Not an lawyer here - how does the Chauvin defense attorney

[calimary]

gain by playing those video clips?

All you see in those clips is this poor schmuck being brutalized by a group of cops all you hear are agonized cries by the victim, crying for his mom, crying “I can’t breathe” -

How does that NOT work more effectively for the prosecution? How does that NOT override all the blah-blah-blah’ing of the defense? Seeing and hearing what’s on those video clips? How does one see or hear anything BUT torture and forcible suffocation on those clips?

I sure don’t get it. To THIS admittedly untrained viewer/listener, this does NOT look good. It just further reinforces the brutality happening here. At least to me.

These clips are dreadfully hard to listen to and rewatch. They just seem to underscore the prosecution’s arguments.

Thank you in advance.

[Miguelito Loveless]

1. "Incompetent counsel" on appeal?

[underpants]

2. Not a lawyer just cursing here - trying to show that wasn't the big factor

Basically sailing in to the wind.

????

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. He's showing that moment by moment, Chauvin was following his training.

He's trying to establish that the use of force was reasonable and thus authorized. If jurors determine the use of force was reasonable and thus authorized, they can't convict. All the defense needs to do is create a doubt around that point. It's horrifying to rewatch the video like this, but the defense is trying to establish this is all by the book. That's why you keep hearing "awful but lawful."

[calimary]

4. I guess I'm just stuck on the "awful" part of that equation.

All it keeps showing me is evidence of “you did a bad thing, Officer.”

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. When it comes to the cops, "bad" does not necessarily mean "illegal."

[SheltieLover]

6. My question is how the sophist scum sleeps at night?

Yes, I know everyone is entitled to a defense and innocent until proven guilty, but this murder's behavior is indefensible, imo.

[TomSlick]

27. The defense attorney is providing an important service.

Our system is adversarial by design. We can have no confidence in a conviction if the defendant has not been provided the best possible defense.

Lawyers must try the case as best they can with the facts they are presented.

[SheltieLover]

28. Yes I know

But I just don't know how someone could live with themselves defending this murderer or others like him.

Ty for sharing.

[vlyons]

7. Prosecutor's closing arguments were awesome

I'm convinced that Chauvin fully intended and enjoyed inflicting as much pain and humiliation as possible. Was it his premeditated intention to kill Floyd?

[calimary]

12. Domination is probably it.

We saw that with trump, too.

What all too often clearly seems to be a nearly-irrational yen to dominate.

[wryter2000]

16. Not just domination of Floyd

I'm convinced much of his behavior was aimed at showing the crowd who was boss.

[calimary]

20. I'd have to agree, just being reminded by seeing those vids again.

Just reinforces the prosecution’s case, at least to me.

[Useless in FL]

26. Absolutely!

There is no doubt in my mind that he enjoyed showing off his superiority to the crowd. He reveled in it.

[SheltieLover]

29. This!👆

Wasn't he training other newbies at the time? Sorry I might be confusing with another case.

[Cosmocat]

8. I will be open about being biased by reason, common sense and decency

and I found them fucking horrifying.

But, all it takes is one wing nut looking for any plausible reason to let him off ...

[StarfishSaver]

9. They don't need to be a wing nut

There are Democrats right here on this board who bend over backwards excusing police wrong doing and blaming the victim for their own death. They just need one person on the jury who thinks like that, and, sadly, that mindset is not limited to right wingers or even Republicans.

[dsc]

10. Descentisizing the jury to the horror?

The first time you watch it is more horrible than every subsequent time. I think that isn't likely to work very well but that might be what they are attempting to do.

[Scottie Mom]

11. The defense Atty does not have much to work with.

IMO, the videos were devastating! Especially the testimony from those present who had taped the event.

The issue is, IMO, how to minimize the impact. Cannot ignore the videos. Imagine what a juror would think. So, the only option is to use and explain and with as best possible spin on what was seen and heard.

[calimary]

18. I thought the videos were rather damning.

And every time you have to see them again, seems to me it just drills in how devastating what they show is.

I’m more horrified now than I was, even at the beginning of all this. It just becomes worse and worse, and more and more horrifying.

[Scottie Mom]

30. The videos were and are horrendously awful and damning. You

There is not much room to say it makes the defendant look good.

[fescuerescue]

13. He is trying to desensitive the jury

We know that that the Prosecution will play those clips and do it with the narrative that they choose.

That cannot be stopped.

So since it's going to be played anyway, the defense steps up and plays it. With their narrative. It looks to the jury like they own it and aren't trying to hide it.


So by the defense playing them too. They get to control part of that narrative and presentation. And if the jury sees it 100 times, it starts to not be shocking.

[sop]

14. IMO Nelson is showing the same videos, adding his own interpretation of the events depicted,

so jurors will remember things from his perspective, not the prosecution's version.

[stopdiggin]

15. think it is aimed at (re)establishing an argument for

'resisting' and 'non-compliance'
Probably not going to work, due to the time spent kneeling on a unresisting (and unresponsive) subject. But -- might be one of the few cards they have to play.

[Vinca]

17. I told my husband if we ever need a defense attorney we'll never call this guy.

I've only watched bits and pieces, but he seems to be making more of a case for conviction.

[calimary]

19. His use of the video clips certainly does. At least IMO.

[Baked Potato]

21. Trying to show the jury "yep, he did it and is unapologetic." NT

[Sunsky]

22. This is this one of the most boring closing

I've watched and I watched quite a few. He's trying to muddy the waters. However, by the time we reach the prosecution's rebuttal, the jury is asleep. Thank goodness he's done.

[uponit7771]

23. Its done on purpose to put the jury to sleep and make them impatient, I learned that on the

... Trayvon Martin trial.

[DarthDem]

25. That is . . .

. . . not a good strategy. To put it mildly.

[calimary]

24. And thank goodness that part is over.

Defense presentation was brief, fortunately. But then again, I guess that’s how it goes when you don’t have much of a case.

To me anyway, he really didn’t have ANY case. This was indefensible. What Derek Chauvin did was indefensible. It was an assault. Prolonged slow-motion assault that was pretty doggone clearly meant to last til the victim was dead.

I think it was deliberate on Derek Chauvin’s part. Intentional, to send a message, to demonstrate not only to his immediate victim but EVERYBODY watching, whether they were part of the handful of bystanders, the TV audience, or his trainees on scene. He is behavior showed him to be determined to remain unphased - as George Floyd gasped and begged for mercy, or the handful of onlookers pleading on his behalf, or what his trainees might be worried about, what any other onlookers or those who’d see footage from the phone cameras or other cameras recording the scene. He appeared determined to outlast ‘em all.

[calimary]

31. Well, looks like the Derek Chauvin jury just answered my question for me.

And a SUPER-HUMAN-size Thank-You to the jury for justice swiftly served! They sure didn’t waste much time, did they!