Did this really just happen?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Wrong question. Try harder.

Can a judge allow information that is irrelevant? As I said, I thought it didn't matter, and EAllusion said it could affect the jury.

[_Res Ipsa]

Wrong question. Try harder.

Can a judge allow evidence that is irrelevant? As I said, I thought it didn't matter, and EAllusion said it could affect the jury.

Wrong question again. Try harder.

[_Jersey Girl]

I have no idea why he thinks he knows more than you do about evidence at a murder trial. Hell, I’d check myself before contradicting you on that subject.

You said, "I don't think it matters whether he was asphyxiated or had a heart attack for purposes of a third-degree murder charge."

The judge is not supposed to allow things that are irrelevant. So can you please clarify your comment?

THIS is what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to support a 3rd degree murder charge:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree.

It doesn't matter if he died of asphyxiation or heart attack (or stroke for that matter) what matters is that he died as a result of the actions of Ex-officer Chauvin whose actions meet the criteria above.

Here's the other thing. He's been charged with manslaughter I believe. You will likely see additional charges lobbed on to the case.

Example: Manslaughter, Murder in the third degree

Could BOTH be the charges against him as well as other types of charges such as aggravation. These are all separate charges.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Wrong question again. Try harder.

EAllusion said, "I could see it mattering to a jury. Not that it should"

So if it shouldn't matter to a jury, why would a judge allow it? It doesn't make sense, you can't have it both ways.

[_Gunnar]

Am I the first one to suggest that defending Derek Chauvin is a whole new definition of "Chauvinistic?"

[_Jersey Girl]

Am I the first one to suggest that defending Derek Chauvin is a whole new definition of "Chauvinistic?"

Oh that is just bad form, Gunnar.


Chauvin does, however, deserve to be defended in a court of law.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter if he died of asphyxiation or heart attack (or stroke for that matter) what matters is that he died as a result of the actions of Ex-Officer Chauvin whose actions meet the criteria above.

Okay. If the autopsy report includes "did not die of asphyxiation", then the judge shouldn't allow the full report in court. Is that much better?

[_Jersey Girl]

Res Ipsa said, "I don't think it matters whether he was asphyxiated or had a heart attack for purposes of a third-degree murder charge." Is he correct?

I think there is reason to believe that an ongoing cover-up has been attempted. I doubt it will succeed. Look, you cannot kneel on someone's neck for an extended period of time and not have a fatal result. To then claim there was no evidence of asphyxiation is blatant dishonesty.

If the victim and the murderer both worked at the same place for a number of years in security, was there bad blood between them?

What was Mr. Floyd's official cause of death, Mok?

[Guest]

Wrong question again. Try harder.

Okay. If the autopsy report includes "did not die of asphyxiation" or "died of a hearth attack", then the judge shouldn't allow the full report in court. Is that much better?

[_Jersey Girl]

It doesn't matter if he died of asphyxiation or heart attack (or stroke for that matter) what matters is that he died as a result of the actions of Ex-Officer Chauvin whose actions meet the criteria above.

Okay. If the autopsy report includes "did not died of asphyxiation or heart attack", then the judge shouldn't allow the full report in court. Is that much better?

It's still wrong.

The full autopsy report will be entered into evidence by the prosecution.
Both sides will use the autopsy report.
The autopsy report will determine the following:

Cause of death.
Manner of death.

If the cause of death cannot be determined, they can still successfully prosecute the case based on the manner of death--which will be homicide.