Derek Chauvin trial

[Vol737]

OK, when I left after the election I said there are only a few things that might bring me out of "retirement". This is one. Maxine Waters needs to STFU and leave the country. If you remember me at all you will know I'm one of our few Liberals.

Yeah, but you’re a bourbon man, so you’re my friend. Kinda like Harvey Pennick and golf.

 

[clarksvol00]

Is that against some legal rule of procedure?

Can you give me some kind of Minnesota legal authority that says he overstepped his bounds or is that just your opinion? God forbid we have everybody that saw the alleged murder testify in a murder trial.

Edit: that's probably an excellent defense strategy... "well we've got too many witnesses, let's exclude everybody but Fred... wait a minute, the only witness you've got is Fred? I think Fred was drunk at the time."

 

[Boca Vol]

Is that against some legal rule of procedure?

Can you give me some kind of Minnesota legal authority that says he overstepped his bounds or is that just your opinion? God forbid we have everybody that saw the alleged murder testify in a murder trial.

Player!.....You just quoted and questioned yourself!

 

[clarksvol00]

Player!.....You just quoted and questioned yourself!

Sorry.

Ok. Let's pretend I responded to you. Do you have an answer? And I'll add edit # 2: "your Honor, he just has too darn many witnesses."

 

[Carl Pickens]

Well, it IS MN

No kidding..... MN has to be full of idiots and crazies

 

[clarksvol00]

Player!.....You just quoted and questioned yourself!

The judge can rule on that when those witnesses bring no evidentiary value.

Can you give me some kind of Minnesota legal authority that says he overstepped his bounds or is that just your opinion? God forbid we have everybody that saw the alleged murder testify in a murder trial.

Edit: that's probably an excellent defense strategy... "well we've got too many witnesses, let's exclude everybody but Fred... wait a minute, the only witness you've got is Fred? I think Fred was drunk at the time."

Now that I've cleared it up for you...

 

[Boca Vol]

Sorry.

Ok. Let's pretend I responded to you. Do you have an answer? And I'll add edit # 2: "your Honor, he just has to darn many witnesses."

I'm not an attorney but the judge can intervene when the person called to testify doesn't bring anything of value. I don't know the exact term, but it exists.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Sorry.

Ok. Let's pretend I responded to you. Do you have an answer? And I'll add edit # 2: "your Honor, he just has to darn many witnesses."

You've been hitting that Wild Turkey 101 a little bit too early today huh?

 

[clarksvol00]

I'm not an attorney but the judge can intervene when the person called to testify doesn't bring anything of value. I don't know the exact term, but it exists.

So its just based on your opinion and you have decided that the judge let in to many witnesses to the alleged murder?

 

[clarksvol00]

You've been hitting that Wild Turkey 101 a little bit too early today huh?

Monday is not Wild Turkey night.. I think its a legitimate question.

 

[McDad]

OK, when I left after the election I said there are only a few things that might bring me out of "retirement". This is one. Maxine Waters needs to STFU and leave the country. If you remember me at all you will know I'm one of our few Liberals.

Welcome back, Huner.

 

[Boca Vol]

So its just based on your opinion and you have decided that the judge let in to many witnesses to the alleged murder?

Look it up for yourself. When the whole world has seen Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck what is a 9 year old's testimony going to bring to the table? That's where the judge should've stepped in. Here you go from the ABA (American Bar Association):

It seems elementary, but relevancy is central to any discussion of the rules of evidence. The best way to think about relevancy is to envision the evidence you need to introduce as it relates to the complaint, the answer, or the indictment. But this is only half of the story. The journey to determine what is relevant and what is not also applies to your adversary. What is the evidence she will seek to produce and by what means or arguments is it relevant?

Rule 401 states that relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Great words, but what do they mean? In building your case or in understanding your opponent’s case, you must make a simple determination: Is it relevant, and if so, how do I get it in or, if not, how do I keep it out? The place to start is at the very beginning—when your client walks in the door. The first time you hear your client’s story, the evidentiary analysis must begin. What is the nature of your client’s problem? Is there documentation relevant to the resolution of the case? Who are the players in the drama? How did each person your client mentions come to know the facts, i.e., have they lived the facts or were they told the facts?

