Re Chauvin: The jury really had two choices: 1) return not guilty and watch the country burn down or 2) find him guilty and hear rational people peacefully complain. In the current culture of politics and pressure, no one should be surprised they chose number two. Now who can blame the first group for fighting for their position and power by "any means necessary?" Probably no one. The people who are to blame for the current political situation (where at least I believe the cause is already lost, the country is too far gone and will be an example someday of a failed experiment in Democracy) are those of the second group who side with, support, or do not counter the first group. While we fight over intangible, victimhood and fake problems of offending people, other countries deal with real issues that will move them forward e.g., we fight over gender while they build up their military – and yes, brain power, money, resources, are finite and we cannot devote every waking moment to "feelings and victimhood" while other countries grow militarily. Damn – too much coffee this morning haha
Overcharged by reason of the DA's lack of backbone. Guilty by reason of the political and media machines. Certainly appears to me to have been manslaughter only. Justice did not win yesterday, mob rule did.
Thank you for the post 10:06. It is amazing how much are country has changed in the last few years. But all "Empires" come to an end for reasons coming from within, not from enemies from the outside. We are to blame for our country's demise. All we can do is attempt to protect ourselves and our families from what the future will bear out. Good luck everyone!
10:06 – you seem to be the one obsessed with your own feelings of victimhood. Instead of constantly complaining "woe is me," I prefer that people take personal responsibility. Mr. Chauvin was found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and he should face the consequences.
Option 3a: Charge him with the crimes for which the elements appear to be proveable. Put him on trial. Let him put up his defense (with counsel that many of these same posters were lauding as brilliant). Let him be tried by Judge who is a former prosecutor and was appointed by a Republican governor in an otherwise relatively blue state. And then let a jury of his peers who has been kept off of media to make a decision.
We cannot honestly assert that only black people who get convicted get fair trial but when a white cop goes through the same system is just a victim of the system. Either we support the system as it is or we concede that the system is fatally broken.
Criminal law is not my strong suit and I admit I have not watched the trial yet (nor have I even seen the full video)…but please correct me if I am wrong here. I read on this blog some of you commentators said that someone testified Floyd would have died anyway due to the drugs in his system. Sorry if I am remembering incorrectly on that. But that obviously raises causation issues. I believe that for at least one of the charges the prosecution had to prove that Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death. Based on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the prosecution must meet, the jury could have potentially said to themselves "I think Chauvin's actions more than likely caused Floyd's death" (or even ‘highly likely’ caused)….and that should still result in a not guilty verdict. Correct?
I am just having difficulty seeing how the jury could have legitimately analyzed all of the different issues and the elements of each charge in the amount of time that they did.
I understand that systemic racism exists; however, just because it exists does not mean that juries get to take a pass on fully analyzing the facts of the individual case (and elements of the charges) in front of them.
Juries take copious notes. Jurors are given jury instructions that lay out what they are to analyze. A verdict coming back in more than a day is entirely reasonable.
10:06 OP again. Dear 10:22: I don't follow. I'm not a victim of anything. In fact, even when others could say I am a victim I try to shake it off and take personal responsibility. I think that is one reason I am successful like most on this blog, I have a good job, a fairly good marriage, happy life. I never said "woe is me." My personal feeling is he committed some type of negligence or manslaughter (but I have never done a criminal case). I also don't believe America is systemically racist. The white guy was convicted. My only problem is (as 10:10 pointed out) that mob rule determined this verdict IMHO and not "pure law." As an aside, you seem angry. You are not my enemy. Let's lighten up on the blog and be civil. Lives in this world are short. Let's spend our time together not fighting. Don't mean to be so philosophical and long-winded this morning but no hearings and I'm bored.
@10:54, that is true, but the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that George Floyd would not have died at that moment but for Chauvin's actions. Maybe George Floyd would have died of an overdose an hour later, the fact that Chauvin's actions caused his death an hour earlier is enough for murder.
