|
beejay posted:I'm not sure this is quite right, he could be found to have contributed to the death through negligence. I think it can also be determined that he committed a felony during the whole process which would then trigger felony murder. (With the caveat that I don't know MN law and this is all educated guessing,) The full complaint can be found here. The general breakdown, borrowing from some of the jury instructions in the Mohamed Noor case (not all, because Noor was charged with 2nd-degree murder under a different theory and that part won't apply here), will be: Count 1: in the course of intentionally committing or attempting an assault (of such severity that it inflicts substantial bodily harm) but without intent to cause death, Chauvin caused Floyd's death. Count 2: Chauvin committed an intentional act which caused Floyd's death, and the act was eminently dangerous to human beings and performed without regard for human life, committed in a reckless or wanton manner with the knowledge that someone may be killed. Count 3: Chauvin caused Floyd's death by culpable negligence (meaning intentional conduct that he may not have intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others), whereby he created an unreasonable risk, and consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. Felony murder under count 1 may require specific intent to cause bodily harm, in which case I think they acquit on that one due to reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to restrain Floyd rather than to hurt him. I'd guess a conviction on count 2 or 3 or a hung jury. (Interesting side note, count 1 wouldn't fly in most states, because felony murder usually can't be predicated on assault and has to be based on a separate offense like armed robbery or drug sales or whatever. MN seems to be an outlier.) chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? "To cause" was defined in Noor's case under manslaughter 2, and is likely the same here: quote:“To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes, if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. The prosecution would counter by saying that Floyd's heart stopping is a natural result of the Defendant's actions, even if other conditions (drug use, heart problems, etc.) contributed. It's not a slam dunk, so causation's going to be an issue for the various medical experts.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Kalit posted:After that cross examination of Dr. Thomas, I half expected Chauvin to fire Nelson on the spot. Some of those questions/hypotheticals were extremely embarrassing At one point the chief ME made a similar statement prior to trial; everyone knows it's going to come up during his testimony, so Nelson is presumably asking if Dr. Thomas would reach the same conclusion. quote:"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3*," Baker told investigators. * ng/mL of fentanyl; Floyd's was ~11, IIRC. Obviously, the prosecution will counter that he wasn't found dead with no other apparent causes, among other things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:How soon do we think we will get a verdict? As far as I know it could take days? And I suspect Chauvin could appeal as well? The verdict is probably tomorrow or Wednesday, but it's entirely up to the jurors. A notice of appeal will follow relatively quickly but the appeal itself takes a while - Mohamed Noor was sentenced June 2019 and the state court of appeals upheld his conviction this February. To make things more complicated, the state supreme court has agreed to hear Noor's appeal about whether 3rd-degree murder applies to an act targeted at a particular person, but hasn't resolved it yet. If Chauvin is acquitted on murder 2 (which seems fairly likely) and convicted on the lessers, his murder 3 conviction will hang on what happens in the Noor case later this year. (If it's upheld, Chauvin will move on to the other appellate issues - whatever objections defense counsel preserved at trial, Maxine Waters learning why you say "no comment while the case is ongoing", so on.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:[*]The ruling allowing Chauvin to be charged and tried with 3rd degree murder is being appealed to the state supreme court and it was improper to take any action in the trial, including jury selection, with that charge attached until the state supreme court issues a ruling. I'd expect the more likely remedy, if the state supreme court rules that 3rd degree murder can't apply, is to vacate the 3rd-degree conviction rather than to reverse the entire thing. This would be a bigger deal if Chauvin was acquitted on the lead charge but convicted on the lower two - in that situation, if the state supreme court rules that 3rd-degree can't apply and vacates that conviction, he ends up with a significantly reduced sentence for manslaughter only. As it stands, he's still guilty of the more serious 2nd-degree charge. quote:The city announced its $27m settlement with the Floyd family on the eve of the trial, unfairly prejudicing the already-selected jurors and unfairly impeding Chauvin's defense. During trial, jurors are instructed to avoid outside information about their case, and the court probably assumes the jurors followed their instructions if there's no evidence otherwise. If a juror gives a tell-all interview and says he was pressured into voting guilty to avoid rioting, that's a problem; if not, public comments about the case while they're deliberating are dumb but probably don't reverse the verdict on their own. Pre-trial publicity, and the venue objection, and the request to sequester the jury all seem like good arguments for him to make, but "how likely is he to win on X" is a pretty specialized question for lawyers who regularly do this stuff in MN.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:I have a question. It doesn't relate to the facts, but to the steps involved in evaluating the cops actions. Generally it'll be reviewed in three contexts, and Chauvin's case is a good example because we mostly know the outcome of all three: 1) Internally - the PD will have a system for reviewing the use of force and figuring out whether the officer violated department policy using its own supervisors and investigators. Chauvin et al got fired pretty quickly after Floyd was killed, probably because the chain of command watched the video and saw that he violated policies related to improper use of force, bringing dishonor upon the house of MPD, etc. The officer may or may not be placed on leave while the process plays out, depending on the situation and what the department rules say. 2) Civilly - the officer and/or various government entities can be sued for damages in civil court. Floyd's family sued the four officers involved in his death in federal court alleging that they violated his civil rights, as well as the city of Minneapolis (which has more money than the officers do) for failure to properly train or discipline its employees. The gatekeepers there are the attorneys that will / won't take the case, the judge who can throw the suit out for legal reasons, and a civil jury. This is where the family reached a $27M settlement with the city. 3) Criminally - prosecutors review what happened and decide whether they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer killed someone without justification. Murder usually gets prosecuted at the state level except in special circumstances, so it'll normally be state prosecutors applying state law, the grand jury deciding whether to indict, and a jury deciding whether to convict. In Chauvin's case, the Hennepin County prosecutor charged him with 3rd-degree murder and manslaughter under MN law, and then the state AG took over, added a count of 2nd-degree murder, and convicted him. (One interesting exception was the Danziger Bridge police shootings in New Orleans after Katrina. A number of officers were originally charged in state court but those charges got thrown out, so the feds took over and charged them not with murder, but with deprivation of rights under color of law. The officers were convicted in federal court, had their convictions thrown out again, and ultimately ended up pleading guilty.) Same basic ideas will apply in the Bryant shooting, except that it seems like a pretty straightforward case of defense of another, so probably no disciplinary action / civil damages / criminal charges. zzyzx fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Apr 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2021 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Can the prosecution of those other officers point to this, or would that not be allowed? No. A separate jury will have to decide whether they were accomplices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2021 15:20
|
|