Former Home of Witness for Derrick Chauvin Defense Smeared With Pig's Blood

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Yeah, that's why the defense calls expert witnesses: to present information in a manner most favorable to the defendant. You may think its deceptive, I think it's no more deceptive than arguing that a man on trial for murdering his parents could plea for understanding on the grounds that he has just become an orphan.

To suggest that they not be allowed to do this undermines the notion of a fair trial. This is not complicated: if you hamstring the defense by retaliating against witnesses, you create an argument for future cases to why any conviction is invalid and should be overturned on appeal.
Except that’s all this man does for a living. And he and his have been very successful in crafting a collection of legal precedence that removes all responsibility from police. This is a gang using their money and power to manipulate the justice system to their whims, no different than mob lawyers and the like.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
Except that’s all this man does for a living.
So?

And he and his have been very successful in crafting a collection of legal precedence that removes all responsibility from police.
Trial court decisions do not create precedent. If juries believe his explanation, it is the fault of the prosecutor for not bringing in better witnesses.
This is a gang using their money and power to manipulate the justice system to their whims, no different than mob lawyers and the like.
People don't lose their rights to a vigorous defense just because they are members of a criminal organization. There are lawyers who make livings of defending the worst of the worst, are you going to retaliate against them, too?
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
I take profiting off of murder seriously.
Trial court decisions do not create precedent. If juries believe his explanation, it is the fault of the prosecutor for not bringing in better witnesses.
Because his ilk never wind up at cases above trial courts and their “expert testimony” is never used to form precedent. Bullshit.
People don't lose their rights to a vigorous defense just because they are members of a criminal organization. There are lawyers who make livings of defending the worst of the worst, are you going to retaliate against them, too?
I will happily condemn mob lawyers. Not all defense attorneys, but guys that are essential members of criminal organizations? Sure.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
I take profiting off of murder seriously.
Better go after all criminal defense attorneys in existence then.

Because his ilk never wind up at cases above trial courts and their “expert testimony” is never used to form precedent. Bullshit.
How many times do you see appellate courts call witnesses?

I will happily condemn mob lawyers. Not all defense attorneys, but guys that are essential members of criminal organizations? Sure.
Glad to have that clarification. The term "mob lawyer" has been used too liberally, in my experience, to apply to any lawyer who defends members of an organized crime group.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Better go after all criminal defense attorneys in existence then.
I said seriously, I did not mean it makes one inherently villainous, rather that you have to consider that as part of your analysis and factor it into the significance of the act.
How many times do you see appellate courts call witnesses?
Not a lot I imagine given they likely operate off of the testimony recorded during the trial with an occasional witness called in if something has changed, with both sides working absurdly hard to make sure the other side can’t introduce any new information and having a lot of power to do so.
Glad to have that clarification. The term "mob lawyer" has been used too liberally, in my experience, to apply to any lawyer who defends members of an organized crime group.
True. Defending the lower elements of some criminal organization is arguably a rather noble endeavor if you’re not an actual mob lawyer, given that you can negotiate to help get them out of their circumstances and bring down those with actual power in that criminal organization. There’s no shame in that, and on average I’d say criminal defense attorneys, particularly public defenders, are the “good guys” compared to DA’s.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
Please show me where, in the rules of evidence (either federal or state) it says you have to have witnessed something to be called as a witness.
I said "normal sense"
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
Not a lot I imagine given they likely operate off of the testimony recorded during the trial with an occasional witness called in if something has changed, with both sides working absurdly hard to make sure the other side can’t introduce any new information and having a lot of power to do so.
Correct. Most appellate courts will not relitigate matters of fact but instead matters of law. There are exceptions to this rule, as there are with anything in the law.

I said seriously, I did not mean it makes one inherently villainous, rather that you have to consider that as part of your analysis and factor it into the significance of the act.
It's an extremely subjective analysis.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
Yeah but fuck courts. If the law as written has created a situation where justice is voided, change the laws.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
And the "normal sense" has no place in a court of law, which already has a definition for the term "witness"
The normal sense of the word 'witness' is plenty relevant to the morality of witness intimidation. Much more, in fact. If your definition of 'witness' is so expansive that it includes a soulless ghoul whose "expertise" is justifying police murder, then the moral case against witness intimidation falls apart because there is no inherent value in witnessing.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
The normal sense of the word 'witness' is plenty relevant to the morality of witness intimidation. Much more, in fact. If your definition of 'witness' is so expansive that it includes a soulless ghoul whose "expertise" is justifying police murder, then the moral case against witness intimidation falls apart because there is no inherent value in witnessing.
There is an inherent value in witnessing, especially for the defense, because it helps assure the validity of convictions. As I have been trying to explain, if you hinder the ability of the defense to put on a valid defense, you create an argument for the invalidity of any conviction. And intimidating witnesses for the defense has this effect.

You're not arguing that what he said is false, only that he presents information in a way you find repugnant. This is not an argument against testimony. If what a defense expert witness says is bad, it is the job of the prosecutor to attack it on cross, which I think the prosecution in this case did quite well.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Yeah, that's why the defense calls expert witnesses: to present information in a manner most favorable to the defendant. You may think its deceptive, I think it's no more deceptive than arguing that a man on trial for murdering his parents could plea for understanding on the grounds that he has just become an orphan.
I think you are probably a reasonable person (well, maybe, I dunno), so this statement seems a odd to me. The latter case isn't deceptive, it's at best manipulative (and weakly so), because anyone can see what's going on -- I'm an idiot and I can see that logically it doesn't work. An expert witness providing testimony should be reliably neutral, it should be exclusively about facts, and yet you don't think the guy is credible (that is, presumably his testimony isn't factual in your eyes). Those things aren't equally deceptive -- one is a play for sympathy and the other is a lie.

*I don't know anything about the parent-killing case you're referring to.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
There is an inherent value in witnessing, especially for the defense, because it helps assure the validity of convictions. As I have been trying to explain, if you hinder the ability of the defense to put on a valid defense, you create an argument for the invalidity of any conviction. And intimidating witnesses for the defense has this effect.

You're not arguing that what he said is false, only that he presents information in a way you find repugnant. This is not an argument against testimony. If what a defense expert witness says is bad, it is the job of the prosecutor to attack it on cross, which I think the prosecution in this case did quite well.
I'll give a shit about this when I'm allowed to kill a cop because I "feel scared"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
*I don't know anything about the parent-killing case you're referring to.
To clarify, it's not an actual case. It's a (semi hyperbolic) example given in law schools all the time to explain several things, such as the duty the defense to their client and how sometimes, you can spin inconvenient facts into arguments that may support your claim. To paraphrase one of my professors "When it comes to the law, facts are stubborn but the truth is malleable." So in that case, it is a "fact" that the person murdered both their parents (lets assume the accusation is correct). You can draw multiple "truths" from this, including "defendant has now become an orphan". Is that a reasonable truth? That's up to the jury.
None of this is to say there's no such thing as absolute truth. Only that people's interpretation of it is up for debate.

An expert witness providing testimony should be reliably neutral, it should be exclusively about facts
Expert witnesses are called in to not only explain facts but also give their opinion, through interpretation of facts. For example through analogy, if you go to a doctor and they tell you "you have a 3 cm growth on your left lung" and then nothing else, that's not much to go on. You need their interpretation. Could this be benign? Do they suggest surgery or some other form of test? How worried should you be, in their opinion? Likewise, expert witnesses will almost always explain their reasoning for their conclusions.

I'll give a shit about this when I'm allowed to kill a cop because I "feel scared"
Your (justified) frustration with law enforcement does not mean the moral rules change, nor does it mean our adversarial system of law is wrong.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,459
2,746
118
Expert witnesses are called in to not only explain facts but also give their opinion, through interpretation of facts. For example through analogy, if you go to a doctor and they tell you "you have a 3 cm growth on your left lung" and then nothing else, that's not much to go on. You need their interpretation. Could this be benign? Do they suggest surgery or some other form of test? How worried should you be, in their opinion? Likewise, expert witnesses will almost always explain their reasoning for their conclusions.
That's not really the same . The doctor isn't a biased influencer, they just don't want me to die. They have nothing to gain from my death or my life, bar that keeping me alive is their job (which they get to keep either way). You're saying that expert witnesses are specifically used to steer the argument one way or the other, influenced by who they are the witness for; that's not interpretation, that's bias.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
That's not really the same . The doctor isn't a biased influencer, they just don't want me to die. They have nothing to gain from my death or my life, bar that keeping me alive is their job (which they get to keep either way).
It's an explanation as to why you can't expect expert witnesses to be unbiased presenters of fact. Each side gets to call some to testify, the other side gets to subject them to cross examination, and the jury gets to determine who they believe.

You're saying that expert witnesses are specifically used to steer the argument one way or the other, influenced by who they are the witness for; that's not interpretation, that's bias.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The other side is allowed to call in their own expert witnesses to do the exact same. That's what an adversarial system entails.

Also the conviction of Chauvin on all counts was just announced, so clearly the jury didn't find this witness credible. Meaning that the system (regarding experts) worked.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
There is an inherent value in witnessing, especially for the defense, because it helps assure the validity of convictions. As I have been trying to explain, if you hinder the ability of the defense to put on a valid defense, you create an argument for the invalidity of any conviction. And intimidating witnesses for the defense has this effect.

You're not arguing that what he said is false, only that he presents information in a way you find repugnant. This is not an argument against testimony. If what a defense expert witness says is bad, it is the job of the prosecutor to attack it on cross, which I think the prosecution in this case did quite well.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of law, but on a more abstract level I find it quite fascinating that court cases can effectively involve aspects of scientific evidence assessed by hopelessly inappropriate means.

Imagine if the process of academic science publishing were not peer review, but two scientists with differing studies making a case to 12 non-experts, and the one that got published was the one that got the most votes.