PBS' Yamiche Alcindor's total lack of legal understanding should not be a barrier to her reporting

The "PBS NewsHour" so-called correspondent Yamiche Alcindor's legal analysis of the closing arguments of the Derek Chauvin trial has the same credibility as Iran's claim that their weapons grade uranium enrichment will only be used for energy supply.

Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, focused heavily in his closing arguments on George Floyd's heavy drug use and levels at the time of his death, along with his poor health. Nelson said that these factors, rather than Chauvin's knee on Floyd's upper shoulder, were the cause of his death.

But Alcindor did her fact-checking by relying on the prosecution's case which exclusively relied on Chauvin's use of force and not on any mitigating factors.

"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." So according to this idiot "correspondent," we should #BelieveAllProsecutors.

Critics mocked the taxpayer-funded reporter for her poorly informed analysis.

"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.

"Yeah wow so weird that the defense is contradicting the prosecution," conservative commentator Matt Walsh reacted.

CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates, who somehow was able to get a law degree, ignorantly 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.

Think about this, Laura: the defense does not need to prove innocence. The prosecution needs to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet