Replies

In Pirro’s defense, the jury had sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. His attorney underestimated the impact of the video and relied entirely on his use of force experts and medical experts to refute what the jurors saw with their own eyes. The reason the verdicts came in so fast is because the only evidence they needed was the video of Chauvin dying while crying for his mama.

I doubt if they even discussed any of the expert testimony.

Chauvin’s attorney had an obligation to refute the video and the only witness available to do that was Chauvin himself. He needed to take the stand to give his side of what was in his mind for those nine minutes. He didn’t. In the minds of the jury they saw an evil man with evil intentions. Chauvin’s failure to tell his story sealed his fate.

Yes you have a right not to testify. But when your state of mind is the determining factor between involuntary manslaughter and murder, you’d better get up there and tell YOUR story.

Bad decision. I guess Chauvin was good at making bad decisions.

I agree that Chauvin's 'mind' was essential to proving the 2nd Degree murder. But, while Chauvin didn't express any denial of intent, the state didn't present any evidence of intent either. None, nada, zip, zero. Instead, it was left to the jury to infer. Inference isn't evidence. In any event, with respect to the cries of 'Momma,' a witness for the state - George Floyd's girlfriend - admitted under threat of perjury that Floyd wasn't calling for "his momma.' (colloquially his mother). Instead, he was calling for 'Momma.'

What's the difference? George Floyd's nickname for his girlfriend was - wait for it - 'Momma.' He was calling for his girlfriend as he was also calling for another name (which escapes me right now). Who was the other name he was calling for? His drug dealer who refused to testify and the state refused to immunize because his testimony would have wholly undermined their entire case.

Agreed. The only one who knew what was going through his mind was him. If he didn’t tell it, who else would?

Would the cross examination been tough? Sure, but even then, he was still the expert at what was going on in his own mind.

My personal opinion is that nothing would have gotten him off the 3rd degree murder charge.