[Vendome]

Article reads more about protests than the case itself

[Valpal1]

For really good coverage of the trial go to LegalInsurrection.com where Andrew Branca is covering it.

Very in depth.

Powerline has excellent coverage also.

[lee martell]

People were saying last year that the prosecutors were overcharging all four Cops, especially Chauvin.
The lawyers were caught up in the swirl of emotion.

A similar mistake was made years ago with George Zimmerman.
You remember George, that ‘white-hispanic’ that shot Trayvon in self defense. Doesn’t all that seem like it was 15 or 20 years ago? Actually it was only eight years in the past.
He was judged as Not Guilty on all counts.

[devere]

Not guilty is so obvious it is disgraceful they are even holding a trial.

[doug from upland]

If one juror hangs the jury with a not guilty, that person’s name will leak and he will be in jeopardy.

[zeestephen]

Re: "[Defense attorney] Nelson argued that the earlier arrest shows that Floyd reacted in a nearly identical manner by ingesting illicit drugs when confronted by police and did so on the night he was detained and died."

I am hearing this for the first time - Floyd has a verifiable history of ingesting illegal drugs before an arrest.

How does a case like this even reach trial?

The autopsy establishes irrefutable doubt - no trauma or bruising to any part of the body that involves breathing, and a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl in the drug screen, which suppresses breathing.

The knee-choke hold was completely legal in Minneapolis and is (was) completely legal in hundreds of other Police jurisdictions when suspects aggressively resist arrest.

The officer that cuffed Floyd explicitly asked him - on tape - if he had taken any drugs, and Floyd says, "No."

No rational juror can vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on ANY charge.

[Houmatt]

May I remind you there was badge cam video that absolutely would create reasonable doubt with a reasonable jury. And Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison deliberately sat on it, keeping it from Chauvin's attorney. It was only because someone took the step to film the footage from a monitor and release it that we know it exists. The intent to deny Chauvin the right to a fair trial became explicit right then.

Chauvin doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.