Closing arguments in Chauvin case

[rjmacs]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=S. Pupp]
If found “not guilty,” it will be clear evidence that our system of justice is as broken as our legislature.

I agree. I see no avenue for anyone to see that evidence and then acquit the officer. There would have to be a motive at play unrelated to the evidence.

As for empathizing, that only works against Chauvin because his sadism and lack of humanity are on full display.

Nobody on the Minneapolis force defended him IIRC.
More reasons we need to stop using the term 'criminal justice system' and call it what it is: the 'criminal legal system.' There's no real justice built into it, unless you're pre-qualified.

[PeterB]

Lemon Drop wrote:
[quote=S. Pupp]
If found “not guilty,” it will be clear evidence that our system of justice is as broken as our legislature.

I agree. I see no avenue for anyone to see that evidence and then acquit the officer. There would have to be a motive at play unrelated to the evidence.

As for empathizing, that only works against Chauvin because his sadism and lack of humanity are on full display.

Nobody on the Minneapolis force defended him IIRC.
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

[DeusxMac]

PeterB wrote:
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.

[PeterB]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...

[rjmacs]

PeterB wrote:
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.

[PeterB]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.
Right, but I think it's debatable whether someone having a LEO as a member of their family would be grounds for automatic removal from the juror pool, and then there's also always the possibility of someone simply not being asked exactly the right question and/or leaving out some information.

[rjmacs]

PeterB wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.
Right, but I think it's debatable whether someone having a LEO as a member of their family would be grounds for automatic removal from the juror pool, and then there's also always the possibility of someone simply not being asked exactly the right question and/or leaving out some information.
Who said anything about “grounds for automatic removal”? They’re called peremptory strikes, and this is what they’re used for by the prosecution in a case like this.

[DeusxMac]

PeterB wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.
Right, but I think it's debatable whether someone having a LEO as a member of their family would be grounds for automatic removal from the juror pool, and then there's also always the possibility of someone simply not being asked exactly the right question and/or leaving out some information.
You’re constructing a tenuous “what if”.

1. Lawyers have a number of peremptory juror dismissals; no explanation needed for doing so.
2. In a trial with a LEO as a defendant, no prosecutor would fail to ask this specific question of all potential jurors.
3. If a juror was asked and lied, they would be in contempt of court, removed from the jury, and likely seriously fined.

[PeterB]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=PeterB]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=PeterB]
The empathy I was referring to was that the defense kept using the "what would a 'reasonable officer' do in that situation", and if any of the jurors have LEOs in their family, that argument might hold some sway.

I would suspect that any potential juror with an LEO "in their family" would have been rejected from being seated during voir dire.
You'd hope so, but you never know. It depends on what a juror is asked...
I am very confident that this question was part of the extensive questionnaire that was give to all potential jurors in this case.
Right, but I think it's debatable whether someone having a LEO as a member of their family would be grounds for automatic removal from the juror pool, and then there's also always the possibility of someone simply not being asked exactly the right question and/or leaving out some information.
You’re constructing a tenuous “what if”.

1. Lawyers have a number of peremptory juror dismissals; no explanation needed for doing so.
2. In a trial with a LEO as a defendant, no prosecutor would fail to ask this specific question of all potential jurors.
3. If a juror was asked and lied, they would be in contempt of court, removed from the jury, and likely seriously fined.
1) Peremptory only works if they ask the right questions and there's usually a limit to the number they can do.

2) Sure, but see #1.

3) Sure, but see #1, and also the fact that whether or not they're lying depends on how a question is phrased. If someone is asked, "do you have any LEOs in your immediate family", that's different from asking, "do you have any LEOs anywhere in your family". There are lots of jurors out there who probably have LEOs in their family, just not in the immediate family, and it also depends on how you define "immediate".

[RAMd®d]

1) Peremptory only works if they ask the right questions and there's usually a limit to the number they can do.

A peremptory ("no cause") challenge wouldn't be needed in a case like this.

Such a potential juror could be dismissed for cause, without using a peremptory challenge.

Someone could lie to get past the screening and voir dire, but there's no way the question of a law enforcement officer being a family member wasn't asked.

If either side discovered a potential juror was might be incapable of unbiased judgement, they could request they be dismissed 'for cause' without using one of their challenges.

Depending on the nature of a given court case, it could be that neither side might find a cop in the family a reason to dismiss.

Somewhere, somehow, some way, there have been or will be a situation where neither side asked such a question 'correctly' and somebody who did have a law enforcement member in the family, immediate or otherwise, told the truth as they new it and still got selected.

If that ever happens, you can say 'I called it'.

But don't hold your breath.