You must determine why each piece of evidence is relevant to the issues the jury has to resolve. As you analyze your proofs, ask yourself where are the witnesses you anticipate calling, what are your exhibits, why is it relevant? Do these proofs speak to the jury’s task of determining whether a fact of consequence (a material fact) to the action more probably exists than not? How is this competent evidence to be introduced for the jury’s consideration?

Your primary focus must be the evidence you need to prove the elements of the claim or the defense you will seek to present to the jury. In my years on the bench, I have been shocked consistently by how, despite experience, lawyers fail to think about trial from the very start of their involvement in a case.

As a U.S. district judge, my initial contact with the lawyers was usually several months into the case, absent entreaties seeking injunctive relief. I loved to engage the lawyers in discussions about how they view their case—strengths and weaknesses, especially troublesome or ticklish evidentiary issues. On occasion, lawyers mentioned their reliance on a document or statement by a particular witness. Seemingly proud of themselves as they set out their bulletproof case, I asked to their horror how they expected to get that item or statement in evidence? I was met with “I hadn’t thought of that,” or “Judge, it’s relevant. I just assumed I could get it in.”

These exchanges point out the essential challenge of the rules of evidence: The rules are intertwined and can never be analyzed casually or in isolation. Relevance is merely the first step. The piece of evidence—whatever it is—must survive other potential impediments, such as assertions of prejudice, hearsay, and the like.

The important thing to remember about relevance is that it requires thoughtful consideration from the inception of your involvement in the litigation. The mere invocation of the claim that a piece of evidence is relevant will not necessarily carry the day and lead to a favorable ruling of admission by the judge. The relevance objection simply asks the judge to intervene when the interrelationship between the evidence and the theory or defense of the case is not apparent or when it is crystal clear but a legitimate basis for exclusion of the evidence also exists.

Of course, the X factor in this and every other evidentiary consideration is the judge. One piece of advice I learned early in my career that bears repeating now is “Know your judge.” A simple axiom, but one that is critical to your success. Your due diligence in learning all you can about the jurist who holds the keys to your client’s future requires that you know whether she is experienced or not, a trial maven in reality or in her mind, a buttinsky or not. Knowing this information will guide you, or at least give you an inkling of what is to come; specifically, the level of discourse on evidence, whether it is detailed and thorough or cursory and seat-of-the-pants.

As a young federal prosecutor, I learned that certain judges had reputations regarding their knowledge of, and facility with, the rules of evidence. Some judges took the view that the red face or smell test was their guide to admissibility because the jury would ultimately ferret it all out. Others, probably the majority, believed that their role as an evidence gatekeeper required them to be stern and exacting taskmasters who make the most narrow of rulings on evidentiary matters.

At times, relevance is a matter of nuance. Your fear is that you may be giving too much away to your adversary with a detailed explanation to the judge. My advice is to err on the side of too much because—to use a permutation of a now-hackneyed phrase—if it doesn’t get in, you cannot win.

What should you be prepared to do? If a pithy response at the time of the objection fails to allay the court’s concerns, ask for an opportunity to make an offer of proof (this is found in Rule 103). Any time a judge is uncertain about where you, as a strategic matter, are going, he will ask you for an offer of proof. Experienced lawyers will sometimes require offers of proof on every witness and regarding every potentially damaging piece of evidence; not because it is warranted, but to rattle you.

If pressed by the judge, be prepared to literally connect the strategic dots for him. Such an offer is not per usual, but you must be prepared to support your offer with a cogent explanation of how the evidence ties into your theory of the case and the interrelationship between that evidence and other evidence as well. This analysis is at the core of determining relevant evidence.

If you happen to survive the offer of proof and the relevance objection, be certain to be prepared to support the introduction of your evidence by deflecting any specter of prejudice.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

CNN's Don Lemon: 'People with half a brain' know Maxine Waters wasn't inciting violence

Damn, Don Lemon is as dumb as that puppet Howdy Doody is .....

Howdy Doody Doll for SALE * Original Ventriloquist Dummy: Basic - PRO

 

[clarksvol00]

Look it up for yourself. When the whole world has seen Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck what is a 9 year old's testimony going to bring to the table? That's where the judge should've stepped in.

Probably shouldn't have spent 9 minutes on his neck in front of a nine year old. It happened, the kid saw it, the kid can say what happened. I'm not gonna do your homework for you, if you think it's a rule, bring your receipts.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Monday is not Wild Turkey night.. I think its a legitimate question.

