In my last post on the Chauvin trial I pointed out why I think the jury rendered a guilty verdicts, though I continue to think the murder one was wrong. Yesterday I saw a report on an alternate juror that provides evidence supporting my reasoning.
Let's look at some of the statements:
Raguse: Why?
Christensen: I think the prosecution did a good presentation of their case. Dr. (Martin) Tobin was the one I really related to. I feel like all the doctors in one way or another said the same thing.
I said that the state presented a very strong argument. It was logical and importantly did so in a visual manner that was easy to follow. A lot of the people I see who are upset about the outcome clearly did not watch the trial or were so biased by their own belief that they could not understand just how strong a case the state made.
Raguse: Do you think that Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd’s death?
Christensen: I feel like the kneeling on the neck for so long did, yes.
Raguse: You heard a lot of testimony about use of force, was the force reasonable and did the knee cause Floyd’s death. Did it seem like those were the major questions that were presented to you?
Christensen: Yes, we heard a lot about the use of force, was it excessive, was it necessary, when do police officers stop it, and could it have been stopped at one point. I kept thinking about the critical decision-making model that was presented. It was in the back of my mind about how they said you must reassess constantly, and I felt like that was not done.
Raguse: Which witness convinced you that it was an unreasonable use of force?
Christensen: I thought (LAPD sergeant) Jody Stiger, the prosecution expert, did a good job of explaining it to us.
Raguse: Was it meaningful to you to have Minneapolis police officers testify against Chauvin?
Christensen: It was. Some of the trainers said, “I don’t even know what that is, we don’t train like that.” That was helpful to hear because they said they can use force, but it did not seem like they could use that type of force.
This point about when to stop is important. That Chauvin continued to lean on Floyd after he was non-responsive played a HUGE role in this case. And this was shown to the jury multiple times.
Raguse: When it came to the medical testimony, what was it about Dr. Tobin that was so impactful on you?
Christensen: He broke it down to where we could understand it. He had us demonstrate. We were all in the jury touching our necks and we could feel what he was trying to make us feel. What really did it was when he said, "right here at this point was when he (George Floyd) had that seizure and this is where he died."
Again, I mentioned that this guy's testimony was the most important of the case. He laid out a clear theory on how the death occurred and this jurors discussion on touching their own necks makes this point that much more strong. This is why I said that the defense needed to have a live demo of a guy of Floyd's build take a knee to the back and neck for 9 minutes (or however long it took for Floyd to pass out). The jury needed to SEE that Floyd would have survived. The defense provided no such demo.
Raguse: What was the key evidence in your opinion?
Christensen: The testimony by the experts, the forensics, and all the perspectives from the different videos. I think it would have been harder to understand exactly what happened, but the videos are what really nailed it.
How many times did I mention the impact of the video?
Raguse: Were you left with any lingering questions?
Christensen: At the very end, when no one really thought about the carbon monoxide issue. I was wondering why it was thrown in at the last minute. I did not know why they did not bring it up sooner if they were going to talk about it. Plus, nobody could say if the squad car was on or off.
I told you it was an EPIC mistake to mention the carbon monoxide at the end of the trial. It looked desperate and the jury thought so as well. The last thing you want your client to look like is desperate.
This is why I think that despite the riots and stuff that there will be no successful appeal, except perhaps the murder charge. I have access to more information than the jury had (or would have had) even if they were sequestered and I can see Chauvin being convicted.
The only way I see an appeal winning is if they can produce at least one juror who was going to acquit Chauvin but voted guilty due to the riots or potential threats to his or her life or property. If a juror comes out, on record saying this then I would absolutely expect the convictions to be thrown out
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
