Chauvin Found Guilty of All Charges
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
They're already asking for a new trial.
www.nytimes.com
They prolly were gonna do this anyways but now they have a chance of actually getting it. The judge did seem sympathetic to them after all.
Derek Chauvin’s Lawyer Asks for a New Trial After Guilty Verdict (Published 2021)
The expected legal motion came on the same day that one of the jurors was being criticized for his participation in the March on Washington last year.
They prolly were gonna do this anyways but now they have a chance of actually getting it. The judge did seem sympathetic to them after all.
It's not like this was a 7-6 vote were one dude would've changed the outcome.
I mean, I know cops need to be able to kill people indiscriminately, but you'd figure they wouldn't want this case to drag out on a technicality.
On the other hand, conservative thought leader and chief propagandist Tucker Carlson absolutely lost his shit when his police chief guest said Chauvin "might've used too much force", so buckle in.
I mean, I know cops need to be able to kill people indiscriminately, but you'd figure they wouldn't want this case to drag out on a technicality.
On the other hand, conservative thought leader and chief propagandist Tucker Carlson absolutely lost his shit when his police chief guest said Chauvin "might've used too much force", so buckle in.
This is not a popular vote affair though, convictions require unanimous votes, so just one no vote can make it a mistrial and they have to start all over again.
...I realize it's not a popular vote affair. I was mentioning that even discounting this guy, it was still an 11-0. That's not nothing.
Retrying over and over again to try and hit the statistical impossibility of finding the 12 people in the country who A) haven't developed a strong opinion on this case and B) wouldn't be convinced it was murder after watching a nine minute video of a murder is ludicrous.
Early this year I had to explain covid to someone. Not a covid denier, someone that hadn't apparently heard of it.
(You know those movies where the hero turns up out of nowhere and asks some random exposition questions that everyone should know the answers to? I always thought I'd be the helpful infodump person, but I turned out to be the "Um, what the hell is wrong with you"? type)
Were they from one of those isolated Amazon tribes still living on Stone Age tech? I can see being a Covid denier, or sceptic or not being well informed on the details. I can't see having never heard of it 18+ months into a world wide pandemic.
Were they wearing a mask? Social distancing? Did they wonder at all this last year and a half why shops were closed?
I think all he was saying, is it's not the type of case where you can have a decision based on the majority opinion of the jury. In criminal cases, it has to be unanimous. In other forms of legal cases (things like lawsuits for damages or whatever, not murder), I do believe you can have a situation where 11-1 would still be a valid decision, that would end the trial. But with criminal cases, it HAS to be 12-0. So if they disqualify a single member of the jury, that messes it all up, hence the retrial request.
Really hoping they just keep doing this trial forever, constantly failing to find people who don’t hate Derek Chauvin already. Let’s just bend the legal system backwards to defend the one cop we all agree murdered someone so we all know cops are literally incapable of facing consequences for murder.
How many times has one juror being biased overturned a murder conviction against a poor black person? And how many times has it not?
Really think about this though. If not for the videos, the outrage, Chauvin never would’ve been arrested in the first place, but because of them he apparently can’t be convicted as the system is too “biased against him.” The system’s far greater bias against generations of black men, against the poor, against the dissident, against the degenerate, all of this can be safely ignored. There was not some wave of black men released from jail in the wake of lynching controversies, nor has our justice system been taken to task at all over the heinous acts of the war on drugs. We don’t have a justice system, we have a system through which the wealthy and powerful exert authority over the rest of us. It is blind so far as it refuses to perceive the iniquities of the powerful. To the rest it is constantly vigilant for any flaw or weakness that might justify their destruction.
No idea. They wanted to know why masks were mandatory on public transport in Sydney (they later stopped being mandatory a while ago and have just started again for a few days). I tried to explain that covid-19 was a worldwide pandemic for the last year and a bit, no it's not a chemical formula, it's a disease, I don't know if it's in the dictionary (in retrospect it probably is not).
Get some weird sorts dealing with the public, but that one took me by surprise.
I know someone in their mid 20s, spent their whole life in Australia and somehow hadn't heard of Gallipoli. This came up after discovering about half the people in the room at the time didn't know who Winston Churchill was.
I have a coworker, master degree in Computer Science, born and raised in South Africa, not only has never heard of the moon landings, but learned in school the moon was a small star.
The law may be supposed to be blind, but we also know it's not totally true and I think a lot of judges know when to let sleeping dogs lie.
Short of that juror sitting on the witness stand at an appeal and declaring "Sure I lied so I could be on the jury that sent that murdering pig down", I don't think it's going to get Chauvin a reprieve.
Juries are not supposed to answer questions of law, they are supposed to answer questions of fact. The way it's supposed to work is that they are told X, Y and Z are the things required to commit this crime, here's the evidence - do you believe the evidence presented is compelling enough that you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that X, Y and Z are the case here?
Not guilty, rather than innocent. The distinction is relevant because not guilty just means that they could not be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. There is such a thing as a finding of innocence in some (but not remotely all or even most) jurisdictions, but it's much much MUCH harder to obtain. You essentially have to know it exists in your jurisdiction, actively pursue it, and then prove that you could not possibly have committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Louis Gonzalez III went through that process regarding the allegation of rape against him and succeeded largely because he had an extremely thorough and well corroborated alibi that meant it was physically impossible that he could have done what he was accused of, unless he's secretly the Flash.
Why you should never be a juror. You aren't supposed to be trying racial history or the value of black lives, you are supposed to be deciding if the evidence presented causes you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin's actions that day met the definition of second-degree unintentional murder, third degree murder and/or second-degree manslaughter as defined by the relevant laws.
That's why things like being caught lying about involvement with BLM or for example talking about the need to get onto juries as a form of activism to promote your ideal of racial justice might potentially be used as ammo to argue the trial was unfair. Or for another completely unrelated example, if people were to make a display that appears to threaten a defense witness and the jury wasn't sequestered it might be argued that the jury were aware of said threat and might have felt threatened into deciding a certain way as a consequence.
Side note: The juror in question has done an interview: https://getuperica.com/334572/listen-black-juror-in-derek-chauvin-trial-speaks-out-exclusive/
Think of it like a construction code for a boiler or other dangerous machinery - there are i's you have to dot and t's you have to cross to meet code and if you fuck it up you have to scrap it and start over, even if the thing built outside code was just as fit for purpose as the one built to code. If that juror had some kind of serious bias directly related to the case that he lied about, then it might very well be decided that the trial doesn't count and you have to start over, even if the result is very likely to be another guilty verdict.
This is a powerful statement.
Chauvin's grounds for re-trial are absurd. His actions were witnessed by the entire world; where do his lawyers think he might get an "unbiased and fair" trial? Where you can get 12 good 'ol boys on a jury versus a 12 more representative of the states' demographic on the whole? They might as well just straight up ask for a deep south, all-white male jury and quit wasting time trying to victimize an overt murderer; makes them look foolish (which defending Chauvin was already foolish. Let them catch my black ass on a half dozen cameras killing someone; I probably wouldn't even MAKE it to trial let alone be alive to complain it was "unfair.")