Border Vol
Vol Fan In Deep South Georgia
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2020
- Messages
- 5,545
- Likes
- 10,261
Perhaps. But three weeks of testimony, it doesn't really suggest that they went through it genuinely, jmo. It's not an reason for mistrial alone. I don't think that can be suggested. The main points will be surrounding comments/pressures and refusal to alleviate those by the judge as a nationally followed trial. Like I said before, it was foolish and arrogant not to.The flip side of that is they may have been so confident in the verdict that they'd didn't need to take a lot of extra time to hang out and chat.
Perhaps it's both. Even if he's guilty if it's determined there were mistakes made in securing an unbiased jury it could be overturned. Chances are better than most in this case for multiple reasons.
Perhaps it's both. Even if he's guilty if it's determined there were mistakes made in securing an unbiased jury it could be overturned. Chances are better than most in this case for multiple reasons.
It'll be a small part of the argument but a part of it, nonetheless. Book it.
If I’m arguing for Chauvin on appeal (admittedly as a novice and with no law degree) I’m going to bring up the potential negative effects cameras in the courtroom can have on the judicial process.Perhaps. But three weeks of testimony, it doesn't really suggest that they went through it genuinely, jmo. It's not an reason for mistrial alone. I don't think that can be suggested. The main points will be surrounding comments/pressures and refusal to alleviate those by the judge as a nationally followed trial. Like I said before, it was foolish and arrogant not to.
If I’m arguing for Chauvin on appeal (admittedly as a novice and with no law degree) I’m going to bring up the potential negative effects cameras in the courtroom can have on the judicial process.
Of course I’m not going to expect to overturn a ruling solely on that basis, this is far from the first televised trial... but it’s definitely worth exploring. There is a reason the Supreme Court won’t allow cameras in.
True, but it remains relevant to point out that a televised trial can affect a jury. Just as the state can point out that televising a trial is relevant when considering transparency and maintaining accountability.There's a difference between a trial and the Supreme Court. Almost all of the litigating at SCOTUS is done well before oral argument. To have only the last, and least impactful, part of the process televised does nothing but invite confusion and misunderstanding.
True, but it remains relevant to point out that a televised trial can affect a jury. Just as the state can point out that televising a trial is relevant when considering transparency and maintaining accountability.
Do you mean in general, or specifically in this case? If it’s the later then I would only argue that if I’m not his original trial lawyer. If it’s the former then that really isn’t relevant.It's worth noting that cameras and microphones began making their way into courtrooms at the request of defense attorneys.
Perhaps, but mistakes were made in this trial. The outcome may not have been different but the judge made some poor choices. I would venture most if not all those guys in prison who had high profile cases were afforded a sequestered jury in place in a different jurisdiction. And did not have a city settle with payment before the court case was closed. And have politicians and the president tainting the process.The list of guys in prison who think they had an unfair trial is long. Chauvin is just another murderer now like them. His appeal will hopefully go nowhere