'Do Not Argue With The Court': Chauvin Trial Judge Warns Witness In Tense Exchange | NBC News NOW
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 мар 2021
- Witness Genevieve Hansen has a tense exchange with the Derek Chauvin trial judge in which he warns her not to argue with the defense attorneys or the courts.
» Subscribe to NBC News: nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC
» Watch more NBC video: bit.ly/MoreNBCNews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
NBC News App: apps.nbcnews.com/mobile
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre...
Visit NBCNews.Com: nbcnews.to/ReadNBC
Find NBC News on Facebook: nbcnews.to/LikeNBC
Follow NBC News on Twitter: nbcnews.to/FollowNBC
Follow NBC News on Instagram: nbcnews.to/InstaNBC
#GenevieveHansen #DerekChauvinTrial #NBCNews
'Do Not Argue With The Court': Chauvin Trial Judge Warns Witness In Tense Exchange | NBC News NOW
If a judge states “I will determine when your answer is done “isn’t he in fact controlling what you can and cannot say
and making sure everyone else watching knows that he is in control. Quite unprofessional imo, poor choice of words from the Judge there
He's in on it.
Its what happens in a police state run by a undeclared dictatorial government. The police become the judges and so called judges protect the police.
You mean like being a judge?
@@chriscanzanese5063 Its what happens in a police state run by a undeclared dictatorial government. The police become the judges and so called judges protect the police.
If that’s what you call a “tense exchange” don’t ever come around my house during thanksgiving with the game on.
😂
That’s funny
lol
Bruh
@mike 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If this is a tense exchange, the court needs to come to my job, to see how the children speak to the teachers.
You’ve had seven months off I think you’re fine. Children talk to you the way they do because you don’t teach them anything but then you complain about how your job so hard while you have three months off every year and then with the Covid you had another seven months off. Don’t know you don’t care
This is about as wild as court gets. This is basically the judge screaming in her face. I know it doesn't look like it, but he's moments from holding her in contempt.
@@alexanderharris1980 Except good teachers lesson plan and work all through out the year even during summer break (which is meant more for the kids than the teachers) and teachers have been adapting to to remote learning as well as transitioning back to in class learning. If you think teachers are so bad though you could always home school your children in the case that you have children.
@@alexanderharris1980 it is NOT the teachers job to TEACH YOUR kids how to behave! That is the PARENTS job. Kids are in school to learn academics.
@@alexanderharris1980 whinge and whine are you. Let me guess - you are bad parents that shift their bad parenting problems on to others. You are aware it’s parents that are also meant to teach and indeed a child that can’t read or spell correctly is right at the parents feet. And no I’m not a teacher.
I hated being a witness for a man against his crazy ex wife for this reason. They wanted to shorten my answer which changed the narrative completely
They aren’t interested in the truth.
That's why there is a thing called direct questioning. The problem was that whomever directly asked you questions didn't ask he right questions and the opposing attorneys are not going to just allow you to blurt out whatever feelings you have.
@@privatecitizen1251 Yeah, but in the adversarial court of law system, the prosecutor will be the one to ask her other questions if the prosecution feels there was other information that that was not being told from her. In other words, it’s the prosecutor who is supposed to give her the opportunity to “finish her answer.”
That’s exactly my point
That’s why there is opposing counsel, to clean that up
This is why people hate to be witnesses or even do jury duty.
I agree with you,!
judge is probably going do be bribed with tax dollars.
Because they don’t know the rules ?
@@kjsytnmbcz003 Lol
why they did not protect the witness? This is ridiculous.
If this is the judge thats going to decide the case...theres a problem.
that's not how it works. there are jurors in the room. smfh
@@virtualmidwest3394 good. The jurors saw how the system works
You just don't understand how the criminal justice system works then...
You are one of the dumbest things on here. You think the judge decides? Go riot with the other idiots
The judge has some authorities over the case like sentencing delaying trial conversation time with prosecutors and individuals on the stand The jury votes the judge has jury selection influence things like that and Trump still hasn’t been arrested yet and many cops got away with foolishness so whatever the rules are the court systems and judges are trash
The judge was just practicing jurisprudence. What he was saying essentially was this: Don't volunteer information, BECAUSE, the opposing counsel will get that information through questioning instead of her volunteering testimony that may get suppressed. So the Judge stopped her from talking before Defense counsel could object, the Judge would have to sustain and the testimony might be thrown out. again, it's called JURISPRUDENCE
👍
Wrong
안녕하세요 이것은 내 고양이입니다 apple sause
You are sorta wrong as Nick says.
Of course testimony may get suppressed by the questioner if it's not responsive to the question,
but that's hardly the witness's concern, especially on cross.
As far as not volunteering information you're again technically wrong, since a witness on cross is gonna absolutely want to 'volunteer' (using your word) information.
Then again I was taken aback by the incivility of the Judge, though I'm from NYS, and the bits I've watched made me realize they do things strange up in Minnesota, like there's no such thing as 'objecting' to your own question, not once, not ever is it done in NYS. I'm pretty confidant stating as a fact you can't object to your own question, nor can you 'strike' information supplied in an answer if the question allows for the witness to give said information. Further, I was kind of shocked the way attorneys were speaking over witnesses, i.e. cutting them off, another no-no in NYS. I'm not referring to a witness who clearly is not responding to the question asked or supplying addt'l info after having answered the question. Things I don't recall happening in the above testimony.
@@steveholt5115 What's wrong? Explain.
She was finishing her answer. Ok . Understood. But the judge decides when her answer is finished? Then what good is it? Oh and gees that was intense.
Because she was giving her opinion on the fact when all she was supposed to answer what yes or no. Not try to make her argument
@@kstar1489 How is it in any way helpful, when a trained professional like the lawyer is allowed to steer a layperson - with dozens of attempts - into some misleading "gotcha" answer while having absolutely no other interest in the general issue? Context in oral communication matters a lot.
Witnesses should therefore be allowed to offer necessary context if they see how a simple "yes or no" answer (why is that nonsense even allowed? Asking a complex 30 word questions that is designed to mislead and then insisting on a yes or no answer - that's just silly) could be misinterpreted or how they might have left out some important detail. The judge should only intervene if the witness is drifting into moral judgment instead of discriptive sentences but everything else should be the risk of asking a witness that is not on your side.
