1. #18361
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.
    I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

    1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
    2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.
    All "innocent until proven guilty" means is you get your trial before your conviction and sentencing, rather than being summarily convicted without a trial and having to sue for release (and in the course of that, prove your innocence).

    It does not extend one iota further than that in any way whatsoever.

    There is no evidence to support the idea that it was drugs (literally no overdose; you're lying there) or underlying illness that killed Floyd. Both autopsies confirm his death was homicide via asphyxiation. There's no exculpatory evidence to be had, at all. Even if we want to consider the CO argument, holding someone down in car exhaust until they die of CO poisoning is a cool theory, still murder.

    But I get it. You're gonna defend the white cop murdering the black man no matter the facts of the case.

  2. #18362
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151



    That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

    The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.
    Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...

    This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure. Like not allowing video evidence of an act to be admissible. The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.

    Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-04-15 at 04:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  3. #18363
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

    1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
    2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.
    I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...
    I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure.
    Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.
    It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?
    The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.

  4. #18364
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.



    Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.



    It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.



    The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.
    This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit... perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

    “You had your shot you can’t now show objective fact to disprove the fantasy the defence created”
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  5. #18365
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit...
    Again, it may be, but there's a reason for it.

    Allowing "surprise evidence" late into the trial, without going through another round of discovery or whatever method of introducing it is necessary, has the possibility to throw countless trials into disarray. I'm not gonna argue courts are fair, we know they're not, even if they're supposed to be. But rules like this are put in place with the goal of that fairness for the prosecution and defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating
    Mass incarceration is an entirely unrelated problem to rules around discovery and introducing evidence.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not remotely happy with this situation. And I'd love to know if the prosecution simply fucked up and we can get mad at them for such an oversight, because right now there's nothing indicating that the defense witness said anything that wasn't a part of the discovery process.

  6. #18366
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    22,993
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast. I'm not a fan of that idea.
    And yet we live in a system where certain job titles come with immunities, implicit or explicit.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  7. #18367
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.
    There is actually NO CASE for a fucking overdose, you would know this if you had been watching the fucking trial at all.

  8. #18368
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    There is actually NO CASE for a fucking overdose, you would know this if you had been watching the fucking trial at all.
    There seems to be a rather large one given the toxicology report and the convince store video. I don't really want to jump in as at this point it feels like people want to fight about it. It looks rather clear that reasonable doubt exists here.

  9. #18369
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    There seems to be a rather large one given the toxicology report and the convince store video. I don't really want to jump in as at this point it feels like people want to fight about it. It looks rather clear that reasonable doubt exists here.
    I mean, if you literally only listened to the defense's witness, sure. But he was hardly the only witness to speak on the autopsy results, and was the only one that came to that conclusion.

  10. #18370
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?
    The U.S. court system is set up in favor of the defendant - the "innocent until proven guilty" motif is spread throughout the entire process. And in most cases we want it to be just like this - and in our history it has been absent so many times (think black suspect being coerced to "confess" to a crime).

    So when the defense is putting forth their arguments, they can present alternative theories, to pierce that "reasonable doubt" threshold prosecutors must meet. If there are alternate theories that the defense can back up with some kind of legitimate evidence, then they can introduce them in the trial. The prosecution needs to be ready to defeat those claims, and in almost all cases knows ahead of time what people will be testifying (so the prosecution can opposition prep, ect).

    That statement from the judge about late evidence and a possible mistrial is interesting - I need to look at it some more.

  11. #18371
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    There seems to be a rather large one given the toxicology report and the convince store video. I don't really want to jump in as at this point it feels like people want to fight about it. It looks rather clear that reasonable doubt exists here.
    Wrong. I will go with the expert, over a ban evading alt account trying to defend the murderer.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56670912

  12. #18372
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean, if you literally only listened to the defense's witness, sure. But he was hardly the only witness to speak on the autopsy results, and was the only one that came to that conclusion.
    I mean what autopsy? The one who said he died of overdose? The one who said he died of covid or the ones who said he died of affixation?

    It really seems like people only want evidence that aligns with the outcome they have already predetermined to be true. Give what happened before and after the arrest it looks like a overdose. He was already having spasms before police involvement. When I look at everything I can't really accept that this is open and shut.

  13. #18373
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The U.S. court system is set up in favor of the defendant - the "innocent until proven guilty" motif is spread throughout the entire process. And in most cases we want it to be just like this - and in our history it has been absent so many times (think black suspect being coerced to "confess" to a crime).

    So when the defense is putting forth their arguments, they can present alternative theories, to pierce that "reasonable doubt" threshold prosecutors must meet. If there are alternate theories that the defense can back up with some kind of legitimate evidence, then they can introduce them in the trial. The prosecution needs to be ready to defeat those claims, and in almost all cases knows ahead of time what people will be testifying (so the prosecution can opposition prep, ect).

    That statement from the judge about late evidence and a possible mistrial is interesting - I need to look at it some more.
    Declaring it a mistrial would be interesting on top of if the prosecution didn't include the entire blood tox reports as their evidence. If they did, CO2 levels should be in it already.

  14. #18374
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151



    That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

    The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.
    I'm not seeing that quote you list above from the link.

  15. #18375
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I mean what autopsy? The one who said he died of overdose? The one who said he died of covid or the ones who said he died of affixation?

    It really seems like people only want evidence that aligns with the outcome they have already predetermined to be true. Give what happened before and after the arrest it looks like a overdose. He was already having spasms before police involvement. When I look at everything I can't really accept that this is open and shut.
    There was literally NO AUTOPSY that says he died of a fucking overdose. Both of them have stated he died of asphyxiation. None said he died of Covid either,

  16. #18376
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I mean what autopsy? The one who said he died of overdose? The one who said he died of covid or the ones who said he died of affixation?

    It really seems like people only want evidence that aligns with the outcome they have already predetermined to be true. Give what happened before and after the arrest it looks like a overdose. He was already having spasms before police involvement. When I look at everything I can't really accept that this is open and shut.
    Can you link the separate autopsies that conclude your observations above? Is there on in evidence that claims he died of an overdose? Or COVID?

  17. #18377
    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    I mean what autopsy? The one who said he died of overdose? The one who said he died of covid or the ones who said he died of affixation?
    Nobody said he died of covid, only that he tested positive for it. That's a pretty big tell about where you're coming from with this.

  18. #18378
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,282
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    Declaring it a mistrial would be interesting on top of if the prosecution didn't include the entire blood tox reports as their evidence. If they did, CO2 levels should be in it already.
    How did they not include the entire blood toxicity report? Where are you seeing that?

  19. #18379
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Can you link the separate autopsies that conclude your observations above? Is there on in evidence that claims he died of an overdose? Or COVID?
    I don't honestly know if I can. I admit I don't want to scan through hours of trial to find it brought up and would you accept any link that wasn't an official newspaper publication?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2a5_story.html

    Touches on it but they won't actually go into details about waving it away as something they always try to do.. I can maybe find a screen cap?

    This one is a bit better

    https://news.wttw.com/2021/04/10/hea...-cause-medical

  20. #18380
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm not seeing that quote you list above from the link.
    Weird, not sure what's up. This should work, note that I snipped out a paragraph between those two quotes - https://abc11.com/derek-chauvin-wont...eath/10516594/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •