George Floyd: "I ain't do no drugs"

[Jim__]

Makes the defense lawyer look like a sleaze bag. He repeatedly played a short excerpt of audio/video and tried to get witnesses to agree that Floyd said, "I ate too many drugs." Nelson, the defense attorney, directly asked, did you hear, "I ate too many drugs." Also, of course, repeatedly playing the short excerpt for the jury, and falsely quoting it, could make some jurors believe that's what Floyd said. The prosecution played the surrounding context, and it sounds much more like, "I ain't do no drugs."

Really makes it look like the defense was deliberately trying to trick the jury. I hope this helps to undermine the defense's case. If you have a case, why bullshit?

[sheshe2]

1. I have watched some of it.

I really hate that smarmy bastard. They have a very weak defense....so they lie.

[LakeArenal]

2. The defense is soo boring and dumb I think the jury will be put off by it.

[Ohioboy]

3. I don't care if Floyd was totally on drugs

Eight minutes plus with a knee on his neck is what is on trial.

[Jim__]

6. Sure. But the defense is trying to establish a different narrative.

Their narrative is that George Floyd died from an overdose. Getting him to say, after he's said that he cant' breathe, that he ate too many drugs, helps to establish the defense's narrative. It's important that the prosecution show that these claims are nonsense.

The defense had also largely established that Chauvin's knee was not on Floyd's neck. The prosecution went a long way toward demolishing that argument in their after lunch-break arguments today.

So far, great day for the prosecution!

[wryter2000]

4. The defense lawyer is a sleaze bag

I heard him put those words in the witness's mouth. Disgraceful.

The dog whistles are constant. Big, scary black man. Angry black man witness. Violent black crowd.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

5. One witness agreed with defense

I also hear it.

[Grins]

11. Only need one...! NM

[rsdsharp]

7. You do not want to lie to a jury.

You do not want to piss off a jury.

You do not want to be the attorney the jury doesn’t like.

In every case they will take it out on your client. This guy seems to be going for the trifecta.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. Once again, the defense's job is not to build a case. All the defense is trying to do is plant one

doubt in the mind of one juror. That's all it takes. They truly do not care if it looks like bullshit or not. If it's enough for one juror to start wavering, the defense has done its job.

[Jim__]

9. Yes, but obvious attempts at deception undermine the defense's ability to sow doubt.

The prosecution showed that the defense was deliberately misrepresenting the evidence. The defense knew the larger context. They chose to misrepresent it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. People hear what they want to hear. If one person wants to hear "I ate drugs" for whatever reason,

they will. Juries can definitely turn on either side, but we haven't even gotten to the defense witnesses yet. When they start talking about drugs, juries will have this in their mind, and start weighing it again.

[Jim__]

12. I wasn't making any argument about the larger defense case.

Just that selectively playing an obviously selected, shortened audio clip and then pretending to quote what is being said is deceptive. Clearly, the prosecution was going to cite the context. That will not win any net points for the defense.