Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
Once again the defense weaponizes prosecution 'expert' witnesses against the prosecution case.legalinsurrection.com
Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.
What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.
No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.
Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.
Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m
Ka. Boom.
So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”
Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.
But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.
And then again a third time, for Reyerson.
And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!
Man, you are batting well over a 1000 when it comes to starting threads of epic fails....under additional questioning by the prosecution, the agent backtracked, saying he now heard something different.
After listening to a longer recording than what had been played by the defense, the Reyerson said what Floyd was saying was actually, "I ain't do no drugs."
The reversal was a blow to the defense..
One bad day for the prosecution and 7 bad days for the defense. So far, it's not looking good for the defense. Only time will tell.Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances. Yes, answered Stiger.
In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson? Yes.
Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.
In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.
A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.
I feel obliged to remind readers at this point that Stiger is the highly-paid use-of-force expert hired by the PROSECUTORS to assist them in CONVICTING Chauvin. He is NOT a defense witness. Though you’d be hard press to know that, based on his testimony on cross-examination.
I feel this is the part of police protocol that needs to change however... if they have the guy cuffed on the ground laying front down, there really is no need to put your knee on his neck when he is struggling to breathe.Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances. Yes, answered Stiger.
In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson? Yes.
Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.
In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.
A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.
I feel obliged to remind readers at this point that Stiger is the highly-paid use-of-force expert hired by the PROSECUTORS to assist them in CONVICTING Chauvin. He is NOT a defense witness. Though you’d be hard press to know that, based on his testimony on cross-examination.
lol...wrong you are again.
Man, you are batting well over a 1000 when it comes to starting threads of epic fails.
YEah -that's the way it works.Whether Floyd ate "too many drugs" will be/was determined by the ME/Coroner, regardless of what any witness testifies to what they 'think' they heard. The totality of the tapes and the medical experts' testimonies will determine his fate, as well as other expert LEO testimony regarding police department policy.
At least in theory, assuming the 'entire' jury is fair and impartial, and actually dispenses juris prudence, according the letter of the law.YEah -that's the way it works.
Cheerleading for a cop who killed a black guy.Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
Once again the defense weaponizes prosecution 'expert' witnesses against the prosecution case.legalinsurrection.com
Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.
What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.
No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.
Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.
Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m
Ka. Boom.
So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”
Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.
But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.
And then again a third time, for Reyerson.
And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!
Amazing.
Bet you can relate ,huh?Cheerleading for a cop who killed a black guy.
Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
Once again the defense weaponizes prosecution 'expert' witnesses against the prosecution case.legalinsurrection.com
Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.
What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.
No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.
Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.
Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m
Ka. Boom.
So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”
Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.
But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.
And then again a third time, for Reyerson.
And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!
Amazing.
By now Floyd was dead and Chavin still wouldn't take his knee off Floyd's neck.By now, Floyd was dead. That’s when she would have started chest compressions.
I don't think this was as big a deal for the defence as others might, in fact, I think it may backfire on them. A police officer has a "duty of care" for someone in their custody. If they knew, by his admission, that Floyd had taken too many drugs they had a duty to render aid which most certainly does not involve kneeling on his neck even longer.
Besides which the jury will be replaying the tape for themselves during deliberations and can decide for themselves what was said. What this witness thinks he heard is totally irrelevant.
wrong .By now Floyd was dead and Chavin still wouldn't take his knee off Floyd's neck.
How long was Floyd dead before Chauvin quit 'restraining' him?wrong .
"...It was at this point that Nelson showed Mercil a series of photographs captured from the body worn camera of Officer Lane, and showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd from the angle down Floyd’s proned body.
Photo 1: Where’s Chauvin’s leg in this image? On Floyd’s neck? Or on his shoulder blades and back. Mercil: Shoulder blades and back.
And in photo 2? Same. Photo 3? Same. Photo 4? Same.
This, of course, fundamentally undercuts the prosecution’s narrative of guilt that it was Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck that killed Floyd."
Maybe you should stop reading lw talking points and actually go by the evidence.
lol...wrong you are again.
Man, you are batting well over a 1000 when it comes to starting threads of epic fails.
DAILY CHUCKLEOuch. Poor KLATTU. Embarrassed again.
LAFFRIOT
As long as you say so!
( in reality , nothing of the sort happened but lefties love to hangout in fantasy land)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?