Posted on 04/14/2021 2:10:58 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The Minneapolis judge overseeing the Derek Chauvin trial has granted the man who was with George Floyd when police confronted him, and who was alleged to have sold Floyd drugs in the past, his right not to testify at the ex-officer’s ongoing trial.
Judge Peter Cahill has granted Morries Lester Hall’s motion to quash a subpoena calling for him to testify in Chauvin’s murder and manslaughter trial.
Hall, whose name has also been listed in court papers as "Maurice," appeared in Hennepin County Court on Wednesday morning, when he told a judge he would not answer attorneys’ questions if he took the stand out of concern that he might incriminate himself.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The state won’t give it to him!!
The defense asked the judge to ask the state why not but he rejected it
I should note in the opening statement the defense said Floyd took 2 pills in the car...I assume that was in Halls statement from the interview since the other witness in the car didn’t mention it
Some people call him Maurice.
I really doubt that the prosecution wants to remind the jurors that Saint George was engaged in illegal drug activity and was not in full control of his faculties. Hence, no plea deal.
Miscarriage of justice.
The judge could force him to take the stand and he was free to plead the 5th to all questioning during the DEFENSE portion of the case. That way the jury could see that he refused to answer questions about giving Floyd drugs.
Instead the judge drops the witness altogether so the jury can’t be bothered.
The state isn’t going to offer immunity for testimony that undercuts their case.
Also, he might have some exposure on federal charges as well. I’m not sure how that works considering the smaller amounts we’re discussing.
Y-you mean trials aren’t a quest for truth and justice though the heavens tremble? They’re adversarial wrastlin’ matches? My world is crushed. The heavens tremble.
I wonder how far the defense will be allowed togo in telling the jury about this witness, what they intended to ask him, and the fact that he refused to testify.
I’m a winner
Probably not one word.
They don't need him. The woman in the back seat has already testified.
Under oath, she stated that George was alert and in good spirits while in the store, but that once he got back to the car he kept passing out.
The store clerk confirmed the same thing when trying to get George to come back into the store over the fake $20.
and he speaks with the ?? Pompidence ?? of love...lol
I have no idea what that word is. Maybe it’s confidence??
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall . . . have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . .”
He should have to take the 5th from the stand. His assertion of the 5th is itself relevant evidence.
Chauvin is screwed! No way in hell is he going to walk...NO WAY IN HELL!! Keep his family in prayer..so sad!
Sounds like just the fact that he was there and won’t testify should put doubt in jurors minds, as to what really happened. Acquittal is much preferable to mistrial.
Sounds like just the fact that he was there and won’t testify should put doubt in jurors minds, as to what really happened.
I am sure they are wondering why he didn’t testify
They only know that he was mentioned many times and that he gave the fake name “Ricardo” on the body cams (assuming they caught that)
F i got that crap on replay in my head
LOL. I would whistle tunes at the office and my business partner would get mad that the song was stuck in his head. So when he would leave the office I’d write the lyrics on a posty note and put it in his chair. He’d come back, read it and yell...dang it!!! back again...
If his testimony is part of a a resulting not-guilty verdict, he will be a target.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.