Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 03/29/2024 View Thu 03/28/2024 View Wed 03/27/2024 View Tue 03/26/2024 View Mon 03/25/2024 View Sun 03/24/2024 View Sat 03/23/2024
2021-04-13 -War on Police-
Chauvin Trial - What the State Has to Show - Branco
See also here.
[Legal Insurrection] The key is that the point at which the state rests its case is normally the high point of the prosecution’s narrative of guilt, the point at which reasonable doubt has been eliminated to the greatest degree likely to be achieved at any point in the trial. From here on the narrative presented to the jury is primarily the narrative of the defense, which is the narrative that drives an increase, not decrease, in reasonable doubt—and reasonable doubt is the key to acquittal.

So, if this is the highpoint of the state’s narrative of guilt, and by extension the point at which reasonable doubt should have been eliminated to the greatest degree in the entirety of the trial, has the state really met that burden? Has reasonable doubt been effectively eliminated? Has the state met the threshold required for conviction? Because if they haven’t done it before the defense even has its turn on the field of legal combat, they’re not likely to achieve it moving forward.

Keep in mind, the state really has to prove two different claims to arrive at criminal misconduct on the part of Chauvin in the death of Floyd.

First, the state has to prove that Chauvin’s conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death—that would be sufficient for the third-degree murder charge. Even the other charges do not require that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd. Apparently not even the prosecution believes this was an act of intentional RACISTPOLICEMURDER!!! Or we would see an intentional killing charge in this case, and we do not.

But I see many in the media reporting as if that’s all the state has to do, is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin’s conduct was a significant contributory cause of Floyd’s death. If that were correct, a conviction would seem at the very least highly possible—after all, the truth is almost certainly that Floyd died not of any single cause but of multiple forces racing together to take his life—his profound heart disease, his dangerous hypertension, his deadly-levels of fentanyl complicated by methamphetamine, his decision to forcibly resist the efforts of four police officers to make his lawful arrest. But also, of course, that force used by police, including the subdual restraint.

Does that get us to a conviction?

No, because there’s a second condition that must also be met in order for that conduct that may have made a significant contribution to Floyd’s death to be a crime—the conduct itself must in some manner be legally wrongful. If the conduct was lawful, it cannot be the basis for criminal liability.
Posted by Mercutio 2021-04-13 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ]  Top

#1 It matters little what the state shows - the jurors just need to have more fear of retaliation than courage to overcome it. That becomes easier to rationalize if the state provides a minimum of 'cover'. Or they may rationalize a guilty verdict with the thought that they have to do it to prevent riots destroying their town.
Posted by Glenmore 2021-04-13 05:08||   2021-04-13 05:08|| Front Page Top

#2 All the state (or the rioters) has to show is that we'll burn down your house if you jurors vote the wrong way.
Posted by Tom 2021-04-13 11:04||   2021-04-13 11:04|| Front Page Top










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com