It should be Wild Turkey night when you post a question & then answered your own question w/a post to it..

 

[Boca Vol]

Probably shouldn't have spent 9 minutes on his neck in front of a nine year old. It happened, the kid saw it, the kid can say what happened. I'm not gonna do your homework for you, if you think it's a rule, bring your receipts.

Here you go from the ABA (American Bar Association):

It seems elementary, but relevancy is central to any discussion of the rules of evidence. The best way to think about relevancy is to envision the evidence you need to introduce as it relates to the complaint, the answer, or the indictment. But this is only half of the story. The journey to determine what is relevant and what is not also applies to your adversary. What is the evidence she will seek to produce and by what means or arguments is it relevant?

Rule 401 states that relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Great words, but what do they mean? In building your case or in understanding your opponent’s case, you must make a simple determination: Is it relevant, and if so, how do I get it in or, if not, how do I keep it out? The place to start is at the very beginning—when your client walks in the door. The first time you hear your client’s story, the evidentiary analysis must begin. What is the nature of your client’s problem? Is there documentation relevant to the resolution of the case? Who are the players in the drama? How did each person your client mentions come to know the facts, i.e., have they lived the facts or were they told the facts?

You must determine why each piece of evidence is relevant to the issues the jury has to resolve. As you analyze your proofs, ask yourself where are the witnesses you anticipate calling, what are your exhibits, why is it relevant? Do these proofs speak to the jury’s task of determining whether a fact of consequence (a material fact) to the action more probably exists than not? How is this competent evidence to be introduced for the jury’s consideration?

Your primary focus must be the evidence you need to prove the elements of the claim or the defense you will seek to present to the jury. In my years on the bench, I have been shocked consistently by how, despite experience, lawyers fail to think about trial from the very start of their involvement in a case.

As a U.S. district judge, my initial contact with the lawyers was usually several months into the case, absent entreaties seeking injunctive relief. I loved to engage the lawyers in discussions about how they view their case—strengths and weaknesses, especially troublesome or ticklish evidentiary issues. On occasion, lawyers mentioned their reliance on a document or statement by a particular witness. Seemingly proud of themselves as they set out their bulletproof case, I asked to their horror how they expected to get that item or statement in evidence? I was met with “I hadn’t thought of that,” or “Judge, it’s relevant. I just assumed I could get it in.”

These exchanges point out the essential challenge of the rules of evidence: The rules are intertwined and can never be analyzed casually or in isolation. Relevance is merely the first step. The piece of evidence—whatever it is—must survive other potential impediments, such as assertions of prejudice, hearsay, and the like.

The important thing to remember about relevance is that it requires thoughtful consideration from the inception of your involvement in the litigation. The mere invocation of the claim that a piece of evidence is relevant will not necessarily carry the day and lead to a favorable ruling of admission by the judge. The relevance objection simply asks the judge to intervene when the interrelationship between the evidence and the theory or defense of the case is not apparent or when it is crystal clear but a legitimate basis for exclusion of the evidence also exists.

Of course, the X factor in this and every other evidentiary consideration is the judge. One piece of advice I learned early in my career that bears repeating now is “Know your judge.” A simple axiom, but one that is critical to your success. Your due diligence in learning all you can about the jurist who holds the keys to your client’s future requires that you know whether she is experienced or not, a trial maven in reality or in her mind, a buttinsky or not. Knowing this information will guide you, or at least give you an inkling of what is to come; specifically, the level of discourse on evidence, whether it is detailed and thorough or cursory and seat-of-the-pants.

As a young federal prosecutor, I learned that certain judges had reputations regarding their knowledge of, and facility with, the rules of evidence. Some judges took the view that the red face or smell test was their guide to admissibility because the jury would ultimately ferret it all out. Others, probably the majority, believed that their role as an evidence gatekeeper required them to be stern and exacting taskmasters who make the most narrow of rulings on evidentiary matters.

At times, relevance is a matter of nuance. Your fear is that you may be giving too much away to your adversary with a detailed explanation to the judge. My advice is to err on the side of too much because—to use a permutation of a now-hackneyed phrase—if it doesn’t get in, you cannot win.

