I have been watching some of the Derek Chauvin trial, including the defense's closing argument to the jury this morning, and I think I would fire all the lawyers and start over with some new ones who had at least a flicker of passion in their performances. It is so low-key you'd think they were arguing over a parking ticket. And it started off so well with the prosecution showing the excruciatingly long video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck until he was dead.
I've watched almost the entirety of the trial online. Watching online is certainly a timesaver as you can skip past the breaks, lunches, and silent sidebar conferences.
I thought the prosecution presented an excellent case for an unauthorized and unlawful excessive use of force leading to the cause of death. I also though they had a well balanced presentation to humanize George Floyd to the jury.
The prosecution is walking multiple tightropes simultaneously in their presentation. Although the jury will have access to the exhibits that were entered, they will not have access to a trial transcript for review. They have to rely on their memory and notes for witness testimony. So, they need to drive home specific points without becoming so repetitious that it dilutes the impact. They also have to present the strongest case they can without giving the jury an appearance of bias toward the defendant or the withholding of any evidence not favorable to their case. They also want to present a vigorous prosecution and strong rebuttal to defense arguments while trying to avoid grounds for the defense to appeal. Unsurprisingly, as soon as the case was given over to the jury, the defense began presenting motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error to lay the groundwork for appeal in case of a guilty verdict.
The defense was relatively brief in presenting a small number of witnesses to rebut the legion of witnesses presented by the prosecution. They appear to have decided to attempt to sow just enough reasonable doubt regarding use of force and cause of death to avoid conviction. Why they decided on such a limited defense strategy isn't clear to me. Perhaps it's partly an awareness of how difficult it is to get a guilty verdict against a police officer due to the difficulty of drawing a bright line between use of force and unlawfully excessive use of force. I thought the defense did a better job in sowing doubt regarding use of force than they did cause of death.
In any event, it's a fools errand to predict jury decisions. No decision made by the jury would be a surprise to me, regardless of how one personally views the trial proceedings or the event that led to it.
