George Floyd: Testimony Underway in Murder Trial of Ex-Officer Derek Chauvin
March 25, 2021

Jurors are entering their second day of testimony in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd’s death. The trial is one of the most closely watched court cases in decades.

Opening statements got under way on Monday in downtown Minneapolis, where the former police officer is accused of killing George Floyd last year by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.

Prosecutors wasted no time showing jurors the video that was taken by a bystander and captured Floyd’s final moments.

They played the video during their opening statement, calling the white officer’s actions against a black suspect “murder.” The jury heard Floyd say “I can’t breathe” 27 times.

Defense attorneys countered during their opening statement that Chauvin was doing his job and what he had been trained to do over the course of his 19-year career.

The defense attorney disputed that Chauvin was to blame for Floyd’s death. He pointed out that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and suggested his drug use, combined with heart disease, high blood pressure and adrenaline, caused a heart rhythm disturbance that killed him.

After opening statements, the jury heard from several witnesses as prosecutors began laying out their case:

• They heard from a cashier at a gas station across the street who filmed the encounter.
• They heard from a 911 dispatcher who testified that she saw part of Floyd’s arrest on a city surveillance camera and was so disturbed about the use of force she called a duty sergeant.
• They also heard from a bystander who was trained in martial arts, including chokeholds. He testified that Chauvin appeared to increase the pressure on Floyd’s neck several times.

The mixed martial artist returned to the stand this morning.

Fourteen jurors or alternates are hearing the case – eight of them white and six of them black or multiracial. Only 12 will deliberate.

Barbed wired and concrete barriers surround the Minneapolis courthouse where the trial is being held. There is also a heavy presence of the National Guard, who will attempt to keep the peace over the next four weeks.

Texas HB 228: Replace Court Reporters with Electronic Recording Devices?
March 25, 2021

A Texas bill that would allow electronic recording devices to replace live court reporters has people in the legal community up in arms.

Hundreds of people in the legal community are voicing opposition over a bill in the Texas legislature that, if passed, would allow electronic recording devices to replace live certified court reporters.

House Bill 228, which is sponsored by Representative Andrew Murr of Kerrville, would allow county commissioners to decide whether to use electronic recording devices in lieu of certified court reporters.

The intent behind the bill is to save money and time – but many say it would do neither.

The bill has sparked outrage among court reporters and others in the legal community who say there is no substitute for live, certified professionals.

Last week, there was a public hearing before the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence and hundreds of court reporters from around the state sent in comments opposing the proposed legislation.

They pointed out that many states that have implemented electronic recording devices returned to court reporters after a long list of problems occurred, including

• Complaints of quality transcripts
• Lack of real-time transcription during proceedings
• Missing or inaudible records
• Retrials of cases due to lost digital recordings
• Lack of confidence in the system by attorneys
• Violation of clients’ rights in criminal matters due to inaudible portions of their records
• And unexpected costs and additional personnel and equipment to perform all the functions a certified court reporter

The attorneys at our law firm have also voiced our opposition to House Bill 228. Forcing courts to use electronic devices in place of a certified court reporter would be detrimental to the litigants and the judicial process.

Certified court reporters are required by law to make verbatim records of a proceeding to ensure accuracy of what was said. An electronic recording device cannot ensure this accuracy, no matter how good it is.

Court reporters are also ethically bound to maintain these records and protect their authenticity.

We side with the court reporters on this one.