@10:54, unless I didn't hear the specific testimony you're talking about, I believe the testimony you're referring to was that if the medical examiner found Floyd dead in his home, she would have concluded that a drug overdose and heart disease was the cause of death. That's very different from concluding that he would have in fact died of a drug overdose even if Chauvin hadn't knelt on his neck for over 9 minutes. I do believe that testimony sows doubt, but is it really a reasonable doubt when multiple experts opined that the encounter with Chauvin precipitated Floyd's death? It seems more like a metaphysical doubt based on the mere possibility that Floyd could have died no matter what.
10:54 here, thanks for the responses….and yes, @1:36 I would agree that, if the only evidence/testimony about 'Floyd dying anyway' (as I suggested) was simply from the ME claiming she would have ruled that way had he been found at home (and there was testimony from other credible sources claiming it was due to Chauvin's actions), then yes…that would not be enough to create reasonable doubt…
Let's play a game called clearly none of you do criminal law. Dude was on a guy's neck for almost nine minutes, even one of the other officers on scene suggested he should switch to a side position. Take your asshat Tucker Carlson theories out of it, dude killed him. Now the other officers should have a better chance at trial, but this guy's actions dictated the verdict.
I thought even the prosecution back peddled the completely false accusation of neck compression. There was no physical evidence, and the videos supported a properly applied (albeit for a longer than usual time) hold position.
There was no neck trauma. No trauma at all. Just an overdosing junkie thug slowly fading. As one of the docs said, but for the video, the autopsy would have said drug OD.
Here's the practical problem: What's a cop to do with a huge thug with a phone book sized criminal record who will not get in the squad car and clearly is high as shit? All the escalation of forces options are off the table. What is left? Can't baton him. Can't chokehold. Can't stun gun (a bad idea with an OD candidate anyway). Can't shoot him. So, what's a cop to do? What if he was on his way to beat his girlfriend (again)? What is the cop supposed to do to stop him? He has no spectrum on use of force to follow. None. Let the perp go. What else?
Some of us also find it offensive that the threat of burning a city down was applied directly to the jury without consequence.
He died due to lack of oxygen. I have seen the video and my eyes were not tricking me. If the evidence doesn’t support the verdict, then guess what. The Judge can set aside the verdict.
Threat of burning a city with no consequence. Your KKK President started a riot where feces was smeared on walls and people were hurt and killed. Who gives a shit what Maxine or Sharp have to say. Ben is correct, stop sucking Tucker Carlson off. Guy murdered someone and got convicted. Happens all the time.
4:17 — The problem is, Floyd WAS subdued. On his stomach and handcuffed. At that point, what's the justification for kneeing him on the neck for 9 minutes? The Chauvinist got what he deserved. Unfortunately, George Floyd didn't.
@4:17
You don't know much about fighting. Even cuffed and on stomach, unrestrained perps can headbutt, or roll, kick, sit-up, bite and get to their feet. Control the head and you control the outcomes.
Guest
Anonymous
April 21, 2021 5:50 pm
Question for you all about attorney advertising. The bar says that your website is not an advertisement and doesn't need to be approved. My question is if you use facebook or other social media to advertise your site or share a blog post from your site, is this an ad? Facebook will automatically grab parts of your site and create posts out of them which it then promotes. It seems to me that this is not an ad as it is just your website and is not making any claims. I would like to do this without paying the bar $100 to review each post. Of course if the post is promoting the firm it is an ad, but what if it is just sharing information?
I don't have an answer, and neither does the bar. Print media mailed has to be submitted, but for your $100 bucks you won't know if there is a discipline matter lurking until AFTER you mail the item. Put the same material on a web site, no problem.
The advertising guidance offered by the Bar is beyond stupid.
Guest
Anonymous
April 21, 2021 6:13 pm
Question for the Family Law practitioners: Filed a motion on Thursday (Hearing requested). It is Wednesday and still no hearing date issued. Is Family Court Clerk really taking a week to issue hearing dates? Is there some idiosyncrasies that we are missing in getting a hearing date?
Long time family law lawyer – yes, it is taking several days to get hearing dates, I would give it at least 5 business days, and then if no date call the law clerk for the department and very, very gently ask, "I'm sorry, I just wanted to follow up about a date …" {never, ever offend the law clerk that is the real essence and heart of the department as a former FL clerk}
11:30 thank you for the information. 11:28– I appreciate your polite response. All telephone calls to the Clerk's Office have been an exercise in hours of futility (even more than normal).
Did you put Hearing Requested on 1st page of your Motion, I know even though the rules are two years old sometimes I forgot so that's why I ask, if you didn't then they will not set it for Hearing. If you forgot, you will need to do a Request for Hearing.
5:35– Great question. We did. All caps. Bold. Still no hearing date. Based upon 11:30's comments, we actually came up with another theory which is perhaps the department might be playing some role in slow walking the hearings due to a dislike for the particular matter.
@9:08 – I have had that happen in front of Forsberg. Not sure what dept you're in, but it's absolutely a thing.
Guest
Anonymous
April 21, 2021 7:49 pm
The guy that hit 5 cyclists pled guilty. Is the sentencing calculus 5 times the normal sentence for DUI death – like I think it is 8-20 years – is it probable his sentence is 40 to life or does it work like that? Thanks
looks like he pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI Death. if there is no agreement to the sentence, and the judge makes the decision, he faces between 2 and 40 years. Minimum would be 2-5 years and max would 16-40 years. I assume the DA and defense have an agreed upon sentence given the case. If not, with 5 dead bodies, no way a judge doesn't give 16-40 years.
Guest
Anonymous
April 21, 2021 7:52 pm
Reading the Minnesota statutes I can see an argument that the verdict was fair. I don't agree with the verdict and I agree that the jurors knew exactly what would happen if they voted to acquit. It also appears that all three crimes he was convicted of sort of have different elements and don't merge/violate double jeopardy. I find that to be hard to believe. I hope I am reading that wrong.
I'm more interested in thinking about what would happen if this would have occurred in Nevada. I only see an argument for involuntary manslaughter under our NRS and that is a 1-4 sentence.
Yes, who would not be in support of a verdict where a black man is murdered by a racist cop on camera, and the cop is found guilty? You sound as smart as our Nevada Supreme Court.
The argument that the jury convicted an innocent man in order to save the world from more protests is an insult to the jury trial system. You have no idea what their deliberations entailed.
The argument that a jury, in the most highly politicized criminal case since OJ Simpson, who saw first hand the rioting and the looting in their city, who knew they would be ostracized, hurt, fired, stalked or worse, and who have children and spouses who would have to move to a different state if they returned an acquittal, were completely unaffected by these threats, is not only naïve, but stupid. You have no idea the threats they faced (See, Maxine Waters, BLM heads and protestors, etc.).
I gotta go with 2:38. We don't know what the jury thought, but we sure can deduce from the simple premises that people prefer safety over danger and peace over protests, that the scales of justice were weighted in favor of conviction.
After viewing a reasonable number of clips and reading comments, as well as watching the vest cams, I thought reasonable doubt standard was 100% met, but my life and the lives of my loved ones are not at stake, so my opinion does not matter.
All I know is that if Metro shoots a POC, I am donning my black ski mask and heading straight to the local Nike store for justice.
Or maybe you think as a juror that if I vote to convict that there are 800 sworn officers and 300 civilian employees in the Minneapolis Police Department who have my personal information and will make my life (not the community, my personal life) a living hell. And then you consider the evidence and do the right thing anyway.
Guest
Anonymous
April 21, 2021 11:13 pm
I can't believe all the comments about the shock of a conviction in the Floyd trial. I think it must be that people didn't watch. I suspected it would be manslaughter, but not an acquittal. His counsel sucked. I have seen lots of comments about how great his closing was and I watched and thought he sounded flippant, cold, disrespectful and too technical. I know as a trial attorney we all get tired – but he also seemed just completely checked out. His closing should have been much shorter and he should have stuck to "reasonable police officer" decisions in high stress situations – such as bystanders agitating and filming…etc. Maxine and Joe gave the defense a gift of a possible overturn – but highly unlikely. If he gets a new trial he needs someone like Jose Biaz (sp?) – that dude that got the mom off who definitely killed her little girl. Casey Anthony I think. That guy – he's a good defense lawyer. I think he's gross, but I'd want him defending me.
Guest
Anonymous
April 22, 2021 1:49 am
What does it mean to be a "contract" partner?
Guest
Anonymous
April 22, 2021 3:28 am
Ask the person that offered you the position what's the difference between employee, associate, contract partner, non-equity partner, and equity partner. My guess is being a contract partner allows them to bill you at a partner rate, make more money off of your labor, and pay you a little more than an associate. You might also have a little better "bonus" package. Welcome to the Grind future ID FBU. Signed current ID FBU. See ya in hell boys.
My guess is that you have the experience to be a partner so you can be billed at "partner" rates but they do not want to make you an employee of the firm for IRS /independent contractor purposes. You are being held out as a partner level attorney in the eyes of the clients but an independent contractor to the IRS.
Guest
Anonymous
April 22, 2021 7:56 am
Brittnie Watkins is a fantastic choice. Keep killing it!
Guest
Anonymous
April 22, 2021 4:27 pm
Jesus I had a new one today. Got served with a Motion. We are within the Opposition time under EDCR 2.20. New judge sua sponte vacated the hearing and granted the Motion for lack of opposition even though we are still within the time period to file an Opposition.
Two weeks ago we had a motion coming up for hearing. 12 days before the hearing (in other words before the Reply was due) different new judge advanced the Motion and denied it. Now I get that EDCR 2.23(c) states that the judge may consider the motion on its merits at anytime with or without oral argument, and grant or deny it. But wouldn't the better practice be to follow the rules and just give the parties the briefing deadlines contemplated in the rules?
That certainly is a new one. Deciding more motions on the briefs alone would be a positive development, but advancing the briefing deadlines without advance notice is not good. With respect to deciding the motion before an opposition, that sounds like it could be a per se abuse of discretion, unless what was being ruled on was rote or wouldn't have been reasonably affected by an opposition.
It was a per se abuse of discretion and patent proof that a slew of these new judges have no clue what they are doing. Please feel free to out these judges when they do ridiculous things like this. Had some wacky results so far from Krall, Barisch, Peterson and Ballou. Had good reasoning from Newberry.
Re Chauvin: The jury really had two choices: 1) return not guilty and watch the country burn down or 2) find him guilty and hear rational people peacefully complain. In the current culture of politics and pressure, no one should be surprised they chose number two. Now who can blame the first group for fighting for their position and power by "any means necessary?" Probably no one. The people who are to blame for the current political situation (where at least I believe the cause is already lost, the country is too far gone and will be an example someday of a failed experiment in Democracy) are those of the second group who side with, support, or do not counter the first group. While we fight over intangible, victimhood and fake problems of offending people, other countries deal with real issues that will move them forward e.g., we fight over gender while they build up their military – and yes, brain power, money, resources, are finite and we cannot devote every waking moment to "feelings and victimhood" while other countries grow militarily. Damn – too much coffee this morning haha
Overcharged by reason of the DA's lack of backbone. Guilty by reason of the political and media machines. Certainly appears to me to have been manslaughter only. Justice did not win yesterday, mob rule did.
Thank you for the post 10:06. It is amazing how much are country has changed in the last few years. But all "Empires" come to an end for reasons coming from within, not from enemies from the outside. We are to blame for our country's demise. All we can do is attempt to protect ourselves and our families from what the future will bear out. Good luck everyone!
Third option, find him guilty of murder becuase he IS guilty of murder?
10:06 – you seem to be the one obsessed with your own feelings of victimhood. Instead of constantly complaining "woe is me," I prefer that people take personal responsibility. Mr. Chauvin was found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and he should face the consequences.
Option 3a: Charge him with the crimes for which the elements appear to be proveable. Put him on trial. Let him put up his defense (with counsel that many of these same posters were lauding as brilliant). Let him be tried by Judge who is a former prosecutor and was appointed by a Republican governor in an otherwise relatively blue state. And then let a jury of his peers who has been kept off of media to make a decision.
We cannot honestly assert that only black people who get convicted get fair trial but when a white cop goes through the same system is just a victim of the system. Either we support the system as it is or we concede that the system is fatally broken.
Criminal law is not my strong suit and I admit I have not watched the trial yet (nor have I even seen the full video)…but please correct me if I am wrong here. I read on this blog some of you commentators said that someone testified Floyd would have died anyway due to the drugs in his system. Sorry if I am remembering incorrectly on that. But that obviously raises causation issues. I believe that for at least one of the charges the prosecution had to prove that Chauvin's actions caused Floyd's death. Based on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the prosecution must meet, the jury could have potentially said to themselves "I think Chauvin's actions more than likely caused Floyd's death" (or even ‘highly likely’ caused)….and that should still result in a not guilty verdict. Correct?
I am just having difficulty seeing how the jury could have legitimately analyzed all of the different issues and the elements of each charge in the amount of time that they did.
I understand that systemic racism exists; however, just because it exists does not mean that juries get to take a pass on fully analyzing the facts of the individual case (and elements of the charges) in front of them.
But again, I need to watch everything…
Juries take copious notes. Jurors are given jury instructions that lay out what they are to analyze. A verdict coming back in more than a day is entirely reasonable.
10:06 OP again. Dear 10:22: I don't follow. I'm not a victim of anything. In fact, even when others could say I am a victim I try to shake it off and take personal responsibility. I think that is one reason I am successful like most on this blog, I have a good job, a fairly good marriage, happy life. I never said "woe is me." My personal feeling is he committed some type of negligence or manslaughter (but I have never done a criminal case). I also don't believe America is systemically racist. The white guy was convicted. My only problem is (as 10:10 pointed out) that mob rule determined this verdict IMHO and not "pure law." As an aside, you seem angry. You are not my enemy. Let's lighten up on the blog and be civil. Lives in this world are short. Let's spend our time together not fighting. Don't mean to be so philosophical and long-winded this morning but no hearings and I'm bored.
@10:54, that is true, but the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that George Floyd would not have died at that moment but for Chauvin's actions. Maybe George Floyd would have died of an overdose an hour later, the fact that Chauvin's actions caused his death an hour earlier is enough for murder.
@10:54, unless I didn't hear the specific testimony you're talking about, I believe the testimony you're referring to was that if the medical examiner found Floyd dead in his home, she would have concluded that a drug overdose and heart disease was the cause of death. That's very different from concluding that he would have in fact died of a drug overdose even if Chauvin hadn't knelt on his neck for over 9 minutes. I do believe that testimony sows doubt, but is it really a reasonable doubt when multiple experts opined that the encounter with Chauvin precipitated Floyd's death? It seems more like a metaphysical doubt based on the mere possibility that Floyd could have died no matter what.
10:54 here, thanks for the responses….and yes, @1:36 I would agree that, if the only evidence/testimony about 'Floyd dying anyway' (as I suggested) was simply from the ME claiming she would have ruled that way had he been found at home (and there was testimony from other credible sources claiming it was due to Chauvin's actions), then yes…that would not be enough to create reasonable doubt…
Let's play a game called clearly none of you do criminal law. Dude was on a guy's neck for almost nine minutes, even one of the other officers on scene suggested he should switch to a side position. Take your asshat Tucker Carlson theories out of it, dude killed him. Now the other officers should have a better chance at trial, but this guy's actions dictated the verdict.
I thought even the prosecution back peddled the completely false accusation of neck compression. There was no physical evidence, and the videos supported a properly applied (albeit for a longer than usual time) hold position.
There was no neck trauma. No trauma at all. Just an overdosing junkie thug slowly fading. As one of the docs said, but for the video, the autopsy would have said drug OD.
Here's the practical problem: What's a cop to do with a huge thug with a phone book sized criminal record who will not get in the squad car and clearly is high as shit? All the escalation of forces options are off the table. What is left? Can't baton him. Can't chokehold. Can't stun gun (a bad idea with an OD candidate anyway). Can't shoot him. So, what's a cop to do? What if he was on his way to beat his girlfriend (again)? What is the cop supposed to do to stop him? He has no spectrum on use of force to follow. None. Let the perp go. What else?
Some of us also find it offensive that the threat of burning a city down was applied directly to the jury without consequence.
He died due to lack of oxygen. I have seen the video and my eyes were not tricking me. If the evidence doesn’t support the verdict, then guess what. The Judge can set aside the verdict.
Threat of burning a city with no consequence. Your KKK President started a riot where feces was smeared on walls and people were hurt and killed. Who gives a shit what Maxine or Sharp have to say. Ben is correct, stop sucking Tucker Carlson off. Guy murdered someone and got convicted. Happens all the time.
4:17 — The problem is, Floyd WAS subdued. On his stomach and handcuffed. At that point, what's the justification for kneeing him on the neck for 9 minutes? The Chauvinist got what he deserved. Unfortunately, George Floyd didn't.
@4:17
You don't know much about fighting. Even cuffed and on stomach, unrestrained perps can headbutt, or roll, kick, sit-up, bite and get to their feet. Control the head and you control the outcomes.
Question for you all about attorney advertising. The bar says that your website is not an advertisement and doesn't need to be approved. My question is if you use facebook or other social media to advertise your site or share a blog post from your site, is this an ad? Facebook will automatically grab parts of your site and create posts out of them which it then promotes. It seems to me that this is not an ad as it is just your website and is not making any claims. I would like to do this without paying the bar $100 to review each post. Of course if the post is promoting the firm it is an ad, but what if it is just sharing information?
I don't have an answer, and neither does the bar. Print media mailed has to be submitted, but for your $100 bucks you won't know if there is a discipline matter lurking until AFTER you mail the item. Put the same material on a web site, no problem.
The advertising guidance offered by the Bar is beyond stupid.
Question for the Family Law practitioners: Filed a motion on Thursday (Hearing requested). It is Wednesday and still no hearing date issued. Is Family Court Clerk really taking a week to issue hearing dates? Is there some idiosyncrasies that we are missing in getting a hearing date?
Have you tried calling the clerk and asking them? 100% positive they would know the correct answer for your situation.
Long time family law lawyer – yes, it is taking several days to get hearing dates, I would give it at least 5 business days, and then if no date call the law clerk for the department and very, very gently ask, "I'm sorry, I just wanted to follow up about a date …" {never, ever offend the law clerk that is the real essence and heart of the department as a former FL clerk}
11:30 thank you for the information. 11:28– I appreciate your polite response. All telephone calls to the Clerk's Office have been an exercise in hours of futility (even more than normal).
Did you put Hearing Requested on 1st page of your Motion, I know even though the rules are two years old sometimes I forgot so that's why I ask, if you didn't then they will not set it for Hearing. If you forgot, you will need to do a Request for Hearing.
5:35– Great question. We did. All caps. Bold. Still no hearing date. Based upon 11:30's comments, we actually came up with another theory which is perhaps the department might be playing some role in slow walking the hearings due to a dislike for the particular matter.
@9:08 – I have had that happen in front of Forsberg. Not sure what dept you're in, but it's absolutely a thing.
The guy that hit 5 cyclists pled guilty. Is the sentencing calculus 5 times the normal sentence for DUI death – like I think it is 8-20 years – is it probable his sentence is 40 to life or does it work like that? Thanks
looks like he pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI Death. if there is no agreement to the sentence, and the judge makes the decision, he faces between 2 and 40 years. Minimum would be 2-5 years and max would 16-40 years. I assume the DA and defense have an agreed upon sentence given the case. If not, with 5 dead bodies, no way a judge doesn't give 16-40 years.
Reading the Minnesota statutes I can see an argument that the verdict was fair. I don't agree with the verdict and I agree that the jurors knew exactly what would happen if they voted to acquit. It also appears that all three crimes he was convicted of sort of have different elements and don't merge/violate double jeopardy. I find that to be hard to believe. I hope I am reading that wrong.
I'm more interested in thinking about what would happen if this would have occurred in Nevada. I only see an argument for involuntary manslaughter under our NRS and that is a 1-4 sentence.
Yes, who would not be in support of a verdict where a black man is murdered by a racist cop on camera, and the cop is found guilty? You sound as smart as our Nevada Supreme Court.
@1:15 how was boyd?
1:51, Boyd '12 kicks ass!
115, me. I went to McGeorge.
The argument that the jury convicted an innocent man in order to save the world from more protests is an insult to the jury trial system. You have no idea what their deliberations entailed.
The argument that a jury, in the most highly politicized criminal case since OJ Simpson, who saw first hand the rioting and the looting in their city, who knew they would be ostracized, hurt, fired, stalked or worse, and who have children and spouses who would have to move to a different state if they returned an acquittal, were completely unaffected by these threats, is not only naïve, but stupid. You have no idea the threats they faced (See, Maxine Waters, BLM heads and protestors, etc.).
I gotta go with 2:38. We don't know what the jury thought, but we sure can deduce from the simple premises that people prefer safety over danger and peace over protests, that the scales of justice were weighted in favor of conviction.
After viewing a reasonable number of clips and reading comments, as well as watching the vest cams, I thought reasonable doubt standard was 100% met, but my life and the lives of my loved ones are not at stake, so my opinion does not matter.
All I know is that if Metro shoots a POC, I am donning my black ski mask and heading straight to the local Nike store for justice.
Or maybe you think as a juror that if I vote to convict that there are 800 sworn officers and 300 civilian employees in the Minneapolis Police Department who have my personal information and will make my life (not the community, my personal life) a living hell. And then you consider the evidence and do the right thing anyway.
I can't believe all the comments about the shock of a conviction in the Floyd trial. I think it must be that people didn't watch. I suspected it would be manslaughter, but not an acquittal. His counsel sucked. I have seen lots of comments about how great his closing was and I watched and thought he sounded flippant, cold, disrespectful and too technical. I know as a trial attorney we all get tired – but he also seemed just completely checked out. His closing should have been much shorter and he should have stuck to "reasonable police officer" decisions in high stress situations – such as bystanders agitating and filming…etc. Maxine and Joe gave the defense a gift of a possible overturn – but highly unlikely. If he gets a new trial he needs someone like Jose Biaz (sp?) – that dude that got the mom off who definitely killed her little girl. Casey Anthony I think. That guy – he's a good defense lawyer. I think he's gross, but I'd want him defending me.
What does it mean to be a "contract" partner?
Ask the person that offered you the position what's the difference between employee, associate, contract partner, non-equity partner, and equity partner. My guess is being a contract partner allows them to bill you at a partner rate, make more money off of your labor, and pay you a little more than an associate. You might also have a little better "bonus" package. Welcome to the Grind future ID FBU. Signed current ID FBU. See ya in hell boys.
My guess is that you have the experience to be a partner so you can be billed at "partner" rates but they do not want to make you an employee of the firm for IRS /independent contractor purposes. You are being held out as a partner level attorney in the eyes of the clients but an independent contractor to the IRS.
Brittnie Watkins is a fantastic choice. Keep killing it!
Jesus I had a new one today. Got served with a Motion. We are within the Opposition time under EDCR 2.20. New judge sua sponte vacated the hearing and granted the Motion for lack of opposition even though we are still within the time period to file an Opposition.
Two weeks ago we had a motion coming up for hearing. 12 days before the hearing (in other words before the Reply was due) different new judge advanced the Motion and denied it. Now I get that EDCR 2.23(c) states that the judge may consider the motion on its merits at anytime with or without oral argument, and grant or deny it. But wouldn't the better practice be to follow the rules and just give the parties the briefing deadlines contemplated in the rules?
That certainly is a new one. Deciding more motions on the briefs alone would be a positive development, but advancing the briefing deadlines without advance notice is not good. With respect to deciding the motion before an opposition, that sounds like it could be a per se abuse of discretion, unless what was being ruled on was rote or wouldn't have been reasonably affected by an opposition.
It was a per se abuse of discretion and patent proof that a slew of these new judges have no clue what they are doing. Please feel free to out these judges when they do ridiculous things like this. Had some wacky results so far from Krall, Barisch, Peterson and Ballou. Had good reasoning from Newberry.