Judge refuses request to acquit Chauvin in Floyd’s death

[BidenPresident]

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The judge at Derek Chauvin’s murder trial Wednesday turned down a defense request to acquit the former officer in George Floyd’s death, rejecting claims that prosecutors failed to prove Chauvin’s actions killed the Black man.

Judge Peter Cahill pressed on with the case after Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson said the prosecution’s expert witnesses gave conflicting opinions about what caused Floyd’s death after the 46-year-old was pinned under the white officer’s knee for what authorities say was 9 1/2 minutes last May.

Nelson also argued that the state failed to establish whether there was a use of force and whether it was reasonable.

Prosecutor Steve Schleicher countered by saying the state has proved that Chauvin’s use of force was unreasonable and has introduced evidence that “clearly established that the defendant’s conduct was a causal factor in bringing about Mr. Floyd’s death.”

https://apnews.com/article/derek-cha...1977c61af6865d

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Judges usually have the option of directing a verdict of not guilty but this judge won't do it i even though he knows he should . The judge knows the fake news press would crucify him so he'd rather let the jury decide.

[BidenPresident]

Judges usually have the option of directing a verdict of not guilty but this judge won't do it i even though he knows he should . The judge knows the fake news press would crucify him so he'd rather let the jury decide.

Everything is fake but your opinions. Got it.

[BidenPresident]

After the Journal of Forensic Sciences published the study, which showed that medically irrelevant information like the victim’s race can sway the decisions of forensic pathologists, Dr. Peterson and two other potential defense witnesses, Dr. David Fowler and Dr. William Oliver signed a letter asking that it be retracted, calling it “fatally flawed.”

The Journal of Forensic Sciences, which published the paper, declined to retract it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/u...c-science.html

[martin]

Judges have that option but they rarely choose it, and never when there is at least some evidence of guilt. This is why it's a jury trial.

[archives]

[BidenPresident]

Judges have that option but they rarely choose it, and never when there is at least some evidence of guilt. This why it's a jury trial.

Defense is desperate. No matter what Floyd's condition was before the arrest, Chauvin caused his death.

[martin]

Everything is fake but your opinions. Got it.

He's an ignoramus.

[BidenPresident]

He's an ignoramus.

True.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Judges have that option but they rarely choose it, and never when there is at least some evidence of guilt. This is why it's a jury trial.

Yes indeed. It should be left to the jury to say not guilty.

[Stone]

When the officer is found innocent should white people all across the country jump up and down screaming WOOOO HOOOOO YEAH YEAH YEAH!!!!!!!!!! ? If not why not?

[War=Peace]

Judges have that option but they rarely choose it, and never when there is at least some evidence of guilt. This is why it's a jury trial.

Thread.

[Walt]

Judges usually have the option of directing a verdict of not guilty but this judge won't do it i even though he knows he should.

Taking the verdict out of the hands of the jury requires near certainty that there is no case. There is clearly a case here. Whether it is a good case or not is for the jury, not the judge to decide.

[Grumpy]

.

Yes indeed. It should be left to the jury to say not guilty.

I agree ... but I am still of the opinion that the jury will find him guilty. Not because of the facts, but because they gotta go home ... go back to work ... let their kids go to school ... et al

All of the imported thugs in minnesomalia now know the names, addresses, and all other personal information on the jury pool ... there will be no suicide by cop ... it will be total family annihilation by mob.

[martin]

Taking the verdict out of the hands of the jury requires near certainty that there is no case. There is clearly a case here. Whether it is a good case or not is for the jury, not the judge to decide.

Exactly so.