What should you be prepared to do? If a pithy response at the time of the objection fails to allay the court’s concerns, ask for an opportunity to make an offer of proof (this is found in Rule 103). Any time a judge is uncertain about where you, as a strategic matter, are going, he will ask you for an offer of proof. Experienced lawyers will sometimes require offers of proof on every witness and regarding every potentially damaging piece of evidence; not because it is warranted, but to rattle you.

If pressed by the judge, be prepared to literally connect the strategic dots for him. Such an offer is not per usual, but you must be prepared to support your offer with a cogent explanation of how the evidence ties into your theory of the case and the interrelationship between that evidence and other evidence as well. This analysis is at the core of determining relevant evidence.

If you happen to survive the offer of proof and the relevance objection, be certain to be prepared to support the introduction of your evidence by deflecting any specter of prejudice.

 

[clarksvol00]

It should be Wild Turkey night when you post a question & then answered your own question.

Not sure how that happened, I obviously intended to reply to @Boca Vol response... but maybe you're right and I'm gonna use this as an excuse to make it a 101 night.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Not sure how that happened, I obviously intended to reply to @Boca Vol response... but maybe you're right and I'm gonna use this as an excuse to make it a 101 night.

I'm just messing w/you a little. I've answered myself a time or two before.

 

[Boca Vol]

Not sure how that happened, I obviously intended to reply to @Boca Vol response... but maybe you're right and I'm gonna use this as an excuse to make it a 101 night.

It's OK. I'm knocking back a few myself. But I know what I'm talking about!

 

[clarksvol00]

Here you go from the ABA (American Bar Association):

It seems elementary, but relevancy is central to any discussion of the rules of evidence. The best way to think about relevancy is to envision the evidence you need to introduce as it relates to the complaint, the answer, or the indictment. But this is only half of the story. The journey to determine what is relevant and what is not also applies to your adversary. What is the evidence she will seek to produce and by what means or arguments is it relevant?

Rule 401 states that relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Great words, but what do they mean? In building your case or in understanding your opponent’s case, you must make a simple determination: Is it relevant, and if so, how do I get it in or, if not, how do I keep it out? The place to start is at the very beginning—when your client walks in the door. The first time you hear your client’s story, the evidentiary analysis must begin. What is the nature of your client’s problem? Is there documentation relevant to the resolution of the case? Who are the players in the drama? How did each person your client mentions come to know the facts, i.e., have they lived the facts or were they told the facts?

You must determine why each piece of evidence is relevant to the issues the jury has to resolve. As you analyze your proofs, ask yourself where are the witnesses you anticipate calling, what are your exhibits, why is it relevant? Do these proofs speak to the jury’s task of determining whether a fact of consequence (a material fact) to the action more probably exists than not? How is this competent evidence to be introduced for the jury’s consideration?

Your primary focus must be the evidence you need to prove the elements of the claim or the defense you will seek to present to the jury. In my years on the bench, I have been shocked consistently by how, despite experience, lawyers fail to think about trial from the very start of their involvement in a case.

As a U.S. district judge, my initial contact with the lawyers was usually several months into the case, absent entreaties seeking injunctive relief. I loved to engage the lawyers in discussions about how they view their case—strengths and weaknesses, especially troublesome or ticklish evidentiary issues. On occasion, lawyers mentioned their reliance on a document or statement by a particular witness. Seemingly proud of themselves as they set out their bulletproof case, I asked to their horror how they expected to get that item or statement in evidence? I was met with “I hadn’t thought of that,” or “Judge, it’s relevant. I just assumed I could get it in.”

These exchanges point out the essential challenge of the rules of evidence: The rules are intertwined and can never be analyzed casually or in isolation. Relevance is merely the first step. The piece of evidence—whatever it is—must survive other potential impediments, such as assertions of prejudice, hearsay, and the like.

The important thing to remember about relevance is that it requires thoughtful consideration from the inception of your involvement in the litigation. The mere invocation of the claim that a piece of evidence is relevant will not necessarily carry the day and lead to a favorable ruling of admission by the judge. The relevance objection simply asks the judge to intervene when the interrelationship between the evidence and the theory or defense of the case is not apparent or when it is crystal clear but a legitimate basis for exclusion of the evidence also exists.

