A few days ago, the prosecution in Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motions in Limine (linked to here). To put this into context and plain English, Chauvin’s defense counsel has moved to preclude the prosecution from presenting at trial certain proffered evidence, and, by its memorandum of law, the prosecution is arguing why the challenged evidence is relevant and material.

By email the estimable Scott Johnson of Powerline forwarded a link to the prosecution’s memorandum of law and asked for my thoughts. That email arrived around 6:00 PM.

Before replying, I decided to engage in a time-tested technique which, over the years, has produced some of my best legal analysis. So it was that I took my bride of 53 years down to the beach (we are riding out the Covid pandemic in the Florida Free State) and proceeded to consume a large quantity of Bombay gin.

Despite the fact that this technique has occasionally yielded maudlin, self-pitying, quasi-philosophical, and incomprehensible gibberish, I managed to bang out a semi-coherent reply to Scott’s request.

And there, I thought, the matter ended.

But, to my surprise, the next day Scott asked if he could quote from my analysis in a post that he was drafting for Powerline. But, of course, he could. I consider it a privilege and an honor to be mentioned on Powerline, far and away the best source of intelligent analysis and thoughtful commentary anywhere in the media.

Today Scott posted the welcome news that he will be covering the Chauvin trial for a Minneapolis radio show and reporting daily on Powerline. He included in his post my comments and linked to Who Killed George Floyd?, the Centaur Filmworks  documentary that I narrated.

You can access Scott’s post by clicking on this link.

Scott is smart, knowledgeable and a good writer. I urge anyone interested in receiving honest, insightful and clearly-stated coverage of the Chauvin trial to follow Scott’s reporting on Powerline.