The prosecutor in the Potter case just said this was not some "oopsy." She is offering a detailed account on the elements. The problem is that the element with the least attention: Potter had to "consciously disregard" the risk. That is the distinction with simple negligence.
...Notably, Erin Eldridge seemed to declare the police witnesses as "biased" as "members of the family" of officers. She encouraged the jury to look to witnesses removed from that "family."
It is interesting to hear a prosecutor making the "thin blue line" bias argument against officer testimony. Former Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon testified Potter was a "fine officer" and that he would not have fired her without due process.
...Eldridge keeps referring to Potter's "police family" to discard their testimony. Eldridge is also telling the jury not to feel empathy or sympathy for Potter, who she insists "betrayed" her fellow officers...
... What is interesting is that Eldridge is not reframing her approach after her cross examination, which was (in my view) tone deaf and poorly crafted. You can make the case for manslaughter while recognizing what the jury saw on the stand.
...Instead Eldridge told the jury to essentially disregard the testimony of the other officers while also disregard any sympathy for Potter. The prosecution case was detached to the point of lacking any empathy for the situation...
...That could leave the jury detached from the prosecution. The stronger framing would have acknowledged what the jury saw on the stand while also saying that it should not change their verdict. There is an instruction to that effect.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