Of course, the X factor in this and every other evidentiary consideration is the judge. One piece of advice I learned early in my career that bears repeating now is “Know your judge.” A simple axiom, but one that is critical to your success. Your due diligence in learning all you can about the jurist who holds the keys to your client’s future requires that you know whether she is experienced or not, a trial maven in reality or in her mind, a buttinsky or not. Knowing this information will guide you, or at least give you an inkling of what is to come; specifically, the level of discourse on evidence, whether it is detailed and thorough or cursory and seat-of-the-pants.

As a young federal prosecutor, I learned that certain judges had reputations regarding their knowledge of, and facility with, the rules of evidence. Some judges took the view that the red face or smell test was their guide to admissibility because the jury would ultimately ferret it all out. Others, probably the majority, believed that their role as an evidence gatekeeper required them to be stern and exacting taskmasters who make the most narrow of rulings on evidentiary matters.

At times, relevance is a matter of nuance. Your fear is that you may be giving too much away to your adversary with a detailed explanation to the judge. My advice is to err on the side of too much because—to use a permutation of a now-hackneyed phrase—if it doesn’t get in, you cannot win.

What should you be prepared to do? If a pithy response at the time of the objection fails to allay the court’s concerns, ask for an opportunity to make an offer of proof (this is found in Rule 103). Any time a judge is uncertain about where you, as a strategic matter, are going, he will ask you for an offer of proof. Experienced lawyers will sometimes require offers of proof on every witness and regarding every potentially damaging piece of evidence; not because it is warranted, but to rattle you.

If pressed by the judge, be prepared to literally connect the strategic dots for him. Such an offer is not per usual, but you must be prepared to support your offer with a cogent explanation of how the evidence ties into your theory of the case and the interrelationship between that evidence and other evidence as well. This analysis is at the core of determining relevant evidence.

If you happen to survive the offer of proof and the relevance objection, be certain to be prepared to support the introduction of your evidence by deflecting any specter of prejudice.

"Your Honor, this 9 year old saw the alleged murder and recounted the events as he or she saw them, therefore his testimony is relevant."

Your post is an awfully long quote, but from what I saw it does not say that redundant testimony is irrelevant testimony. I bet trial judges have a lot of discretion about when to exclude redundant testimony, and excluding redundant testimony would be good (in this case) for the defense on appeal as opposed to the prosecutor.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

"Your Honor, this 9 year old saw the alleged murder and recounted the events as he or she saw them, therefore his testimony is relevant."

Your post is an awfully long quote, but from what I saw it does not say that redundant testimony is irrelevant testimony. I bet trial judges have a lot of discretion about when to exclude redundant testimony, and excluding redundant testimony would be good (in this case) for the defense on appeal as opposed to the prosecutor.

Lol .... what murder did this 9 year old see. The dude died from being ****ed up on too many drugs & sh!t in his system & also resisting & fighting with the police.. Learn to comply w/police demands & you just might live longer.

 

[Boca Vol]

"Your Honor, this 9 year old saw the alleged murder and recounted the events as he or she saw them, therefore his testimony is relevant."

Your post is an awfully long quote, but from what I saw it does not say that redundant testimony is irrelevant testimony. I bet trial judges have a lot of discretion about when to exclude redundant testimony, and excluding redundant testimony would be good (in this case) for the defense on appeal as opposed to the prosecutor.

How many trials they see are filmed and cause a national riot? I'd say very few. The whole world saw GF die. A 9 year old's testimony isn't going to add evidentiary value. PERIOD!

 

[hUTch2002]

There’s a difference between liberal and authoritarian leftist. Classical liberals are fine, hell I’d almost call myself that. It’s the authoritarian steak some of them have developed the last 25 years that I can’t abide

 

[clarksvol00]

Lol .... what murder did this 9 year old see. The dude died from being ****ed up on too many drugs & sh!t in his system & also resisting & fighting with the police.. Learn to comply w/police demands & you just might live longer.

I said "alleged." The prosecution has put on their proof that from medical experts, the defense has put on their proof. The jurors will have to weigh that. If they find the defense medical proof lacking they may have to turn to the witness testimony.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I said "alleged." The prosecution has put on their proof that from medical experts, the defense has put on their proof. The jurors will have to weigh that. If they find the defense medical proof lacking they may have to turn to the witness testimony.

Blah blah blah ..... comply w/police demands & you won't end up dead. GF killed himself by resisting & fighting.