Derek Chauvin trial

[Border Vol]

yeah.... or maybe Chauvin was just guilty lol

I tend to think he didn't get a fair trial

 

[Boca Vol]

every convicted murderer tries to appeal. Chances are slim, the people have spoken

Yes they did! Return a murder conviction or all he'll will break loose. Also, didn't CBS name the jurors? If so, what choice did they have unless they wanted their lives' ruined?

 

[peaygolf]

Quote about the NC shooting.

"I’m afraid as a Black man,” an emotional Councilman Gabriel Adkins told his colleagues. “I’m afraid that I may be the next one that my family might have to see on the news that I was gunned down.”

I don't care what race, color, or creed you are.......Stop doing things that force the police to be called on. Cops are not shooting people from Sniper locations for sport.

 

[Smokey X]

this is a pretty good read....kinda long but the second part is an interview with a 40+ year veteran lawyer from Minneapolis.

Roy Exum: Two Differing Views

 

[Tastylicks]

I tend to think he didn't get a fair trial

It was as fair as it gets. ya'll need to stop mourning for this murderer. White Grievance Day is over

 

[bamawriter]

Guilty on all three with very little deliberation supports that too.

The length of deliberation is very rarely considered by the Court of Appeals.

 

[tvolsfan]

Guilty on all three with very little deliberation supports that too.

That’s the kind of thing that tends to happen when your murder is caught on tape.

 

[RikidyBones]

The length of deliberation is very rarely considered by the Court of Appeals.

It'll be a small part of the argument but a part of it, nonetheless. Book it.

 

[tvolsfan]

It'll be a small part of the argument but a part of it, nonetheless. Book it.

And it will be laughed at because right wing talking points don’t really mean much in the court system.

 

[RikidyBones]

And it will be laughed at because right wing talking points don’t really mean much in the court system.

rIgHt WiNg TaLkInG pOiNtS. Lazy take.

 

[clarksvol00]

Guilty on all three with very little deliberation supports that too.

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.

 

[RikidyBones]

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. 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.

 

[golfballs]

SIAP. This guy is right on

 

[KB5252]

yeah.... or maybe Chauvin was just guilty lol

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.

 

[Boca Vol]

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.

Agree. Here are some of the reasons, IMO:

1. $27MM settlement before the verdict.
2. Maxine Waters' comments.
3. Joe Biden's comments.
4. Jurors' names being released to the media.
5. Comments by BLM & media.
6. Conviction on all counts.

You can weigh each of those independently, but I don't think they exist in a vacuum. I see them all as interconnected, especially 2-6.

 

[Tastylicks]

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.

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

 

[bamawriter]

It'll be a small part of the argument but a part of it, nonetheless. Book it.

I doubt it. It's not really an issue for the judges' consideration because absolutely no one knows what went on in the jury room. The jurors wont' be appear before the CoA to reveal what they discussed. There is no set amount of time for deliberation that the courts deem appropriate. If a jury considers the evidence overwhelming, why should it take any length of time to reach a verdict?

 

[OHvol40]

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.

 

[bamawriter]

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.

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.

 

[OHvol40]

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.

 

[bamawriter]

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.

It's worth noting that cameras and microphones began making their way into courtrooms at the request of defense attorneys.

 

[LouderVol]

That’s the kind of thing that tends to happen when your murder is caught on tape.

And when two well known federal politicians are telling people to convict, or else.

 

[OHvol40]

It's worth noting that cameras and microphones began making their way into courtrooms at the request of defense attorneys.

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.

 

[KB5252]

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

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.

I don't care if he's found guilty, I don't like the guy myself. But the way this was handled was piss poor on multiple levels. Especially from our elected officials. If this was an innocent man (and he was until a jury found him guilty) then he was tried by politicians and the court of public opinion. That's a very scary precident to set (Ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"?). If you can't objectively look past your disdain for the individual and look at what that means in a broader sense you are a fool.

 

[KB5252]

Let me add that based on some video evidence I had seen before the trial from experts I was comfortable saying it was just as likely he died from OD. After watching some of the testimony in trial where the ME's went into detail it became clear that Chauvin was at the very least partly responsible for Floyd's death. I thought manslaughter the most appropriate with a shot at the next level charge.

If I put myself on a jury hypothetically, in that circumstance and I believed the officer to be innocent, I would be conflicted out of fear for my my well-being, and the well being of my family. That's a horrible position to be put in, that isn't justice, and no juror acting in public service should be subjected to that.

There should be fear involved in being a juror, a fear that you don't play your part the best you can to achieve justice. There should never be fear for safety. That's where the city and this judge failed here. That and not sequestering the jury.