Your court system looks designed to be abused by shady lawyers who know how to manipulate witnesses ...
The judge let her finish and the questioning to finish. She actually was out of line legally
Did not fit in withy what the Judge wanted.
@@Xul because that is the lawyers job.
Blatant witness intimidation by the judge. Wtf?
Get a grip
That's not what that means.
Exactly...
The Judge has an agenda to pursue, and his "woke" puppet masters have told him the verdict they want. He will do everything he can to keep them happy, because it's not the job of the Courts to seek justice--it is their job to do the bidding of their puppet masters...
@@stereodreamer23 You guys are so stupid. It's a jury trial!
Think cops are corrupt?
US judges are more so.
Yep. Supreme Court judges get appointed for life..... They get to vote on the most important cases in the US. They can serve for several decades with no further vote or say from the people.
The justice system is more about politics than it is about justice.
SCARY!..
Yes! Oh they will all go out for drinks after the case is over. Judges & Lawyers are all shady.
.. they are all in each others back pockets...
Honest question. Do they give you a heads up on how to behave in court? Or as a witness? How was she supposed to know you're not supposed to elaborate your point or show emotion? I wouldn't have known that.
I'm not a fan of our justice system, much less so judges. I'm also someone who held protests for Floyd and other victims. That being said, the defense has a right to have their question and only their question answered. As the judge said, the prosecution can come back and cross examine if they need to.
Yes, also no one asked her to not show emotion wtf
@@infamousspade3845 no you went over the question. How are we to know what to or not to do in court? People just don't walk I'm court knowing how to be a witness or a juror.
@@PSALMSOFSONGS I see what you are saying, yes you are instructed to answer their questions. Regardless it is indisputable that we aren't informed enough on our legal processes. What I'm saying is she wasn't merely being emotional, she posed questions to the defense several times. Not asked for clarity, she directly asked a question, that is not her place, he'll for Floyd's sake that is not her place.
@@kstar1489 Yeah.
I felt like he went overboard. She was obviously upset and was one of the main bystanders during the murder. Guess he didn’t get breakfast that morning
Low sugar levels
did you watch the whole interview and not just this clip? She had been doing this for most of the questions, and the judge had had enough. He was fair and impartial through the entire trial, I'd challenge you to find somewhere or a point in time that he wasn't.
It's the defense's job to rattle and impeach the prosecution's witnesses.
The judge was doing his duties properly. Just because he has to follow the process doesn't mean he's being over bearing.
Also, he was right in talking and explaining to her how legal procedures work
@@atcdude067 I bet you were bummed out by the verdict, huh racist?
By the temperament of this judge, the officers will be found not guilty.
As he should be
judge does not decide that, the jury decides that judges decide sentencing
@@emoney7472why
@@djbillybool8173 the judge can declare a mistrial independent of the jury based on a multitudes of factors
Lol by the evidence and the body cam which basically played out like an episode of cops. I think a certain group will once again peacefully protest with molotovs
Have been witness twice I will never do it again they make you feel as if you are the CRIMINAL.
Feelings don't dictate logic. It sucks, but your feelings are irrelevant to the court of law. That's why you need to answer honestly. If you don't, you sound like this gal. Actions speak louder than words, and that's the point of a trial.
at the end of the day they don't want you to taint the jury they don't want you to say something that they weren't supposed to know because it's been decided that they're not supposed to know that thing because it would be a confounding factor.
That is exactly what that judge did! The EMT did amazing though!!! I know how it is when others try and make good people look bad like these lawyers are trying to do but they are the ones defending a freakin murder. So unblieveable!!!
I would never be a witness, a juror or give a statement to police for any reason whatsoever. They hate us all not in law enforcement anyway so there's that.
@@ashleyturner7654 It's their job to defend people convicted of murder. Its called a fair trail. If you were convicted of a crime, would you want a solicitor? I think you would.
That would have been the end of court for me. Don't ask me a question if I can't answer it.
Exactly..smh
You don't understand... she is supposed to answer a question in simple terms for the jury to interpret it. Not give her answer then her opinion or sarcasm as well. This is for fairness on both sides of the court.
@@alexanderhamilton4034 i have been in court plenty in my life. And been threatened with contempt of court. Don't ask me something if I can't give my answer.
@@marksmith6435 Then you need to learn to shut up and answer the questions asked. If you want to give your opinions, start a blog.
@@marksmith6435 She wasn't answering anything, and her attendance wasn't optional.
She just didn't want words being put in her mouth.
Welp, that’s what happens when you’re cross examined.
Why does the judge decide when the witness's answer is done?
Sometimes witnesses give information that wasn't asked for or try to avoid the question by giving an answer that wasn't asked for. Or they start stating opinions instead of giving facts the question asked for.
@@nightfighter7452 I understand he has to maintain order, yet in this case he seems to be showing a display of power that wasn't necessary. To be fair: I am still looking for the rest of the interchange leading to this clip
@@efransophoto i would say it is necessary, she is clearly a biased witness with an agenda.. she is meant to go in there and simply, answer the questions asked... she is not meant to volunteer information not requested, throughout her questioning, she like the martial artist guy were hostile to the defence lawyer... if they had any real credibility, they would just answer the questions yes or no and only explain things when asked to do so
@@bladesamah She’s the expert for emergency care...🙄
She kept answering questions by injecting superfluous information. Answers are to be limited to the scope of the question in court.
This woman has to live with herself at the end of the day. I appreciate her standing strong and making sure the truth is told.
Truth yes. But most of what she is saying is opinion and judgement. They are not asking for her opinions.
@Roger Smith that’s you.
@Roger Smith the police officers are not executioners. you or Chauvin don't get to decide who lives and who doesn't.
@@allenblegen4088 opinions and judgements are methods used to create truth.
@@allenblegen4088 because she has relevant experience she is in fact there to give her opinion as well as eye witness testimony. The Judge did correctly state that clarification requests should come from Prosecution rather than her spontaneously doing so however i understand her need to do it and it's a risk i would take as a witness.
Yeah they be having the right ones cause I would not have been able to hold back a "well if I'm being asked a question then myself and myself only will know when my answer is done"
She said “are the cameras on?” as if her testimony depends on her viewers.
yeah that was weird
i thought she wanted a witness/ documentation of what was going on
She was asking because she wants them on record.
@@sarahadams5512 agreed
@@sarahadams5512 everything in a court is recorded. So if that's her reason it just makes her look dumb.
That judge was out of line.
"Ill decide when your answer is finished"
Ive got a bad feeling that Chauvin is gonna walk free.
If he does, he better get plastic surgery and run
You do know the judge doesn't have a say in the verdict right?
Most figured it was a foregone conclusion.
Why would it be a bad feeling? He clearly did not commit murder & it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial. It is literally a waste of time trying him.
I hope not.🤦♀️ He will have major issues if so
Me waiting to see the "arguing" : 👁️👄👁️
@Chin 😮
It started when he started lecturing her about what she could say.
it's a courtroom you dolt, not a place for her to get sassy and backchat.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. I didn't hear her arguing with the attorney. He is trying twist her statement to make it seem like she is not a credible witness. She cleared it up by stating, he looked slim because he had 3 grown men on top of him. The judge is trying to help Chauvin is all that is.
@Jewbro Afrodude Don't need to. I been watching the entire trial on tv for the past 4 days. That defense attorney was trying to twist the statement she made around to discredit her. She was just making it clear why she described Floyd as a slim man.
Omg so I watched the body cam of the reaction of the witness and I can see why this woman is stressed because she was the one who witnessed it all from when Derek stopped breathing. These people are obviously tramautized because they witnessed somebody dying in front of them
You realise we have 7 billion on this planet and all them will die at some point - many in front of others.
She should've chosen another profession if that's a problem. Btw, when did Derek stop breathing?
Derek is the police officer who made it so George Floyd stopped breathing just so you know. Fortunately for Derek he still has the luxury to keep breathing right now yet he took that option away from someone else
She should try a different profession then. It's literally HER JOB to see other people dying in front of them. Her job isn't to be a full blown Karen, but she does it well
I like how you all forgot George Floyd's name because now recently you've been hearing about Derek Chauvin.
When you stand for injustice, you will always fall from grace, at the end.
They make you swear to tell the WHOLE TRUTH but then they will not let you finish your answer and specifically you are not allowed to volunteer any information, even if it is the truth. Then please change the oath that people are made to take
Exactly! OR just plead the fifth and stop cooperating with the corruption displayed in the courtroom today.
Those rules are meant to get yes or no answers. On cross examination you are attacking testimony to test truthfulness and accuracy.
If the testimony is indeed true and accurate: it will hold up on cross examination as well as redirect.
You may finish the answer that she was wrong and didn't tell the truth
The whole truth is the whole truth of the information requested... How hard is that to understand. If someone asks you what you had for breakfast yesterday, you don't also need to tell what you had for lunch and dinner, it's the truth but it wasn't asked for.
@@harisadu8998 ..it was even less than a minute and it was what she witnessed.. are you afraid to know the truth?!? 😳
Who else came here for the comments 🙋
One wouldn't really be able to make sense of the comments without first watching the video.
@@otisdylan9532 boo hoo😭stfuppppp
Yes. I am in the comment section for the comments 🤦♂️🤦
@@multigiant007 Well clearly, you don’t understand civil procedure then
“ I will tell you when your answer is done”. ... ah yes justice
She was trying to be a smart Alec and the judge was having none of it
@@Kyle_Lurz No she was not, she was trying to give an honest reply, the judge simply didn't want to hear it.
@@nuclearguitar779 yes she was. There was no question posed and she kept talking. Anyone who knows anything knows you can’t do that in course. It was clear from her tone that she wasn’t happy about being questioned with out of context answers.
When you see a crime scene, people tends to get out and pretend did not see anything, not giving opportunities for questions, because then in the future they will call you in court to be a witness BY FORCE. It's sad we can't help the victims because judicial system just kills our dignity and safety.
It's a tough dilemma because without compelling witnesses (especially for the defense), justice may not be served. Somebody has to be protected, and in general I think the defendant has more to lose than a witness.
Relax and answer the questions truthfully regardless of your bias. The defense and prosecutor will take turns and will highlight what needs to be seen by the jury. Otherwise you get your testimony impeached and we as a society loose.
People want to stop crime by volunteering.
The judge is going to do everything in his power to make this a MISTRIAL
I doubt you understand what constitutes a mistrial. Lol.
I think the judge is doing everything in his power to prevent a mistrial ...
@@LouHillierPsych That's because you're intelligent and obviously understood what took place there.
I think the judge needs to go new judge he wouldn't have talked to me in that tone I would have checked him on point
@@debrahfisher22 And you would have been in jail for contempt, immediately. People that can't control their emotions don't last long in court.
How could the judge say that it is up to him when the witness has finished their answer or not... That's such a weird thing to say..
Yea I thought that was a very odd remark to say the least 🤨
He wants that thug cop set free
@Billy Flores not really but maybe a republican judge...
Enter law school and find out.
That is cause you already have biased pre notions based on emotional propaganda and not facts. :)
At that point im invoking the 5th and not answering ANY Questions. And is exactly what is wrong with the system. The jury should hear ALL evidence from both production and defense, and not be allowed to hide or purposely miss construe what a witness says by clever questioning. This is how innocent people end up in jail or guilty people end up walking.
Agreed if the person IS innocent. But Derek Chauvin IS/WAS/NEVER INNOCENT!!!!!
I was with you, but the Judge has a point. There's redirect. A witness isn't allowed to use their own bias to color their statements. It's about objective fact, not how you personally feel about the fact. Witnesses are called for specific reasons so if you're not called for your opinion, your opinion is irrelevant and can only be seen as you trying to influence the jury with your opinion.
That is the lawyer’s jobs, not the witness’s. There’s literally time for both sides to ask her questions and give arguments. It’s not her job to volunteer information for her own rhetoric
then move to north korea if you want those results
You can't invoke the fifth unless you're accused of a crime. 🙄
Since when was she arguing?
Wait when did she argue, I click thinking this woman cursed everyone out, the judge likes cops apparently.
She didn't "argue" at all. Just offered extra information that apparently wasn't, in the judges mind, appropriate. IMO, he was harsh given what she's been through. She was clearly nervous / stressed. I would have gritted my teeth and replied, "crystal", when the judge asked if it was clear. Jerk.
Everettel,
They only want you to answer a yes or a no. She wasn't supposed to volunteer information, when she said he seemed small ,then added because they were on top of him,the judge didn't like that. You don't give your opinion.
Yep!!!!
He talked to her like he was reprimanding a child. I guess she interrupted a bit, but what an overreaction! As a woman who has gotten negative feedback for speaking her mind, I very much doubt he would have reacted like that if she had been a man.
@@GroovyFeminist you're 100% right
The judges response makes me think he’s bias.
The reason why he said that to her was because she was forcing others to listen to her additional opinion/story that was not asked for. After being stopped, she behaved immaturely as well. Court is not a drama show to fulfill your desires, it's a spoken process, and should be followed.
In court, the prosecutor may not WANT anymore to be said on each matter as it may be misleading to the jury.
Unwanted inputs can hurt the case and end up unjustly swaying the case in one direction, even backfiring on the witness's party. Whether you like it or not, that's law, and that's what it's been this entire time.
Rite 😱👀🤔
Biased*
ss slightly
He's in on it....
When your "Stop mansplaining" card is declined
"I was just finish...."
"B-but I was just...."
"B-b-but...."
This is gonna go straight to her blog, with a title like " are we under a tyran patriarchate still in 2021 ?"
PSA: Dont do this in court folks. If a lawyer asks you questions in court.. answer yes or no. If you need to elaborate just ask the judge if you can state your reason for your answer. He will normally allow it it if you ask. That's how court works. You're welcome. 😉
And call the judge -"SIR", and not behave in a petulant teenage manner, except if you are a petulant teenager.
@Pete Savoy Just what I was thinking... the "are we clear?" made my blood boil.
@Pete Savoy Absolutely. She's a professional...she needs to behave like one. She never said 'your honor' or 'sir' once, just "Ok" and then doesn't clue into the fact, that you don't argue with the court, ie: the presiding judge, but continues on, contradicting the Judge and giving away a contradicting testimony, after she had already finished. It was an innocent mistake, but a naive one, given her status.
You don't do that in a court of law, and she got a hard lesson. Judges expect absolute compliance with what they are saying to a witness. That's part of jurisprudence, whether you like it or not. She learned a lesson and won't do it again, which is the whole point... she wasn't hurt or lost her life, she just learned the correct way to address the bench.
@Pete Savoy Yes, for anyone badgering the attorneys and not following direction. Especially those who snipe at the judge as this witness did! An ignorant, self important witness does not control the court and when one tries, the judge has to step in.
@WORMINYA Nah, he's just one of those misguided sjw's😂😂😂😂
“I will determine when your answer is done.” What!?
Yeah. In the courtroom, judges don’t like to be talked over by anyone, especially witnesses or lawyers. It’s just how it is.
Yes because she was adding details & embellishing her answer which you are not allowed to do during cross examination! Not only is it against the rules (which witnesses are made aware of before the trial begins) but it does the prosecution no favors because it makes her look like a biased witness
@@justtryme2020 “with 3 grown men on top of him, he looked frail” is hardly adding any details. In the video you can see exactly what she’s talking about. It’s not to any bodies suprise 3 men were on top of him, nor is it a new detail that he died with 3 men on top of him.
@@theusa4052 True
If only he had been in prison where he belonged none of this would have happened.
This is the reasons why no one want to be witness in the court.
Well said.
I don't want anything to do with the court. They treat you like a prisoner. A big game for lawyers
Thought that was just me.
I think just the simple fact you have to call a judge “your honor” is incredibly stupid. And then the judge yelling at her for “finishing her answer”... “ I will determine when your answer is done” that sounds insane
Because you can't change you story later when you realize it makes your side look bad? Lmao
He just told her I tell you when your answer is done. Take that to Supreme Court
Lmao that's not how that works, you are not allowed to add passed the initial question without one of the attorneys prompting to, reason is you can add opinionated things to an argument without meaning to that could possibly sway the a jury, whether for good or bad, thenjudge is suppose to stop her when an attorney says just the answer this part of the question. It is up to the other attorney whether to cross examine and determine if any further questioning on their part would be good or bad for their case
That’s what I was thinking. 🤔 Too many big egos, then the judge always gets to pull that “I’m the judge Trump card. Lol
@@jeanettethomas3757 trump lives rent free in your head
no ..as he pointed out - it is the job of the prosecution to re-examine and fill in all the bits they consider important and until then missed out.. prosecution will already know this lady's story inside out..
True enough and it kinda make since but how are you to defend your self verbally or explain more clearly your side when they “already know her story” it defeats the purpose of even having a witness when everybody in that court work with each other it’s more of a okay let’s get these over with type of thing to me
If you swear to tell the “whole truth,” but are prevented from doing so, are you liable?
whole truth? Whole point is you do not lie. You do not add your own "input" that is for the counsel and jurors to do. You answer the question and thats it.
You can't be liable for something you don't say. Also you can't just say what you want in court. People otherwise would just be sharing their biased views and information and justice would rarely be done
@@MuiKaHo “Whole truth” refers to completeness, not veracity. If I am asked a question and promised to provide a complete answer, then I should be permitted to provide that answer. “At the time, yes,” is a more complete truth than “yes.” It does not add any bias or subjective input. In fact “yes” can appear to be deceitful if timing is important.
"I will decide when your answer is finished" Wow that's scary.
Yeah that was weird and he seemed argumentative
Maybe you should become a Judge, change the way thing are done.
Indeed... American "justice" in action...
@@rudybadass5520 Describe how a white judge scolding a white witness for breaking court protocol has anything to do with being a "supremist".
@@rudybadass5520 she wasn't asked her opinion...she was asked a question.
"I will determined when your answer is done" excuse me but this gives him the power to control what she says like she swore an oath to tell the WHOLE truth, not the parts he lets her say
So you would prefer that a witness could keep talking as long as they want?
You are asked to tell the truth. It doesnt say tell the truth and then elaborate on your answer. The court decides if further explanation is needed is needed.
If courts allowed people to explain every answer to a yes or no question, no trial would ever get done.
That is an excellent point, she swore to tell the whole truth, not part of the truth. I would love for someone to use that line when a judge tries to shut them up before the answer is done.
