FoxNews.com reports that
“PBS NewsHour” correspondent Yamiche Alcindor put forward novel legal analysis on Monday during closing arguments in the Derek Chauvin trial.
Defense attorney Eric Nelson focused heavily in his closing argument on George Floyd’s health and drug use, claiming they were more responsible for Floyd’s death than Chauvin placing his knee on Floyd’s neck, as seen in now-infamous footage.
Alcindor, however, appeared to fact-check Nelson by relying on the prosecution’s case, which exclusively focused on Chauvin’s use of force.
“Chauvin’s lawyer said it flies in the face of common sense to say Floyd’s death was not caused at least in part by his underlying conditions or drug use,” Alcindor tweeted. “This argument is in direct contradiction to the prosecution’s case which says believe your eyes, Chauvin’s knee killed Floyd.”
Critics mocked the taxpayer-funded reporter for her less-than-trenchant analysis.
“Yeah wow so weird that the defense is contradicting the prosecution,” conservative commentator Matt Walsh reacted.
“Yes, typically the defense and the prosecution do present contradictory arguments,” Daily Caller reporter Dylan Housman told Alcindor.
“Does not seem odd or surprising that the defense case would be in ‘direct contradiction’ to the prosecution case. That’s the way it works,” Washington Examiner senior political correspondent Byron York chimed in.
“Is she really confused or outraged that the defense and prosecution might have differing views on a case? How does someone so clueless get a job anywhere?” radio host Derek Hunter asked.
“I have news about the kinds of arguments made every single day by criminal defense lawyers,” National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin said.
Alcindor wasn’t the only journalist to share questionable analysis of the Chauvin trial. CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates tweeted: “Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why #DerekChauvin is innocent. Think about that,” an apparent dismissal of the bedrock principles of the American justice system.
MSNBC legal analysts Glenn Kirschner and Barb McQuade similarly focused on Nelson’s “reasonable doubt” arguments.
“When you have NO compelling facts/evidence supporting your defense, you start with long-winded discussions of legal principles like presumption of innocence & proof beyond reasonable doubt. That’s how defense attorney Nelson started his closing argument. That is a tell…” wrote Kirschner, a former Army prosecutor.
“I have found that the defense spends more time on presumption of evidence and reasonable doubt when he does not want to focus on the facts of his own case,” tweeted McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney appointed by Barack Obama.
Why are the Main Stream Media Minions of the Far Left Democrats so stupid?
Because, boys and girls, they are “useful idiots”.
Their job is no longer the objective reporting of facts.
Their job, which they perform with glee, is the brainwashing of the gullible with propaganda-driven falsehoods, so that those who actually pay attention to then, believe the alternative reality they are baring witness to.
As anyone who has any education at all…or has watched any legal dramas on television knows, the Defense Lawyer does not have to prove their client to be innocent.
They just have to prove to the jury that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he should be found guilty to the charges placed against him by the Prosecution.
In this case, Attorney Eric Nelson laid out a masterful closing argument in his defense of Derek Chauvin.
By breaking down the video of that fateful incident which ended with the death of convicted criminal George Floyd, he was able to point out that Officer Chauvin was following the Minnesota Police Department Training Manual.
He was also able to show that Floyd violently resisted being placed in a squad car, exhibiting behavior that certainly showed him in a drug-induced state.
If this was a level playing field, I would venture to say that Former Officer Chauvin would either be found Not Guilty or receive a minimal sentence.
However, this is not an even playing field, as the dimwitted performer and her fellow Main Stream Media Minions have been demonstrating in their coverage of this case for the last year.
Also, Rep. “Mad” Maxine Waters’ threatening of the jury was interference of the highest order.
I wish Judge Cahill could summon her before the court to, excuse the expression, “read her the riot act” on television before the entire country.
PBS Reporter Yamiche Alcindor and the rest of her colleagues would never tell you that.
They wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up to them and French Kissed them.
Until He Comes,
DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly