Name: 直播：明尼阿波利斯的Chauvin審判可能恢復陪審團選擇 (LIVE: Jury selection may resume for Chauvin trial in Minneapolis)
Uploaded: 2021-03-10T22:10:23.000Z
Duration: 6 min 34 s

approach the party in Your honor, please.

Um, again, just for purposes of the record, Mr Frank and I had a discussion last evening about which motions to address today.

嗯，再說一次，為了記錄在案，我和法蘭克先生昨晚曾討論過今天要處理哪些議案。

And we agreed upon, uh, numbers 18, 19 and 21 of the defense motions in lemonade as well as number four in the States.

我們同意了檸檬水案中的18號 19號和21號辯方動議 以及美國的4號動議。

Motions in the minutes, Um, I think as a threshold manner.

在會議記錄中的議案，嗯，我想作為一個門檻的方式。

Your Honor, I think there is actually one correction that came to my attention from yesterday.

法官大人，我想其實有一個更正是昨天才注意到的。

也許我們以後可以解決這個問題。

Uh, dispatching with perhaps the easiest of the three.

呃，派遣也許是三者中最簡單的。

One second, I believe, is identical to state motion number five.

一秒鐘，我相信，與第五項國家動議相同。

And therefore, we have no objection to that border being granted.

是以，我們不反對準許這一邊界。

Alright, 19 is granted without objection.

Identify yourself for the record, this is Sunday.

Uh, the state opposes the motion to the extent it precludes testimony, not just on subsequent changes.

呃，州政府反對動議的原因是它排除了證詞，而不僅僅是對後來的變化。

Two MPD policies which we agree absolutely should be excluded, but also on MPD policies on what shotgun was trained.

我們同意絕對應該排除的兩項MPD政策，但同時也要排除MPD關於什麼獵槍受過訓練的政策。

But that might not have been in effect at the time of towards death, uh, policies on which Chauvin was trained There are definitely relevant.

但在Chauvin受訓的時候，這可能還沒有生效，呃，Chauvin受訓的政策肯定是相關的。

There should have been had the requisite, uh, Mr Higher.

應該有必要的，呃，更高的先生。

So it's Mr Chauvin, please, uh, my partner, John.

所以是Chauvin先生，請問，呃，我的搭檔，John。

Uh, so this court recognized that whether Mr Shaaban was trained on a particular policy is relevant in determining whether he had the requisite men's ray.

所以法院承認Shaaban先生是否接受過某項政策的培訓 與確定他是否有必要的男性射線有關。

Uh, and it recognized as much in this probable cause order when it indicated that Mr Sheldon failure to follow a follow training would be potentially preservative, for example, of a gross deviation from the standard of care of whether he consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm and of potential recklessness.

呃，在這個可能的原因命令中，它也認識到了這一點，因為它指出，謝爾頓先生沒有遵循訓練，可能會有潛在的保護作用，例如，嚴重偏離了謹慎的標準，他是否有意識地冒著造成死亡或重大身體傷害的風險，以及潛在的魯莽行為。

And so, for that reason, the state respectfully ask that the court denies the motion to the extent it seeks exclusion of training Mr Chauvin received, that might not be reflected in the MPD policies that were in effect at the time that Mr Footsteps so what I hear you saying is it was not policy, but they were training on a certain topic.

是以，出於這個原因，國家恭敬地要求法院拒絕動議，以尋求排除Chauvin先生接受的培訓，這可能不會反映在MPD政策中，在腳步先生生效的時候，所以我聽到你說的是，這不是政策，但他們正在接受某個主題的培訓。

Chauhan received that training, and you want to be able to comment on that, even though it was not firmly and policy at You're correct.

Chauhan接受了這種培訓，你想對其進行評論，儘管這不是堅定的政策，你是對的。

I'm trying to figure out if you're talking to me or Yeah, sorry.

我想知道你是在跟我說話還是在跟我說話，對不起。

This is an awkward arrangement, because I see 123456 of 78 So I apologize, Your Honor.

這樣的安排很尷尬，因為我看到的是78人中的123456人，所以我道歉，法官大人。

No, actually, I'll address you specifically to write.

不，其實，我會專門給你寫信。

納爾遜，你有嗎？ 是的，法官大人。

Um, in terms of training, uh, through the Minneapolis Police Department, that's obviously going to be a significant issue.

嗯，在培訓方面， 呃，通過明尼阿波利斯警察局， 這顯然將是一個重要的問題。

Throughout the course of Mr Chauvin's career, what our motion specifically was addressing is any policy changes subsequent to the incident at question.

在Chauvin先生的整個職業生涯中，我們的動議具體涉及的是在有關事件發生後的任何政策變化。

Here we are in agreement that those policies, I think we're both in agreement that those policies should not be referenced during the course of the trial.

在這裡，我們一致認為，這些政策，我想我們都一致認為，這些政策不應該在審判過程中被引用。

Those changes with respect to his other training, I guess I would seek clarification from council simply because there are training methods that have been approved.

關於他的其他培訓的那些變化，我想我會向理事會尋求澄清，只是因為有一些培訓方法已經被準許。

And if we're talking policy versus training, I guess that's the question that I would have.

如果我們談論的是政策與培訓，我想這是我要問的問題。

All right, you are, Mr I You're essentially trying to get in the training that he had.

好吧，你是，I先生，你基本上是想參加他的訓練。

I don't see any reason why that would not be relevant.

I think that comes in regardless of whether it's been embedded in policy or not.

我想，不管是否已經嵌入政策，都會有這樣的結果。

So I think we can probably deal with this when it comes up drawing the lines on appropriate testimony.

所以，我想我們也許可以在劃定適當證詞的界限時處理這個問題。

But if it's training Mr Chauvin received before the death of Mr Floyd, I think we have to recognize that that is relevant.

但如果是Chauvin先生在Floyd先生死前接受的訓練，我想我們必須承認這一點。

And I would allow it regardless of policy.

而無論政策如何，我都會允許。

18 and 21 are the remaining two, Your Honor, and perhaps my clarify My motion needs a little clarification.

18號和21號是剩下的兩個 法官大人 也許我需要澄清一下 我的動議需要澄清一下

Um, number 18 seeks to prohibit witness police officers from testifying were speculating about their what they would have done if they had been the person who arrested Mr Floyd.

嗯，第18條旨在禁止證人警官作證，他們猜測如果他們是逮捕弗洛伊德先生的人，他們會怎麼做。

We recognize that under the Graham versus Connor, uh, standard that the question here is whether this was a reasonable use of force.

我們認識到，根據格雷厄姆對康納，呃，標準 這裡的問題是，這是否是一個合理的使用武力。

And there are expert witnesses who are going to testify for the defense.

而且有專家證人要為辯方作證。

There's expert witnesses who are going to testify for the state as to that ultimate question in terms of the reasonableness of the force.

有專家證人將為州政府作證 就武力的合理性這一最終問題而言。

 We also expect training officers from the Minneapolis Police Department to testify about how officers are trained in the Graham versus counter factors in the reasonableness of the use of force and MPD policy, and all of that, I think, is 100% fair game. 

我們還希望明尼阿波利斯警察局的培訓人員能夠作證，關於官員如何在格雷厄姆與反因素中訓練使用武力的合理性和MPD政策，我認為，所有這些都是100％的公平遊戲。