Yes
She had clearly finished answering the question.... then she decided to say more... you can’t do that as a witness. Actually- this judge is being pretty lenient with all the witnesses answers considering it would be perfectly acceptable for the attorney to object to the witness’ answers stating they can only answer with “ a yes or a no”..... it’s very common for attorneys to ask mostly “ yes or no” questions.
Learn how trials work moron. Trust me, you don't know better than the judge and all the lawyers on this case. The other side didn't even have a problem with this.
Dude - no need to scold. Message coulda been conveyed with respect.
She needed that. Some folks always think they know best. She nodded her head continually as the judge spoke to her but I bet it went in one ear and out the other!
The message was already conveyed though
When an medic shows up in uniform... you know they mean business... its just she wasn't on duty or even a medic in the case... the apeal to Pathos is disturbing- mainly because it was about HER not about George Floyed... this judge saved this case from a total tangent that could go anywhere. She should be ineligible to wear a uniform until she demonstrates a basic matter of reasonable conduct in the room.
Remember, she witness a man die, and it was within her capability to bring him aid. That is Trauma speaking!
@@calvinsmyth she is a human unlike you
She was not on duty at the time she was just another regular person in the crowd. Police were not going to let some one they dont know anywhere close to the suspect. Plus the officers had already called for medical assistance anyway. Did any of you actually watch it?
@@calvinsmyth lol
@@calvinsmyth hey, if I’m ever in a crash and a qualified medical professional wants to assist me please let them through. Thanks
@@fender892 Better yet, when you come to the ER, I'll let an EMT call the shots, but just for you.
Judges have such huge egos. They think they are gods.
Exactly
Yes . I agree 💯
But they sure do know how to hide away from the public, so they don't have to get found on the streets.
Believe it or not I’ve dealt with some very humble and good ones. The bad ones stand out obviously. Wish there was a way to fire them.
This is why disbarring them is possible
"I will determine when your answer is done" bro what? That's literally the opposite of freedom of speech lmao. How can YOU know when MY answer is done?
because she answered the question and then offered irrelevant subjective information. You don't have the "freedom of speech" to just blather on about anything you want when you're questioned as a witness.
The Judge is right.
These witnesses have PTSD of seeing a person get murdered in front of their eyes
“I decide when your answer is finished” YAAAA NO!!! that’s not justice works! WOW
I don't suggest going into a judges courtoom and arguing for your version of justice lol
I do not suggest you go into a judges courtoom and tell them what's what .. lol
Witness: “Yes that man murdered my wife”
Judge: Sorry Your answer finished and man
@@TheNiteinjail see that is the problem right there.... smfh
Seem like Chauvin might win the case with this judge in place. 🤡
He's actually given a lot to the prosecution, but overall seems like he really tries to be impartial
Hopefully the Jury can see through this bs.
It sounds like most people won't be happy with a fair trial, they want a public lynching based on their feelings...
@@williamhufnagel8790 It sounds fair to me
I wouldnt be so sure, this judge has already been in trouble involving this case.
man that was intense. i was on the edge of my seat
Not guilty
Lol
You can tell that those going after the judge here in the comments didn’t watch her whole line of questioning. The judge HAD to intervene because of her demeanor towards defense. She was extremely unprofessional and combative. In my opinion, for an EMT to act this way in court, whether she was one duty or not during what she witnessed, I would have terminated her position for the unprofessionalism she showed in court. Her clear bias was frankly disturbing between the prosecutions line of questioning compared to the defense. That’s why the judge got after her.
Man shut up
That's a typical Republican comment
@@mikem2179 Your reply is a typical character attack by leftists.
A witness cannot show bias towards another side, argue with a questioner, nor ask questions or question evidence. Do not divulge information beyond what is asked. If I asked you what color was the car? You should only say it was red and nothing more
She was finishing her answer, and the judge admitted he wanted leading questions and half answers
@@mikem2179 The judge had to intervene or the defense could have requested a mistrial and it would've been a waste of everyone's time. The judge was no fan of Chauvin's, which you can tell by sentencing. But it was the judge's job to make sure this woman didn't ruin the whole thing for the prosecution.
I love how you have to swear to tell the whole truth, but then you're brow-beaten into not doing so.
Perfect comment!!
@@bangitsmom6855 not really, have you guys never seen a trial?
You have to tell the truth according to what questions you are being asked and regarding what counsel is requesting of you. I'm not disagreeing with you I think it is ridiculous frankly she wasn't out of line IMO but I'm not a judge. Honestly that is the whole point of being examined and then cross-examined. It's the defense attorney's job to discredit you as a witness.
I fundamentally agree with what you're saying but that's kinda the whole point of having a prosecution strategy and a defense strategy.
He didnt ask her what she thought now he asked her what she thought at the time showing the jury she was not seing clearly in the moment and the fact that she thought the guy was so small when he was over 6 feet shows that. By saying she knows that she was wrong and knows that now dilutes the question and nullifies the point defence is trying to make.
@@smittyjohnson5279: The people in these comments are incredibly stupid. They don't even understand simple concepts of a trial when someone explains it to them.
She wasn’t even arguing with anyone...this judge is on the defense side.
100% this judge is an a-hole very clear his mind is probably already made up
Well.... witnesses are technically not allowed to pause that long. She had finished answering the question and then 6 full seconds later added additional info... then when the judge admonished her she talked back to him,,,you can not do that to a Judge. I actually haven’t seen a witness be that feisty to a Judge in a long time.
That's because you didn't watch her full testimony aka the primary source and are relying on NBC News to be a trustworthy secondary source of information. There was a prior question to the one shown here where she was being testy with the defense lawyer and was questioning his intentions. This is why the Judge told her not to argue with the Counsel and that he's allowed to ask questions.
chavuin did nothing wrong
clearly you didn’t watch the whole testimony. I suggest you donso
the judge really took nothing and turned it into an unnecessary power trip.
No- not at all, she was totally out of line from the gate. This clip is out of context.
He was preventing a mistrial from being invoked.
Just look at the full video somewhere else. You will understand why the Judge was riled up.
The judge was riled up because the witness was making his fellow racist Republican look bad.
@@The1980Philip you are clueless
She's one not to be messed with
The judges seems so defensive. As if there's a predetermination in this case in which he's trying to protect
That’s exactly what I was thinking
If you look closely.
The cop. Defense attorney. And judge all look racist tbh. You can see it their eyes. Their responses. And mannerisms.
They have already made up their mind. And anyone that comes against that they hate it.
God will be the final judge.
lmao she doing him a favor of just being there and they get disrespectful i woulda walked out right there
she's subpoenaed, she has to be there by law
@@randomcheese1719
Yep, her name isn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton
@@750nut Hillary testified in person many times. You know Trump never had the guts to though.
@Seymore Buddz she wasn't found guilty, she wasn't tried. Stop lying, Russian bot.
P.S. Soooo many people in these comments who did not watch this testimony nor cross examination.
You’re all acting as if a tiny clip tells the entire story.
Instead, you just look foolish. Because had any of these commenters watched the entire testimony, you’d know that she had an attitude with the defense attorney from the moment she sat down - while acting as nice as could be with the prosecutors.
Testimony is meant to be just that, testimony. You’re supposed to recount what you saw - without bias towards the subject.
Equally so, a firefighter is obviously going to have additional expectations of professionalism while in court.
Don’t want to? Don’t be one.
She has a book deal
This judge on a power trip, I say when your answer is finished 🤦🏾♂️
She added info that was not asked!
He’s doing his job.
fr
The Bible spoke of them
@@Koki-hc3mw he wasn't doing his job. That's why he's about to be locked up for life.
The lawyers get to manipulate the witnesses, but the witnesses do not get to fight back. The court's hostility toward the prosecution's witnesses is palpable.
The whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
Correct. Because it’s the prosecutor’s job to ask her the questions that will promote their side - as does the defense. It’s ironic because the defense representative seemingly had kept his cool even with a relatively hostile witness. She answers his questions as directed, you don’t answer the way you want.
She has an attitude, the prosecution will not like that she has antagonised the judge .
the whole system is corrupt af
No she was arrogant. The State will indeed have a problem with the way she was back talking the judge. She did not make a good witness. A good witness keeps their emotions in check. Other than that, you look like you have a motive. The jury watches everything.
How can you be a witness if a crooked Judge TRY to silence your honest opinion. When it is OUR RIGHT to speak freely and have our freedom of speech no matter where we at! We are on the land of American soil so therefore we shall speak freely even to a question that is directed.
The judge was preventing either side from invoking a mistrial...
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court.
After seeing this I don't want to be witness in court ever
If you ever are, just answer the questions and don't display attitude during cross examination (which is an important part of the legal system) and this won't happen to you.
Why? Because you will have to follow instructions?
just don't act like this girl (like she doesn't have time to be here), and you won't have a problem. No body else had an issue except her
It’s really hard to watch! He was begging for his life even before they put him on the ground! He knew he was going to die at the hands(knee) of the those cops that day!🥲🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️😌
maybe just dont be a witness with an attitude
Judges receive way too much respect for what they actually are
So do cops.
You mean power
True to a point. My grand father was elected county judge. He was a JP but not a atty, JD ⚖. Indiana County PA. He was a stand up guy. I was arrested by Orlando.gov 🚔 in 2012. The case was a scam & the police lied. The judge in my hearing was a nitwit. She even reviewed the data & KNEW the court case was flawed but made crass insults at me anyways. My case was later thrown out when my public defender told the SAO the police lied.
You're right all they are is glorified referees
A guy in a dress with a powertrip. " i don't like that you are still talking, stop talking" to witness of a murder. Let her give any and all info she has. Unless he working with the defense i dont see how it was up to the him to make the witness stop talking. If im a witness at a murder trial i didn't know i would be restricted by the judge on what i could recall and tell the jury. Seems like a bias judge to me.
What lawyers do is they tell you to answer the question but when you try to give a solid detailed answer they say don't volunteer information but when you give a brief answer they want more or you're not being detailed enough.
They want to hear what they want to hear, it's all convenience.
No, you answer the question. This was a direct clear yes or know. They didn’t ask how she felt now, they asked what she said then. She was giving irrelevant information, not more detail.
@@kstar1489 It´s true that the judge pretty much can decide what the witness is allowed or not allowed to say in court, but we should always remember that the judge can not decide what a witness SHOULD say. Thus: No witness can be forced to simply reply "yes" or "no" to questions, not even when such questions are percieved by the court to be "simple yes-or-no-questions". A clever witness can avoid it: "I can repeat what I said / what I witnessed".
and suddenly everybody is a legal expert advisor
If that's whom you call a JUDGE and the things he uttered as LEGAL 🤦🤦, then for sure everybody else other than that so called judge is a legal expert advisor. 😂😂
"I will determine when your answer is done."
Ladies and Gentlemen, the American Justice System.
That's how it works, both sides are making their case. Hence Defense and Prosecution.. Leave your bias at elsewhere.
Yes. Corporate law in action
That's how it's supposed to work. As a witness you're supposed to answer the question you are asked and that's it. It's up to the lawyers to ask the right questions for their side. The more you speak "out of turn" could lead to you being held in contempt or having your answers struck from the record. The bottom line is that the lawyers need to do their jobs and the judge is trying to ensure the happens while keeping the witness and their testimony
A FAILED NON JUSTICE SYSTEM
So answering completely is baised? This judge is a man not a God. How does he know the contents of anyones mind to determine when they are done. If the rules contradict the oath your sworn to then ....WHAT?
If Chauvin had listened to her, none of them would be in court today.
Exactly bro, they didn't listen to her they're in court today, they don't want to listen to her so again they're coming to court again on a later date. Therefore what it implies is listen to her they're won't be anymore court dates.
@@anil_anthony say what?? Google translate fail.
@@WhiskerWhippers she knew that he was dying because of the officer involved
@@WhiskerWhippers she doesn't, if that's the case on with what authority/proof/agenda was he being attacked?
@@WhiskerWhippers Knowledge, Empathy, and Common Sense. Not just her all the bystanders present.
You know the prosecutors get scared when they object to a question that makes their witness look bad. Lol
that is how court works, yes
How much of this trial did you watch? There were objections being raised by both sides quite frequently. And, as, G Im said, “that is how court works, yes.”
