Until Proven Guilty

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

This is the kind of analysis the jury is likely to hear in the Floyd case, which is why I’ve been saying all along that it’s going to be a tough case to win.

Not saying this guy is correct, or that the jury will find his analysis persuasive, but this column shows why serving on the jury is not as simple as watching the video before voting to convict.  The defense gets a turn, too.

Joe Doakes

Attorney friends tell me Earl Gray is the real deal, defense-wise.

In other words, buckle in and pray for an April blizzard.

8 thoughts on “Until Proven Guilty

  1. I have recommended to many people that they should avoid fentanyl, don’t circulate counterfeit bills or fight with law enforcement officers.

  2. I haven’t watched the full body cam videos, but I’ve read the transcripts. I noticed that when the Strib ran the body cam article yesterday they showed a photo of Lane’s gun pointed at Floyd, and their printed summary of the video referenced only the most inflammatory police excerpts.

    It’s almost as if they want to cover more rioting.

  3. Chauvin had already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion with no regard for the facts. No jury in the US will acquit him. Jury pool is tainted to the max. Throw in a Hakim-friendly judge, which will happen, and you can write the verdict right now. And if you still believe there is still a rule of law in this country, you are a naive fool. Just look a the headlines.

  4. Don’t forget the “Dream Team” of pro bono lawyers that volunteered to help Ellison prosecute a white cop for killing a black guy. (Can you imagine the reaction if lawyers volunteered to help prosecute Mohammed Noor for killing a white woman?)

  5. Golfdoc, I’m guessing Floyd was saying he’d been playing basketball, not raping teen boys, but yes, that’s ick.

    Regarding the prosecution, yes, it does seem as if people are designing the process to cause riots by over-charging and not delivering the “goods” or evidence needed to convict. At this point, my most likely hypothesis is that using force to “subdue” someone who was already cuffed prevented police from recognizing the signs of distress and administering Narcan.

    One note, though; I asked a friend who is a pathologist at Mayo about posthumous blood tests and how well you can correlate them with lethality, and apparently drugs/poisons/etc.. tend to distribute themselves differently after death than in life. So there will be an interesting battle in court, I’d guess, about the significance of those blood tests. Floyd clearly had drugs in his system; how lethal the dose was, or would have been if Narcan had been administered, would be a subject of debate.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.