Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Felya]

Maybe you’d prefer it to be 12 members of a police force with disciplinary marks, or 12 recent victims of police brutality? Surely both might ascertain a conclusive result, though perhaps not equally to your liking.

Why do you think the prosecutor had several cops on the stand, but not a single victim? Wouldn’t that be counter productive to a jury that’s against cops? What were prosecutors trying to accomplish?

[Smitzelplix]

He will prob be granted an appeal. But he will also be re-convicted. The jury was unanimous and came back in like 3 hours. They prob spent more time eating their lunch than deciding if he was guilty or not. Just sayin. I dont see it going any other way. Complete waste of the courts time.

If he does get an appeal and let off the hook for this he would most likely be dead by the end of the year. He could try to flee the country, but I doubt that would even save him after what he did.

[Felya]

If he does get an appeal and let off the hook for this he would most likely be dead by the end of the year. He could try to flee the country, but I doubt that would even save him after what he did.

When has that ever happened? I keep hearing people repeat that vengeance will be swift, if he is let off the hook... but, when has such thing happened? With all the shootings by cops, where they get off the hook, I don’t remember a single instance of vengeance.

[Smitzelplix]

When has that ever happened? I keep hearing people repeat that vengeance will be swift, if he is let off the hook... but, when has such thing happened? With all the shootings by cops, where they get off the hook, I don’t remember a single instance of vengeance.

It's just something that I think could happen, especially after all the protests and riots that happened. But maybe it won't.

[tehdang]

Why do you think the prosecutor had several cops on the stand, but not a single victim? Wouldn’t that be counter productive to a jury that’s against cops? What were prosecutors trying to accomplish?

Witnesses occupy a very different role than jurors.

[Breccia]

If he does get an appeal

He's flaling. He wants a new trial entirely. Specifically, he wants a new trial on the grounds that he wasn't given a new trial.

No, really.

Eric Nelson, Chauvin’s attorney, alleged that juror misconduct and pretrial publicity in part led to Chauvin’s conviction for second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in Floyd's death last year.

Chauvin’s legal team specifically cited the court’s rejection of its request to change the hearing’s venue outside Minneapolis.


Nelson wrote in the filing that “the Court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a change of venue” and that publicity around the high-profile hearing escalated “the potential for prejudice in these proceedings.”

“The publicity here was so pervasive and so prejudicial before and during this trial that it amounted to a structural defect in the proceedings,” he wrote.

Nelson also tore into the court over its rules surrounding the jury, which he said were not strict enough and allowed jurors to digest outside media coverage of the trial.

“The Court abused its discretion when it failed to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial, or in the least, admonish them to avoid all media, which resulted in jury exposure to prejudicial publicity regarding the trial during the proceedings, as well as jury intimidation and potential fear of retribution among jurors, which violated Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial,” Nelson claimed.

In other words, Chauvin seems upset that people who know what he did are more likely to find him guilty of that stuff he did.

[Zinstorm]

He's flaling. He wants a new trial entirely. Specifically, he wants a new trial on the grounds that he wasn't given a new trial.

No, really.



In other words, Chauvin seems upset that people who know what he did are more likely to find him guilty of that stuff he did.

...I hate to kind of side with the attorney but.... why wasn't the jury restricted from all media? I mean I get that the court didn't want to change the venue but I feel in a case like this that has gotten this much attention its not a reach to feel that the court has to go above board to make sure not only that everything is done by the book... but to limit the jury's interactions with the public as best as it can so they make their judgement call without interference from anything but what they are allowed to hear from the court.

Peer pressure is still a thing... I can see a weak willed juror look at the media surrounding this case (and remember past high profile court cases) and change their judgement (that they don't truly believe in) because he/she doesn't want to be persecuted afterwards and/or feel the consequence of "not bowing to the mob" aren't worth it. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case (haven't looked into it enough to know) but perception in how standard court procedure is done feels like its everything (especially in High Profile cases like this one) to prevent situations where attorney's make argument's like this because if not then the argument works and the that opens a whole another can of worms (not saying the attorney wouldn't make this argument ether way... but in this case it might work if the court didn't do its due diligence).

If anyone feels I'm off feel free to comment... just my two cents on what I'm seeing here. (according to the article linked this kind of augment apparently has already been made and rejected many times so maybe this isn't a thing to worry about).

[jonnysensible]

...I hate to kind of side with the attorney but.... why wasn't the jury restricted from all media? I mean I get that the court didn't want to change the venue but I feel in a case like this that has gotten this much attention its not a reach to feel that the court has to go above board to make sure not only that everything is done by the book... but to limit the jury's interactions with the public as best as it can so they make their judgement call without interference from anything but what they are allowed to hear from the court.

Peer pressure is still a thing... I can see a weak willed juror look at the media surrounding this case (and remember past high profile court cases) and change their judgement (that they don't truly believe in) because he/she doesn't want to be persecuted afterwards and/or feel the consequence of "not bowing to the mob" aren't worth it. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case (haven't looked into it enough to know) but perception in how standard court procedure is done feels like its everything (especially in High Profile cases like this one) to prevent situations where attorney's make argument's like this because if not then the argument works and the that opens a whole another can of worms (not saying the attorney wouldn't make this argument ether way... but in this case it might work if the court didn't do its due diligence).

If anyone feels I'm off feel free to comment... just my two cents on what I'm seeing here. (according to the article linked this kind of augment apparently has already been made and rejected many times so maybe this isn't a thing to worry about).

i mean its much more likely that the jury watched the video of him standing on the mans head for 10 minutes and decided it was murder. Its not that complicated.

[Machismo]

...I hate to kind of side with the attorney but.... why wasn't the jury restricted from all media? I mean I get that the court didn't want to change the venue but I feel in a case like this that has gotten this much attention its not a reach to feel that the court has to go above board to make sure not only that everything is done by the book... but to limit the jury's interactions with the public as best as it can so they make their judgement call without interference from anything but what they are allowed to hear from the court.

Peer pressure is still a thing... I can see a weak willed juror look at the media surrounding this case (and remember past high profile court cases) and change their judgement (that they don't truly believe in) because he/she doesn't want to be persecuted afterwards and/or feel the consequence of "not bowing to the mob" aren't worth it. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case (haven't looked into it enough to know) but perception in how standard court procedure is done feels like its everything (especially in High Profile cases like this one) to prevent situations where attorney's make argument's like this because if not then the argument works and the that opens a whole another can of worms (not saying the attorney wouldn't make this argument ether way... but in this case it might work if the court didn't do its due diligence).

If anyone feels I'm off feel free to comment... just my two cents on what I'm seeing here. (according to the article linked this kind of augment apparently has already been made and rejected many times so maybe this isn't a thing to worry about).

Simple, that's at the discretion of the judge. he decided not to.

People think court is like it is on television, when the reality is that the vast majority of trials do not involve jury sequestration. Instead, they are ordered to not read or watch the news, and to not talk about the trial with others. In the case of the Chauvin trial, there was a partial sequestration.

[Felya]

Witnesses occupy a very different role than jurors.

What part of what I said, was about jurors? WTF?

[Breccia]

why wasn't the jury restricted from all media?

For what purpose? The case was famous nationwide. There weren't 12 people in the hemisphere who didn't know the general idea.
@jonnysensible and @Machismo are also correct.

[LilSaihah]

Considering the politicisation of the case and the local ramifications of the case I think there's a reasonable argument for both complete sequestration and a change of venue. If I were his lawyer I would be arguing for a mistrial on the grounds of both - any sensible lawyer would be a fool not to.

That said I think a different jury would just come to the same conclusion. I also don't think that any degree of sequestration would effectively insulate the trial, considering it's global news; you'd have to find people who had been comatose for the last 12 months.

[Noxx79]

Easy with that strawman its seen better days. I am skeptical the man overdosing was as calm,reasonable, or in as good of health as you claim. Cops kill innocent people it happens in this case I just don't see it.

Racist is banned again.

Just wondering when (possibly unknowingly) passing a $20 counterfeit bill deserves the death penalty?

- - - Updated - - -

Case by case person by person. Personally I think allowing people to riot and loot constantly has undermined any possible good the movement could of done this time.

But itS JuSt ThE wOrLd We LiVe In. They shouldn’t do anything about riots, right? (and the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful).

Personally I think cops murdering innocent people does a lot worse than some people taking advantage of a protest.

The government murdering people with impunity is bad. I don’t know how else to put it so you can understand.

We should be able to control the cops and government, we can’t control criminals. If criminals are in the government we should be able to get rid of and punish then, not shrug our shoulders because you agree with the murder of black people.

[tehdang]

What part of what I said, was about jurors? WTF?

You responded to my post on regarding the juror question with an aside on witnesses.

[Machismo]

Considering the politicisation of the case and the local ramifications of the case I think there's a reasonable argument for both complete sequestration and a change of venue. If I were his lawyer I would be arguing for a mistrial on the grounds of both - any sensible lawyer would be a fool not to.

That said I think a different jury would just come to the same conclusion. I also don't think that any degree of sequestration would effectively insulate the trial, considering it's global news; you'd have to find people who had been comatose for the last 12 months.

They can argue it all they like, but the change of venue is a tall ask, considering it was a nationwide story for months. Change of venue is more likely when there's a high chance of a deep-seeded local bias, and that's not really the case in this instance.

As for sequestration, it was partially sequestered. The justification for a sequestered jury is there, but that was decided with little fanfare. The jurors were protected, but not guarded 24/7. Sure, they will go for a mistrial, for that, and other reasons... and they may even get one (I don't think it's too likely). But, the evidence will not change, and he will still be a murderous piece of shit. The defense fucked up when they didn't have Chauvin testify. They only had two hopes, jury nullification, or trying to humanize Chauvin. Considering he has the male version of resting bitch face, their only hope was with jury nullification.

[Egomaniac]

They can argue it all they like, but the change of venue is a tall ask, considering it was a nationwide story for months. Change of venue is more likely when there's a high chance of a deep-seeded local bias, and that's not really the case in this instance.

As for sequestration, it was partially sequestered. The justification for a sequestered jury is there, but that was decided with little fanfare. The jurors were protected, but not guarded 24/7. Sure, they will go for a mistrial, for that, and other reasons... and they may even get one (I don't think it's too likely). But, the evidence will not change, and he will still be a murderous piece of shit. The defense fucked up when they didn't have Chauvin testify. They only had two hopes, jury nullification, or trying to humanize Chauvin. Considering he has the male version of resting bitch face, their only hope was with jury nullification.

I have to disagree with you on not putting Chauvin on the stand being a mistake. His lawyers threw some weird plays in there...but putting him on the stand opens him up to cross-examination by the prosecution.

[Machismo]

I have to disagree with you on not putting Chauvin on the stand being a mistake. His lawyers threw some weird plays in there...but putting him on the stand opens him up to cross-examination by the prosecution.

The most damning evidence was the video, along with the testimony of the other witnesses. They painted him as a stubborn asshole who refused to acknowledge that what he was doing was wrong. They testified about pleading with him, and trying to appeal to his humanity.

The prosecution made a ton of small, unforced errors. But, they had a great deal of evidence on their sides. The defense had nothing, and their case was reliant on a sketchy dude trying to say that exhaust fumes did him in.

Nothing Chauvin could have been forced to answer would have been as bad as watching Floyd die over and over again on video. The defense needed to humanize Chauvin, and they failed.

[Egomaniac]

The most damning evidence was the video, along with the testimony of the other witnesses. They painted him as a stubborn asshole who refused to acknowledge that what he was doing was wrong. They testified about pleading with him, and trying to appeal to his humanity.

The prosecution made a ton of small, unforced errors. But, they had a great deal of evidence on their sides. The defense had nothing, and their case was reliant on a sketchy dude trying to say that exhaust fumes did him in.

Nothing Chauvin could have been forced to answer would have been as bad as watching Floyd die over and over again on video. The defense needed to humanize Chauvin, and they failed.

Putting him on the stand would not have humanized him. It would have given the prosecution another opportunity to play that video again and directly asking Chauvin questions about it. Any humanizing the defense tried to establish would have been ripped to shreds by the prosecution. Plus, as you have already stated, the man does not give off a very pleasant aura.

The defense made mistakes...but keeping that man off the witness stand was not one of them.

[Felya]

You responded to my post on regarding the juror question with an aside on witnesses.

Oh, so you are talking to your self and using my post not for what I said, but simply an excuse to talk to your self. Gotcha...

[tehdang]

Oh, so you are talking to your self and using my post not for what I said, but simply an excuse to talk to your self. Gotcha...

Don't quote and respond to me if you're making some other point about something else divorced from the quoted post. Pose it as a question, and see if people are interested enough to respond. So um you want to introduce a new topic? My conversation with edge was disputes regarding juries.