Even if the Judge was correct in asking her to only answer the questions asked of her, I don't see why he had to be so mean about it. Seems like a power trip.
for real his tone grossed me out mad hard
gives you an Idea where the Shitshow attitudes come from.TRICKLE, DOWN FROM THE BENCH. GEZZ WHAT A /&%@.
her entire tone with the defense attorney was kinda like that to, she at one point wouldnt even answer just yes or no....
The sad thing is almost every judge is like this
The judge did the right thing...
That’s because it’s his courtroom and that’s that! Seems like u are familiar with courts... it’s not sad it’s law and order!!! MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
@@johnsiedlitzki8381
You just said MAGA. sadness is now inevitable .
Are you serious? I'm done, I don't ever want to go to Court again, because if you are allowed to mistreat people because you have a title as a Judge, it's just wrong and if you can just speak to people any kind of way, I just don't agree. I can't get myself to accept that type of treatment and I don't believe anyone should have too, I believe in respect and logic and equality. You can get a point across without abuse of power. If someone gets offended and defend oneself then they have to be in Contempt of Court and may have never been in trouble a day in their life. Nobody can tell me that All Judges are professional and polite, because they aren't, they should have someone to answer too when they violate Judicial rules, like any other job has rules and regulations to abide, by, they shouldn't be exempt.
@@sanaedillard6659 Believe it or not she can get in serious trouble with the court as a witness. The judge is doing her a favor by telling her to only answer what is asked.
So, he directed her to answer the question, she pointed out that she was trying to answer the question but got cut off, and the judge accused her of "arguing with the court." Did I get that right? I hope not.
She answered then jumped to what the assumed the attorney was going to ask next and panic discredited her own report and the validity of her testimony. Judge could’ve been trying to keep to procedure for the integrity of the court and/or her from committing perjury.
@@rosscoeradio3741 To me it seemed more like she was adding to her answer in an attempt to rebut the framing of the prosecuting attorney's question which was clearly to discredit her testimony. Not her job, I know, but the judge was needlessly vituperative.
No, you only watched 3 minutes of an hour-and-a-half cross examination
You got it right. Sadly. This is not looking good
@Sharon Young what you just stated makes absolutely no sense.
We're all judging her for "arguing" but you try answering a leading question without providing additional information.
It’s not leading to point out she lied and then she gets pissy because she knows she got caught.
She will have the opportunity to provide any additional information during re-direct, should the prosecution feel the need for her to do so. Look it up….
She is a hero, and they treat her like the criminal
I will determine when your answer is done...... Wow, just wow.
Awful
right! LIKE WooooooooooowwwwW. wwwwooooowwweeee. boi!
...top tier legal minds up in here. It's almost like he is there to moderate and judge, or something. But nah you're right. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW, just wow. HOL UP. JUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT WOW.
Yikeserino - I can't even! Lots to unpack here.
These witnesses need to be careful with their feelings and their testimonies, they just need to stick to the script or they can blow this case towards the defense and that will hurt very very bad.
Im starting to view judges the same way i view world economic forum/central banks- Low skill/high esteem racists from the segregation era whom enjoy wearing blacks robes and spankin each other during pep-talk meets on "what to lie about or ignore".
If that isn’t the most corrupt thing ever idk what is. “ your answer will be determined by me “
You are a moron
He said *when* her answer is finished is determined by him. Not the answer itself.
@@jackier5687 you made no sense
@@Twistytowertowercrane how? The time her answer is finished is determined by him. Not the substance of her answer.
@@jackier5687 english isn’t a first language for you is it?
That judge is on a power trip. Let witnesses speak. It’s called freedom of speech. And being a judge does not give you the authority to revoke that right
@sam boob
Witness job is to answer questions posed to them by either prosecution or defence, not voluntary offer extra information they weren’t asked for. This can prejudice a jury and cause a retrial
Freedom of speech does not apply in a line of direct questioning. She could have invoked a mistrial with what she was doing.
Tense? Ha. How do you think she felt? Not being able to help :-(
So let me get this straight, she's not able to finish her answer and when she protested against it, the judge said "dOnT aRgUe wItH tHe cOuRt". Wtf🙄🤦
Fix is in it’s so obvious
That "additional information" was irrelevant to the question...
Not trying to be rude but you don't know how Court operates. What you said is a political mischaracterization. If this is what you believe and refuse to correct your thinking then you would be living in ignorance.
@@pixel5341 Who are you? A lawyer? A judge?
@Rob Ranieri And let the defense misled you, okay Einstein.
Judge has zero sympathy for what she's witnessed and going thru. Degrading her was out of line, pull her aside and ask her kindly. She deserves respect especially given the fact that she helps save lives.
The court deserves respect as they are seeking justice in murder... wow 👏
She had been asked kindly , the first time she did it. She was gradually asked more and more tensely, but she kept doing it. Finally at this moment, after giving her so many warnings, she was straight off chastised . Watch the full trial of this day, to see what happened
Pull her aside 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 He’s a Judge not her babyfather
@@roncarter3898 my point exactly 💯
@@nannou1 More importantly, she was warned more kindly and politely several times before the judge finally did this because she kept doing it.
What an absolute child
Nah that Judge seems primed to throw out some testimony. The body language and the way he’s speaking to her is a bit concerning.
The attitude of the witness is what's "concerning" in this. Even after being told off by the judge, she still has a sassy "a'ight" instead of a respectful answer.
That is not to say that her testimony is less credible, but she has an attitude that wouldn't fly in our department. If she talks like that to patients or her superiors, she's a HIPPA violation waiting to happen.
@@leopoldfreiherrvonbernewit4747
Because the judge did not give supreme attitude himself? As if
@@673497 I mean.. Yes.. But the judge is the presiding officer of a case. If he says you were out of bounds, you were. Period. You don't argue with the umpire.
(If you really, really think he was wrong in a legal sense, you can challenge the ruling later by appealing, but don't tell a judge how to do his job during trial.)
@@leopoldfreiherrvonbernewit4747
Kind of like...oh I don't know...
do what the cops tell you to do and not talk back? 🤔
@@chiefnavydoc you clearly have no understating whatsoever of how court works …
I think the judge should have had a different tone when addressing witnesses. They are scared and nervous and not arguing with the court. His sternness is going to make the following witnesses scared in answering questions. He needs to make the witnesses feel comfortable. He does not know if witnesses have medical diagnosis such as anxiety, bipolar, hyper manic, social phobia and so on. They are under worldwide stress to have a judge accuse them of arguing with him. Judge please chill
Exactly, it will cause people to become MIA
Pamela..
