecution. As the defence don't need to provide their evidence until trial (as far as I know), so there may be facts which, while not lessing how bad what occurred was, may show that the officers involved were expected to behave in this manner (or did not have the discression to handle the situation in another way).

Yeah the evidence can still be countered but I can't see the video evidence being thrown out by the judge though, unless I am wrong?

It would be unlikely. Should there be context (officers were trained and required to act as shown), however, the impact of the video evidence would be greatly lowered.

It could, conceivably, be that the video isn't even entered as evidence, should what is shown match directly with training materials\police guidlines in that area, as in that case it would be offering an "easy out" for the defendants (video shows this, here are illustrations/training video for what should be done in similar circumstances - see how they match), with a description of the events supplied instead.

Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see what lines of defence are used, and what evidence supports them.

And hopefully, the DA hasn't over-charged them, leading to acquitals because of this, where a lesser\alternative charge may have returned a different verdict, as that could cause even more problems than the initial event did.

Until Chauvin is convicted of murder justice has not been done in this case.

Yeah I don't think the DA overcharged them based on charges.

However, why is the trial date set for next year? The longer the date, the more these riots may go on for, so why doesn't the judge have the trial ASAP, as it should be top priority right now I think.

If they had the trial now it would get overturned on appeal if a guilty verdict happened.The trial will surely get moved the Deluth or at least far from the twin cities and likely won't happen for a while.

Why would it get overturned on people if they had it sooner?

The defense would argue that emotions are to strong for there to be a fair trial.

Seems the family have filed a "wrongful death" case against the city:
https://www.startribune.com/read-the-lawsuit-filed-by-family-of-george-floyd-against-minneapolis/571777961/

Interesting bits that may impact defence cases in the criminal trial:
For Mr Kueng:

And for Mr Chauvin (and the others):


Based on this, it's likely that the defence used by the officers will take the form of "we were trained\instructed that this is how to handle the situation" and that they had not been given information (such as the potentially lethal result of the neck restraint) that would have caused other\different steps to be taken.

While it is possible, but unlikely, to be enough to have them acquitted, it will likely end up as mitigating details for sentencing should they be found guilty...In theory anyone who authorised\approved the training of officers in these ways is equally guilty of what occurred (had they received different training\instructions, this would likely not have occurred), but it is unlikely they will suffer any penalty.

Well as are as them being acquitted goes, would most jurors want to acquit them based on the 'occupational hazard' point of view? I mean most people seem to scream about how the police used excessive force in this case, so wouldn't most jurors see it that way, and not as occupational hazard?

It would likely depend on whether they look at it as the incident, seperate from the training\directives, or whether they operated as required under their instructions (subjective Vs objective views).

In the first case, they were solely in the wrong, whereas in the latter, while in the "wrong", they were doing as they had been "expected" to, and it was the training\directives which were the "cause" of this, not personal discretion\choices. The latter would require looking at what reasoning was used to decide the incident needed to be handled in the way it was, which could still be a problem, depending on what reasoning\evidence was used to decide.

The rumor is there is body cam footage that could help the cops.I don't know for sure.

The trial will be interesting.

Yeah but for Derek Chauvin, the jury would not be able to use the defense for him that he was operating under instructions though, compared to the others, right?

Black or White , truth or not ? Am pretty stern on public servants violating the public trust . Why are we wasting money on a trial .. if they are (hung) it might send a stern message to those that come after them .
Sorry ... black or white. Guilty or not , No other officer came to this mans aide lying on the ground as he died .
Officers of the law are in the business of public Safety . Period . It is. /. Their job , too many cops taking the easy way out .. Seen. This in action repeatedly . They support each other , the law and the public good seems always to come second . The city officials want votes, so when it comes to the public good and the Votes they get from cops.
It’s the cops . Seen this in action too repeatedly . “Sorry“ , Seen a lotta BS. By officials and been repeatedly victimized by it . Over a period of many years by various dept.s Did not mean to get off topic