Kimberly Potter Trial

I saw on the Duluth news they cut the trial short today due to snow?

Can’t be true if you heard it from the media.

Bass Pundit wrote:

The burden isn’t “needed”; it is “allowable” or “authorized.” That condition is met by the circumstances in which Daunte was shot. Daunte was presenting an imminent deadly threat to others. Kim was within policy under that situation to pull a gun on Daunte as soon as he started struggling with Officer Lucky. At that moment everything that happened was on Daunte Wright shoulders. The cops chose to go in as easy as possible in an attempt to descalate the situation. Daune Wright was an easily set off hot head who put the officers in a tough position. It is up to us as a society to insure the cops are not taking L’s for the actions of criminals. Officer Potter is not a criminal for her actions that day. I am betting there will be jurors that see that when they go into deliberations. I would also bet there are going to be jurors who are dead set on conviction. I don’t see Potter being acquitted and fear that the pro-law and order jurors will be moral cowards not standing up for what is right. I think it is a hung jury mistrial at best.

The defense needs to convince the jury that deadly force was needed in order to prove the defenses argument. They don’t need to convince you or I. Only the jury. We all have our preconceived opinions about what we want the verdict to be. We’re not the jury and we are definitely not in that courtroom. We are also seeing and hearing things the jury is not.

She shot and killed someone. Burden of proof isn’t needed to determine if she killed someone. The prosecution needs to prove she acted recklessly for first degree or in culpable negligence for second degree. She never meant to fire her gun, that is clear in every video and press release by the police department.

The defense is using a dangerous dual defense that contradicts itself. They are arguing that deadly force was justified but it was an accident. That contradiction alone suggest negligence or possibly recklessness.

I understand what you’re saying but you’re jumping to conclusions that haven’t been made.

Matt, We have three days of testimony right now. Are you aware of a single instance where the Prosecution attempted to meet their burden of proof?

As of right now the testimony given has only helped the Defense. Officer Lucky testified use of a taser was justified in his professional opinion.

Sgt. Johnson testified in his professional opinion that deadly force is allowed by state law as a response to the danger he was in at the time the gun was fired.

The Defence with the Prosecutions own witnesses before they even have started their case have created reasonable doubt. At this point, they really don’t need to do anything. The Prosecution has dug a hole for themselves, but that isn’t their fault really. The facts are what the facts are; they absolutely had to call the two other Officers present to get their testimony. This case should have never gone to trial, same as Rittenhouse.

“The defense needs to convince the jury that deadly force was needed in order to prove the defenses argument.”
No, the Defense only needs to show deadly force is allowable under state law in these circumstances. Not that deadly force was “needed.” That notion is totally wrong and I have no clue where you are getting it from. She was allowed under state law to pull and use either weapon under the circumstances. The fact that she got mixed up about which weapon she actually pulled is irrelevant.

I’ve been watching off and on on Court TV and they a civil rights attorney on and he stated that Ms Potter set all this in motion. I just don’t see how people can say that with a straight face. Daunte set it in motion when he was too much of a coward to show up for court. He set it in motion when he didn’t follow extremely simple instructions and jumped back in the car. This is what happens when people live their lives with a sense of impunity.
The parents gave him a car even though he’s never had a driver’s license, a car that wasn’t insured and had expired tags. How many of you would send your kids out under those circumstances? It only took them about 72 hours however to retain three high profile lawyers. CHA CHING!

We live in a time where the criminals are always the victims. Personal responsibility is gone. It’s always someone else’s fault.

belletaine wrote:

Daunte set it in motion when he was too much of a coward to show up for court. He set it in motion when he didn’t follow extremely simple instructions and jumped back in the car. This is what happens when people live their lives with a sense of impunity.
The parents gave him a car even though he’s never had a driver’s license, a car that wasn’t insured and had expired tags.

I think we all agree with this. However, his life is not what is on trial here. The officer is on trial.

The defense for Potter is likely not even permitted to personally attack Wright’s lifestyle, previous crimes, or general behavior.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>belletaine wrote:</div>
Daunte set it in motion when he was too much of a coward to show up for court. He set it in motion when he didn’t follow extremely simple instructions and jumped back in the car. This is what happens when people live their lives with a sense of impunity.
The parents gave him a car even though he’s never had a driver’s license, a car that wasn’t insured and had expired tags.

I think we all agree with this. However, his life is not what is on trial here. The officer is on trial.

The defense for Potter is likely not even permitted to personally attack Wright’s lifestyle, previous crimes, or general behavior.

I intentionally left out any comments on his behavior. His mother testified regarding the no DL, insurance or tags,
All he had to do was get cuffed and get in the squad car, but he didn’t and that’s what set everything in motion and to hear lawyers, pundits, whomever suggest it was her actions have a ax to grind.

Cops aren’t stupid. In small towns they know who the problem children are, they know who wouldn’t swat a fly. In the big cities it’s impossible for the cops to know everybody traveling through their town. This is a traffic stop gone bad. I feel sorry for the family that lost a member. I feel sorry for the cop and her friends and family. I feel sorry for the cops in general for having another incident.

The jury will sort this one out. It will happen again and the court will sort that one out also. To think this will never happen again would be crazy.

Former Officer Potter is expected to take the stand today.

MN is one of a handful of states that allow “spark of life” witnesses. Thus this guy’s parents can speak about how great he was … but the defense cannot introduce all the negatives … strange …

There is a plenty going on with the whole minor offense stops across the country. It is often used to find drugs, drug paraphernalia, people with warrants. It does work for getting thugs off the streets.

MN is one of a handful of states that allow “spark of life” witnesses. Thus this guy’s parents can speak about how great he was … but the defense cannot introduce all the negatives … strange …

SERIOUSLY?! That’s BS. If you can sway the jury’s opinion with crying family members and babies then you ought to be able to sway their opinion with documented facts about what he was really doing.

Brittman wrote:

MN is one of a handful of states that allow “spark of life” witnesses. Thus this guy’s parents can speak about how great he was … but the defense cannot introduce all the negatives … strange …

I didn’t know that. Thanks

gim wrote:

Former Officer Potter is expected to take the stand today.

This is going to be interesting if she does take the stand. Risky move because the way I’m scoring this, the defense is in the lead right now. Is putting Potter on the stand an attempt to run up the score and could it backfire?

To me, it all comes down to what is required by both charges.

From a STRIB report: “….first-degree manslaughter, only requires the state to prove that Officer Potter is being reckless in her handling of the firearm,” Moran explained. “In the lesser charge (second-degree manslaughter), the state actually has to prove that Officer Potter was consciously disregarding a risk of death or great bodily harm, which in some ways seems harder to prove in this case.”

Was she reckless in her handling of the firearm? Seems like little to no evidence has been offered by the prosecution to that end. Especially difficult since the video evidence is clear that she did not even intend to USE the firearm.

To the second charge, again I don’t see how the prosecution offered up anything solid as proof that Potter was consciously disregarding a risk of death or great bodily harm. The prosecution hasn’t, that I have heard, even questioned the fact that the situation warranted the use of the taser, so how could she have consciously disregarded the risk if it has not been proven that there was no need to take that risk in the first place?

Highly risky IMO to put Potter on the stand unless her team is really thinking somehow they are behind. I have to assume the defense has mock jury tested her and if she goes forward, it must be because they think she comes off as both believable and can show genuine remorse while still maintaining the clarity that she is explaining the accident, not confessing to the crime. Fine line.

Spark of life witnesses became better known to the public in the trial last summer …

A unique “spark of life” doctrine in Minnesota allows prosecutors to introduce evidence about George Floyd’s life in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who is accused of causing his death.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank has told a Hennepin County judge that he plans to show jurors photos of Floyd as a young man and call a witness to testify about Floyd’s childhood in Texas, report Reuters and the Associated Press.

Usually, such evidence can only be presented in the sentencing phase of a trial, the articles report. But prosecutors can introduce evidence in the guilt phase of the trial under Minnesota’s “spark of life” doctrine, which got its name from a 1985 Minnesota Supreme Court decision. The court ruled in that case that prosecutors could present evidence that a murder victim is “not just bones and sinews covered with flesh but was imbued with the spark of life.

Is there a side to this argument I do not see? Seems patently unfair that one side can say “saint” and the other can’t point to proven history to show otherwise.

Umy wrote:

Is there a side to this argument I do not see? Seems patently unfair that one side can say “saint” and the other can’t point to proven history to show otherwise.

It’s a weird thing that shouldn’t exist but they can’t just say anything they want. If they introduce what is considered character evidence like saying he is a “saint” then the defense can provide counterpoints and potentially introduce new evidence to do it.

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

The prosecution hasn’t, that I have heard, even questioned the fact that the situation warranted the use of the taser,

The Prosecution’s Use Of Force Expert claimed that a taser wasn’t justified in this situation. If there is one pro-Potter juror, all they have to do is sit on the facts that the Prosecution’s Use of Force Expert has a thin resume with little on-the-job policing experience and got paid. While the Defences Use of Force Expert has an incredibly impressive resume and never takes a dime for testimony in criminal trials; The guy was on the committee that formulated the first national police policy guidelines for using a taser independent from the companies recommendations when they first came out.

Bass Pundit wrote:

The Prosecution’s Use Of Force Expert claimed that a taser wasn’t justified in this situation.

Didn’t see that, but one paid professional witness seems to me to be a very thin layer of “evidence” if that’s all the prosecution is hanging their case on. Seems to me to make either Man 1 or Man 2 stick, the prosecution needed to really prove that no use of force was warranted at all, and I’m not seeing how they did that.

I didn’t see all her testimony, but IMO Potter was very good in her own defense on the stand. Obviously distraught and remorseful, the prosecution’s questions seemed very weak and not very focused. In fact, the Mrs said, are they trying to throw the case? They just didn’t seem to go anywhere with their questions, almost like they didn’t want to be seen by the jury to be attacking the victim.

Unless every member of the jury somehow thinks along the lines of “we have to convict her of something”, I’m not sure how they find her guilty given the standards for the charges.

Closing arguments have ended and the jury is out for deliberation.

I didn’t watch the trial. For those that did, how long will the jury be out?
DT

deertracker wrote:

I didn’t watch the trial. For those that did, how long will the jury be out?
DT

the #4 news figured there would be a verdict before the holiday.

Are the MN history books going to include the 2021 Christmas Race Riots?

I bet they will have a verdict by Wed. I will be praying for Kim Potter. No matter what sentence she will get, she will punish herself more than any sentence will. She knows she F’d up big time.

My bet is tomorrow afternoon/evening, or Wednesday morning, they will come back with a guilty verdict for the lightest charge. I don’t think she should be tossed in prison for 10 or more years, but she did screw up. No one really denies that. IMO she gets 5 years and serves two.

Sad story no matter how it turns out. Everybody lost/loses.

Pete

Have not read all the posts so excuse me if I am repeating something.
We trust the police to carry deadly weapons, well trained humans can still make mistakes, just like a doctor can make a terrible mistake, but we still do not send them to prison for the mistake. You could certainly say that they should have more or better training, or maybe they should not carry guns at all, but if you give them the certification, give them the job and then give them the gun society is trusting them with the understanding that a terrible mistake can happen. !9 is right of course everybody loses here.

fishinfreaks wrote:

Are the MN history books going to include the 2021 Christmas Race Riots?

No, there won’t be. Context matters. Yes, a police officer shot a young black man, but there isn’t the outrage over this case because Potter didn’t spend 9 minutes kneeling on the man’s neck while 3 other officers looked on.

blackbay wrote:

My bet is tomorrow afternoon/evening, or Wednesday morning, they will come back with a guilty verdict for the lightest charge. I don’t think she should be tossed in prison for 10 or more years, but she did screw up. No one really denies that. IMO she gets 5 years and serves two.

I have to say, I think there actually IS a chance she’s found not guilty entirely. The issue I see is that the definition of Man 2 actually seems to me to be the more difficult charge to prove in this particular case. So that leaves Man 1, and the definition of that charge clearly does not fit at all and IMO the prosecution has done little to nothing to prove that charge.

I agree, though, I think there is strong pressure to say Potter must be held accountable for something, so even if the Man 2 charge doesn’t fit, I think that’s more than likely where the jury goes.

I have to wonder if Potter is found guilty on Man 2, then is there any way that any police shooting can EVER be ruled an accident? Hard to come up with any circumstances under which that would be possible if the jury says guilty in this case that is so clearly an accident.

I have to wonder if Potter is found guilty on Man 2, then is there any way that any police shooting can EVER be ruled an accident? Hard to come up with any circumstances under which that would be possible if the jury says guilty in this case that is so clearly an accident.
[/quote]

Nobody is debating if this is an accident or not. People are too hung up on her lack of intent which has no bearing. She didn’t mean to do this and everyone is aware. The only factor that has in this case is the reasoning for manslaughter charges and clearly not murder charges. Potter and the video evidence have said from the very beginning that this was an accident.

Drunk drivers rarely intentionally crash their vehicles…generally it is an “accident” by definition. I could drive my truck 100mph and eventually have an “accident” by definition. In both instances negligence is involved. You can, and often are held criminally responsible for an accident. So many people fail to understand this. Negligence leading to the accident is they key in determining guilty/not guilty of these charges by law.

***My original guess was that she would be found guilty of 2nd Degree Manslaughter and not guilty of 1st Degree Manslaughter. From what I’ve seen that’s still my guess, but I’d say the chances of her being found not guilty have increased slightly from before the trial

DeRangedFishinguy wrote:

We live in a time where the criminals are always the victims. Personal responsibility is gone. It’s always someone else’s fault.

like with Rittenhouse?