That's what the judge wants,so he can call it a mistrial .
It will end up.like th O.J. trial.
Hes bought already. most likely with tax money. The cops just dont want to lose any cases at all they will do and pay what it takes.
Judge is showing the whole world he is biased, unprofessional, belligerent and hostile.
Yeah, I'm done commenting after someone just responded F your feelings. Who says that? With the things thats going on in the world today, I think feelings should matter, this is why I don't do Social Media. So I am done. Peace
ḟûçк you, your honor. I am a free person. You may hold me in contempt, but you will not intimidate me and threaten me. That's what I would have told him.
There's a reason for such a small number of likes on your comment bcz no sane person will ever agree with you
@@huzaifa8530 there's a reason that nobody at all liked your comment as well.
I watched her full testimony which is about 30 minutes, and she is considered a "combative witness". Those that don't see her as one, don't know how the court is ran. The majority of the witness' in this case I would not consider combative.
You want tense exchange my mother in law is coming over for the weekend, her weekends are a month long
I’m back guys, she came here for Easter, then why is she still here, Easter was over on Monday 12:01
😂
🤣🤣🤣
That's scarey
Hahahahaaaa 🤣🤣🤣
Are you still alive?
Been watching the trial and these lawyers are treating the witnesses like they did something wrong.I see why people dont like testifying in court.🤦I was a jury for a case and this is exactly how the lawyers where it was crazy.
This is how every trial works.
@@romakrelian yea that’s just trial, lawyers ask tough questions to try and trip u up, just like congressmen, they try to flip anything and everything on you, both sides, prosecutors and defense, just how it is
Thats how it works lol
I took a day off work to go to court because I witnessed an accident. Sat there all day lost my wages for the day and then they plea bargained. I told the da I would never waste my time witnessing anything again.
@@markbaylor3101 I feel for you. Thats why alot of people don't stop at accidents and stay silent if they see something. Too many people lose money . And with this case you have to worry about witnesses or jurors being attacked by both sides when this is done.
Witnesses, when required to give yes or no answers, chafe at the notion they cannot give their deeply felt personal opinions on any number of things not germane to the question.
I don't see that her behavior was in any way problematic.
@@iadorenewyork1 Of course you don't, Karen.
@@nitetrane98 sometimes you can't just give a yes or no answer unless you want a certain picture painted so f*** that
@@ShadowPlay1919 Then don't agree to be a witness.
@@ericmanget4280 you don't have a choice
I didn't see the full context but that judge seemed like an arrogant so and so. Surely she's as entitled to answer the questions as the lawyers are to ask them.
that is the reason why i get out of jury duty, and it's easy...when I am asked ''are you familiar with the statute of limitations?'' I say ''yes, it's on Liberty Island''
9
That’s the kind of answer you give when you WANT to get selected as a juror. The lawyers for the defense and prosecution jointly select the jurors from the jury pool. Lawyers typically don’t want people who know the law on the jury. That way, they can be manipulated by emotion or “good sounding” arguments which in reality are poor. Goes for both the defense and prosecution.
@@gaspi101 Exactly
And you are american.
LMAO
Did I miss something? What did she say/do for the judge to respond like that?
You didn't miss anything other than this judge apparently feels empathy for this pathetic cop. That judge is latching out on an important witness to show exactly what transpired and is hurting the defense. This arragant judge is truly showing who's side he's really on. Real sad indeed.
@@SJMe777 The witness was being biased against the defense, the entire time she was on the stand.
She kept rambling on beyond what was asked. The laywer was asking another question and she kept on about the last one. It was obvious. In court, you keep your answers direct and concise. It's not story-time for Karens.
@@DIVISIONINCISION rambling on? the answer is very short for starters... secondly witnesses are not in court daily practicing short answers, you are clearly not objective here
It’s not about being bias it’s about “TRUTH” which in fact we know those folk can’t handle. PERIODT..#staywokeppl✌️
I think he judged her.
What on earth is the point of having witnesses there if you allow the lawyers to pick and choose which part of their statements can be read out and don't allow the witness a chance to explain the context.
The judge tried to bully her because he want this cop to get off. New judge I dont think this trial would be fair.
honestly if the judge wants to swing it he wouldn't need to do it by bullying this lady I think that aspect is just him not being very understanding I mean unless she has tried to add lib after questions before or something I don't see any reason to admonish her not to argue and I definately don't see that someone else can determine when you are done telling what you witnessed
No he wants he to follow the court rules.......like most liberal idiots she doesn’t think they apply to her
I thought he said the cameras were off. This judge wants this officer to walk.
No, he removed the jury from the courtroom before he reprimanded her. She asked if they were still on the record. He said yes. Ergo the cameras continued to roll. Judge was a jerk.
I thought you folks claimed to be the intelligent ones.
@@longwayaround7767 the judge was a jerk? But you think it was ok for this arrogant witness to argue with the judge when he tells her to stop talking and not add more that the question is being asked? She isn’t there to persuade the jury to convict. She is there to give the facts asked of her and “ nothing but the FACTs”.
For the record she is very naïve and uneducated when it comes to a lot of the policy and procedure she is trying to get people to Think she knows how things work. Her interpretation of what is normal and abnormal is way off base. And the attorney did not ask her opinions on that stuff he asked her yes no question. So shut up stop arguing to the judge and answer the questions like you’re asked. Period
When the defense lawyers know that is going to be more than few words for an answer, they cut the witnesses and say no more questions. Look at the judge, she wasn’t arguing with no body, she just was given the rest of the answer,
This judge wants a fair trial. He has been very fair and impartial.
Not the truth as YOU see it Mr “I’m telling you the truth”
When will this trial be done?
Love this woman
The reaction by the judge was completely unwarranted. WTF is this judge talking about. She was answering. This judge is suspect.
Mega! How bout he try ta make it look like he ain’t the defense side🤦🏿♂️🤦🏿♂️
Augustus K Weah Jr Alright, have it your way. Let the witness keep on talking about information irrelevant to the prosecution’s question, let her be obstreperous to court process, and let her be argumentative about how she should answer. Then, observe when the defense claims a mistrial occurred, helping the officer get off on a lighter sentence.