Closing Arguments in George Floyd Murder Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 01:02:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Both sides gave their closing arguments in the case of Derek Chauvin, who is charged with the murder of George Floyd.

Was it murder?

The prosecutor reminded jurors that Floyd said "I can't breathe" 27 times in the first 4 minutes and 45 seconds of this encounter. He also said "9 minutes and 29 seconds" all throughout his presentation, reminding jurors of the length of time that Chauvin had Floyd pinned to the pavement.

"Was George Floyd resisting when he was trying to breathe? No," he said, adding that Chauvin chose to mock Floyd by saving, "It takes a lot of oxygen to complain."

Chauvin is charged with second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The prosecutor told the jury all the state had to prove was the Chauvin did it on purpose: [More...]

"The only thing about defendant's intent that we have to prove is that he applied force to George Floyd on purpose," Schleicher said. "Somebody's telling you they can't breathe and you keep doing it. You're doing it on purpose. ... How can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse."

The defense relied on reasonable doubt in closing as to what killed Floyd and said Chauvin acted reasonably given the situation:

Other considerations for Chauvin at the scene included the safety of other officers, bystanders and Floyd, Nelson added. Chauvin also had to consider being in a part of the city known to be a crime hot spot, along with information from dispatch that Floyd was a much larger man than himself who was possibly under the influence of drugs. Chauvin also had to take into account that the two officers who initially answered the call were rookies on the force.

< Johnson and Johnson Vaccine "Paused" in U.S. | Derek Chauvin Convicted On All Counts >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Closing Arguments in George Floyd Murder Trial | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

GUILTY! (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Chuck0 on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:59:25 PM EST

On all counts.

Wow (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 04:02:50 PM EST

Bail revoked and now a quest of the state.


: Justice. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by desertswine on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 04:04:06 PM EST

: Should be (none / 0) (#36)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 04:31:07 PM EST

Guest and not quest. It has been a long, long quest to get to this point so maybe it is relevant.

I thought the prosecution (none / 0) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 01:51:56 PM EST

was pretty good. Not so much the defense. Parts of the defense closing almost sounded like the prosecution closing.

What would a reasonable cop do...

Several reasonable cops explained what they would do.

I've been listening all day.

: Legalguy on MSNBC (none / 0) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 02:07:06 PM EST

..rambling incoherent and way too long.
Yep
The judge broke for lunch in the middle. Which seems odd.

Wow (none / 0) (#3)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 04:00:05 PM EST

Judge: Congress woman Waters May have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned

Some are (none / 0) (#4)
by KeysDan on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 04:21:03 PM EST

predicting a hung jury.


This is interesting (none / 0) (#5)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 05:26:33 PM EST

This is the headline on RawStory

WATCH: Judge smacks down Derek Chauvin's lawyer for arguing Maxine Waters caused a mistrial

I invite anyone to watch the whole thing and call it a "smack down"

Also interesting the reporter leaves out the quote I posted.

He said it all at once and this guy is definitely cherry picking what he thinks his readers want.


It (none / 0) (#6)
by FlJoe on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 06:10:07 PM EST

seems all BS to me.

Aside from Covid this story has led more laps in the newscycle than anything over the past ten months. Pols and pundits have poured tons of possibly prejudicial commentary into the national discourse. Millions of Americans Marched in the streets chanting his name for heavens sake.

After all this, some over the top comment from a semi-random congresswoman from a far away state is supposed to matter?

Manson with his Nixon headline had a better cas if you ask me.

I totally agree (none / 0) (#7)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 06:15:54 PM EST

That why I was so shocked when the judge said what he did. What I quoted in the first comment. And he went on about how public figures should STFU about ongoing trials.

Of course it's nuts because everything he everywhere was talking about it.

The judge suggested Waters threatened "confrontation". The judge said that.


: P Wire (none / 0) (#9)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 06:54:42 PM EST

Maxine Waters' Comments May Be Grounds for Appeal
April 19, 2021 at 7:49 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 5 Comments
"The judge overseeing former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict in the trial," CNN reports.
Said Judge Peter Cahill: "I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
"Waters on Saturday night had called for protesters to `stay on the street' and `get more confrontational' if Chauvin is acquitted in Floyd's killing."

More honest and accurate headline (none / 0) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 07:33:24 PM EST

Chauvin Trial Judge Rips Into Rep. Maxine Waters For 'Confrontational' Remarks

A more accurate interpretation would be: (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Peter G on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 07:42:07 PM EST

Judge tells defense lawyer that Rep. Waters' remarks are not grounds for a mistrial, which is the same as saying that in his opinion her comments would not result in a reversal on appeal, but if counsel disagrees, he's always free to raise it on appeal and try to convince the appeals court that the judge was wrong. Judges say that all the time. It's judge-talk for "No way, but nice try."


I'm sure I have no idea what judges say (none / 0) (#13)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 07:47:42 PM EST

My point was if he was smacking down anyone it was Maxine Waters. At some length.


The (none / 0) (#15)
by FlJoe on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 08:18:41 PM EST

judge used similar language when denying the first mistrial motion.


: Mediaite (none / 0) (#16)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 08:24:30 PM EST

"Nelson had not mentioned Waters by name, but Cahill was clear on the reference he was making. "Well, I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," the judge said, "but what's the state's position?"
"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning," Cahill continued, clearly perturbed. "I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that's disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful -- and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government. Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don't think it's prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury."
The jury had been told not to watch the news, he explained and he trusted that they were following those instructions and did not feel one congresswoman's opinion was enough to taint the entire process.
"Anyway, so, motion for mistrial is denied."

I can't envision an acquittal based (none / 0) (#18)
by MO Blue on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 09:22:47 PM EST

on what I've seen of the evidence. OTOH, I would not be surprised if one jurist held out and forced a hung jury. I would strongly disagree with that outcome but think that may very well happen.


: Can you envision (none / 0) (#22)
by smott on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 09:14:11 AM EST

One racist juror looking for an excuse to acquit?
I'm afraid I can.

Waters is a Litigant Against Trump (none / 0) (#8)
by RickyJim on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 06:35:07 PM EST

for stoking the Jan. 5 insurrection. Jonathan Turley thinks Waters will make a good defense witness. :-)


Should have (none / 0) (#21)
by smott on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 09:11:47 AM EST

Sequestered the jury after the Taser/gun shooting


The most telling sign this evening will be (none / 0) (#12)
by Peter G on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 07:47:22 PM EST

whether the jury decides to call it a day after dinner, or asks the judge to keep their deliberation room open for them for a few hours after. If they ask to come back after dinner, it would be a sign that the jury feels, from their first hour or two of discussion (which often includes a straw vote), that they may have a quick verdict. If on the other hand they say, let's just resume fresh tomorrow morning, it would be an indication that they think they may need a long time, maybe a couple of days, or even more, for deliberation.

Reading the animal entrails. (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 06:28:10 AM EST

Recent report (none / 0) (#20)
by MO Blue on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 07:50:25 AM EST

The jury deliberated until 9 p.m.


: ok, then (none / 0) (#24)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 02:19:36 PM EST

I was wrong again!

Must Both of These be Proved BRD? (none / 0) (#14)
by RickyJim on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 08:07:40 PM EST

Chauvin knew that his actions might cause Floyd to die.
Floyd wouldn't have died if Chauvin's knee was not on Floyd's neck.

Are these sufficient for both the manslaughter and murder counts?

Second Degree Manslaughter (none / 0) (#17)
by RickyJim on Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 08:52:40 PM EST

seems to be the closest fit.

Second Element: The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd, by culpable negligence, whereby the Defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. "Culpable negligence" is intentional conduct that the Defendant may not have intended to be harmful but that an ordinary and reasonable prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others.

Jury Instructions


: It was not culpable negligence, ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 11:43:32 AM EST

... which would imply that Officer Chauvin's conduct was reckless but he didn't know any better. As numerous MPD superiors testified, he had 19 years on the force and most certainly did know better. He deliberately disregarded both his training and department policy.

The (none / 0) (#25)
by FlJoe on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 02:26:15 PM EST

jury has reached a verdict.

To be announced (none / 0) (#26)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:00:48 PM EST

at 5 pm Eastern (4 pm local). This is not how I would expect a hung jury to go, so it is very likely a real verdict. Since a unanimous acquittal seems improbable, it is very likely a conviction, although perhaps for less than the most serious charge.


Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by KeysDan on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:23:19 PM EST

this how I see it. A compromise all could rather readily agree to ---maybe. the manslaughter charge.


Is this quick? (none / 0) (#27)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:15:42 PM EST

It seems quick.


Relatively quick, yes. (none / 0) (#29)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:28:22 PM EST

Not extraordinarily, quick, like the jury is out two hours after a two-week trial. But if there were substantial disagreement among the jurors after the first round of discussion, you would expect at least a couple of days to iron it all out.


Seems like that might make (none / 0) (#30)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:39:27 PM EST

Conviction more likely. I obviously have no idea what's coming but I would not be surprised if he was convicted on the most serious stuff. IMO he should be.

I would not be that surprised if he was not but it feels like a guilty. It just seems so obvious. To me.


: Also (none / 0) (#31)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:42:54 PM EST

the way this has unfolded. With the other deaths during the trial in the same area.
It really feels like a moment. The jury surely feels that too.

Let's just hope justice is served by the verdict. (none / 0) (#32)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 20, 2021 at 03:52:39 PM EST

It's out of our hands.


CDC & FDA have decided to end (none / 0) (#37)
by Peter G on Fri Apr 23, 2021 at 06:27:38 PM EST

the J&J "pause." There were 15 cases of the blood clot side effect detected out of 8 million J&J shots; that is, less than two in a million. Is there any risk that is even comparable that we would endanger our lives to avoid?

: Not that I know of (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 23, 2021 at 07:24:02 PM EST

As many people have pointed out, birth control pills are more dangerous.