![]() And whatever the jury decides won't be enough. Magnifying glass: Race is on trial in Chauvin case. In the Chauvin case, the prosecution started the trial with Floyd’s death and did not lead off chronologically with testimony about Floyd’s visit inside the store. ![]() Lawyers follow the rule of primacy and recency - the first and last things jurors hear are likely to stick with them. Lawyers give a great deal of thought to things like the theory of the case and the order and scope of witness testimony. Strategy is also a large part of the lawyers’ work before trial. When the lawyer and witness are on the same page, the trial testimony can be tightly focused on relevant issues and the jury’s time can be used efficiently. The defense will also conduct their own investigation, trying to identify other witnesses who might be able to testify about Chauvin’s character or offer alternative causes of Floyd’s death.īoth legal teams have no doubt met in advance with all of their witnesses to prepare them for their testimony. They will review all of the evidence and witness statements to prepare cross-examination questions that may cause jurors to doubt the accuracy of certain testimony. ![]() The defense team will also spend a great deal of time preparing for trial. They have marked the recordings, as well as other exhibits, with numbered stickers to keep track of them during the trial and for appeal. From those many hours of recordings, the lawyers have identified the segments they will show to the jury to explain what happened while keeping the presentation understandable and succinct. The prosecutors have also reviewed all of the evidence, including video recordings from body-worn cameras, dashboard cameras and nearby businesses. Prosecutors have assessed all of those factors in deciding which witnesses to call. Or perhaps some witnesses did not see the events as well as others, or remember the facts accurately or explain their recollections effectively. Some of the people they talked to will never take the stand, perhaps because their testimony would merely duplicate that of other witnesses. They will work to determine who makes the best narrators for what happened outside the Cup Foods store. In the Chauvin trial, prosecutors no doubt have spent countless hours identifying all of the potential witnesses, and then interviewing them to whittle down who will actually testify. The truth about trials is that lawyers serve more as choreographers than performers. If you have been watching the televised proceedings, you may not appreciate all of the work the lawyers have done before the opening gavel. Once the trial is underway, they let the evidence speak for itself. It is just that lawyers do most of their work before the trial begins. That doesn’t mean the lawyer’s role is unimportant. The judge will even tell them that what the lawyers say is not evidence. When deliberating, jurors will be tasked with weighing the facts. ![]() That’s because lawyers want the spotlight to be on the witnesses and the evidence. In real life, lawyers’ presentations are usually less animated. In the movies and on TV, it is the lawyers who deliver the moments of drama with trick questions, eloquent speeches and, yes, objections. The answer is that good lawyers stay out of the way of the evidence. Other than an occasional objection when a witness interjects an opinion, lawyers have not jumped up to interrupt the testimony. The former Minneapolis police officer faces three homicide charges arising from the death of George Floyd in May. That’s a question I have been hearing since the trial of Derek Chauvin began Monday. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |