Derek Chauvin trial

[Boca Vol]

What do the people fighting for “justice” think about prejudiced jurors?

I'm predicting crickets on this...Justice to many is a one-way street.

 

[RockyTop85]

Oh, boy. This isn't going away anytime soon ..... so buckle up compadres ......

Derek Chauvin files for new trial in death of George Floyd

Motion for new trial is standard procedure. Happens in every case that goes to trial, unless there is an acquittal.

Any issue not raised in the motion is usually deemed waived on appeal.

He may amend the motion to get the new information about the juror in there, but it’s not in the first filing, per the article.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Trump’s description at a police officer convention of putting a “thug” in the back of a patrol car which brought load applause from the cops is where it starts

“When the looting starts the shooting begins” is a middle point

A knee on a neck for 9 min 29 sec is one of too many examples

@hog88
Everyone picks a starting point that’s convenient for them at that time

 

[RikidyBones]

Motion for new trial is standard procedure. Happens in every case that goes to trial, unless there is an acquittal.

Any issue not raised in the motion is usually deemed waived on appeal.

He may amend the motion to get the new information about the juror in there, but it’s not in the first filing, per the article.

How pivotal do you think the juror who admitted to lying on the questionnaire can be? We now have more than one juror admitting to bias or influence outside the courtroom.

 

[Y9 Vol]

Trump’s description at a police officer convention of putting a “thug” in the back of a patrol car which brought load applause from the cops is where it starts

“When the looting starts the shooting begins” is a middle point

A knee on a neck for 9 min 29 sec is one of too many examples

Please don’t try to tell anyone in this world that George Floyd was not a thug. He did not deserve the treatment he got from the officer, but he was damn sure a thug.

 

[RockyTop85]

How pivotal do you think the juror who admitted to lying on the questionnaire can be? We now have more than one juror admitting to bias or influence outside the courtroom.

I’ve only seen the one guy wearing a t-shirt at an event and that he claims it wasn’t inconsistent with his responses. I also remember an alternate who made public comments which seemed more geared towards pretrial publicity.

The t-shirt guy is a better issue than the general complaints about trial publicity or an alternate juror’s statements about extraneous considerations, but it is still an extremely high hurdle that Chauvin probably won’t clear.

1. It needs to be raised in a motion.
2. The “defendant must submit sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” (State v. Larson, 281 NW 2d 481 - Minn: Supreme Court 1979 - Google Scholar)
3. The juror would then need to be called as a witness, and asked about his answers to the questions.

After a quick review of MN case law, I think it’s a somewhat close call whether he will get past step 2. The Supreme Court in MN says courts should liberally grant those hearings but in practice it seems to be treated as a pretty high hurdle for cases like this one. (See e.g. State v. Pederson, 614 NW 2d 724 - Minn: Supreme Court 2000 - Google Scholar).

Here, it’s a photograph and a Facebook post. Together, it’s pretty good evidence but from what I know, Chauvin needs the context of the post to make the photograph meet the burden at step 2. I’m not certain whether the judge would consider the post by itself. It’s hearsay without any apparent exception. One of those cases said newspaper statements weren’t very good evidence, so the juror’s comments are probably out. But the fact that newspaper statements were considered does indicate that hearsay rules may not apply.

If I were the judge, I’d probably consider the publicity of the case, the nexus between the slogan on the shirt and the actual case, and the fact that the juror has already been willing to talk to media; if there is any plausible argument that the event he attended fit the description of events that he denied attending in the questionnaire, I’d hold the hearing.

If he gets past step 2, it’s kind of an “all bets are off” situation because I don’t know what the juror will say.

Judge is probably thinking that he doesn’t want to spend another month on this when it doesn’t seem like it was an especially close case and there are probably not 12 people on the whole state who don’t realize this guy got convicted.

 

[RikidyBones]

I’ve only seen the one guy wearing a t-shirt at an event and that he claims it wasn’t inconsistent with his responses. I also remember an alternate who made public comments which seemed more geared towards pretrial publicity.

The t-shirt guy is a better issue than the general complaints about trial publicity or an alternate juror’s statements about extraneous considerations, but it is still an extremely high hurdle that Chauvin probably won’t clear.

1. It needs to be raised in a motion.
2. The “defendant must submit sufficient evidence which, standing alone and unchallenged, would warrant the conclusion of jury misconduct.” (State v. Larson, 281 NW 2d 481 - Minn: Supreme Court 1979 - Google Scholar)
3. The juror would then need to be called as a witness, and asked about his answers to the questions.

After a quick review of MN case law, I think it’s a somewhat close call whether he will get past step 2. The Supreme Court in MN says courts should liberally grant those hearings but in practice it seems to be treated as a pretty high hurdle for cases like this one. (See e.g. State v. Pederson, 614 NW 2d 724 - Minn: Supreme Court 2000 - Google Scholar).

Here, it’s a photograph and a Facebook post. Together, it’s pretty good evidence but from what I know, Chauvin needs the context of the post to make the photograph meet the burden at step 2. I’m not certain whether the judge would consider the post by itself. It’s hearsay without any apparent exception. One of those cases said newspaper statements weren’t very good evidence, so the juror’s comments are probably out. But the fact that newspaper statements were considered does indicate that hearsay rules may not apply.

If I were the judge, I’d probably consider the publicity of the case, the nexus between the slogan on the shirt and the actual case, and the fact that the juror has already been willing to talk to media; if there is any plausible argument that the event he attended fit the description of events that he denied attending in the questionnaire, I’d hold the hearing.

If he gets past step 2, it’s kind of an “all bets are off” situation because I don’t know what the juror will say.

Judge is probably thinking that he doesn’t want to spend another month on this when it doesn’t seem like it was an especially close case and there are probably not 12 people on the whole state who don’t realize this guy got convicted.

Would it go to the original judge or appeals court? I'd assume appeals

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think Chauvin overstepped his authority. I agree he was guilty and properly convicted. However, I hope this gets overturned because it sends a message to Maxine Waters and her kind that they are responsible for their words.

 

[RockyTop85]

Would it go to the original judge or appeals court? I'd assume appeals

Would it go to the original judge or appeals court? I'd assume appeals

Technically both.

After trial there will be sentencing and this motion for new trial. Those are heard by the trial judge and almost always denied but they basically just announce the issues for appeal.

After the motion for new trial, it will go to the court of appeals.

 

[RikidyBones]

Technically both.

After trial there will be sentencing and this motion for new trial. Those are heard by the trial judge and almost always denied but they basically just announce the issues for appeal.

After the motion for new trial, it will go to the court of appeals.

Thank you for taking time to answer RT

 

[bamawriter]

Motion for new trial is standard procedure. Happens in every case that goes to trial, unless there is an acquittal.

Any issue not raised in the motion is usually deemed waived on appeal.

He may amend the motion to get the new information about the juror in there, but it’s not in the first filing, per the article.

Or he can file another motion based on different factors. Given that the cumulative effects of bias make for a better argument, an amended motion is more likely.

 

[KB5252]

Or he can file another motion based on different factors. Given that the cumulative effects of bias make for a better argument, an amended motion is more likely.

I'm fine with a jury decision, whatever that was going to be, but I felt the judge made some poor choices. He can't be blamed for this juror but the cumulative effects make a strong case for a new trial bring warranted.

 

[bamawriter]

I'm fine with a jury decision, whatever that was going to be, but I felt the judge made some poor choices. He can't be blamed for this juror but the cumulative effects make a strong case for a new trial bring warranted.

I think the jury reached the correct verdict, even if the Murder 2 conviction was a tad strong. I wasn't convinced that a retrial was warranted, even after the Maxine Waters issue came into play. But when you add this juror on top of it, I think a retrial needs to happen.

I'm convinced that Chauvin is criminally responsible for Floyd's death. But even a guilty man deserves a fair trial. I don't think he got one.

 

[KB5252]

I think the jury reached the correct verdict, even if the Murder 2 conviction was a tad strong. I wasn't convinced that a retrial was warranted, even after the Maxine Waters issue came into play. But when you add this juror on top of it, I think a retrial needs to happen.

I'm convinced that Chauvin is criminally responsible for Floyd's death. But even a guilty man deserves a fair trial. I don't think he got one.

I thought the comments from Maxine and Biden, coupled with lack of sequestering and deciding not to move trial gave them a legitimate claim. After this I can't help but think it puts his chances for a retrial over the top.

I thought manslaughter was the best fitting charge but after reading the instructions I can see how they might come to guilty verdicts on the more serious charges.

 

[RockyTop85]

Or he can file another motion based on different factors. Given that the cumulative effects of bias make for a better argument, an amended motion is more likely.

Pretty sure it needs to be in the motion for new trial to be a live issue on appeal, but MN may have different rules about that.

 

[bamawriter]

Pretty sure it needs to be in the motion for new trial to be a live issue on appeal, but MN may have different rules about that.

Assuming that MN isn't totally different than TN, you can file more than one motion for a new trial as long as you assert different arguments. Different arguments (evidentiary issues, ineffective assistance of counsel, etc) may have different statutes of limitations. You can't make the same argument over and over, but you can take more than one bite at the apple.

 

[RockyTop85]

Assuming that MN isn't totally different than TN, you can file more than one motion for a new trial as long as you assert different arguments. Different arguments (evidentiary issues, ineffective assistance of counsel, etc) may have different statutes of limitations. You can't make the same argument over and over, but you can take more than one bite at the apple.

I see what you’re saying. MN has something they call a Schwartz proceeding that allows the defendant to call jurors for a limited purpose. I thought you were talking about filing something like that. Although, technically, if they’re seeking a new trial in the Schwartz motion then maybe it still counts.

 

[bamawriter]

I see what you’re saying. MN has something they call a Schwartz proceeding that allows the defendant to call jurors for a limited purpose. I thought you were talking about filing something like that. Although, technically, if they’re seeking a new trial in the Schwartz motion then maybe it still counts.

That would make sense.

 

[Weezer]

Video shows an Alaska teacher telling students that George Floyd would still be alive if he followed police orders. She was put on leave. (yahoo.com)

George Floyd wouldn't have been killed by police had he complied. He might still have died, no one really knows, but he wouldn't have been killed by Chauvin had he complied and gotten into the squad car rather than fighting it. A teacher attempts to tell the truth rather than push the narrative and she gets suspended.

 

[Hairy Vols]

Video shows an Alaska teacher telling students that George Floyd would still be alive if he followed police orders. She was put on leave. (yahoo.com)

George Floyd wouldn't have been killed by police had he complied. He might still have died, no one really knows, but he wouldn't have been killed by Chauvin had he complied and gotten into the squad car rather than fighting it. A teacher attempts to tell the truth rather than push the narrative and she gets suspended.

Its human nature to fight when be contained. Non-Compliance is not an excuse to execute a murder. If he had complied would he be alive? more likely than the current situation. However that doesn't excuse the act by Chauvin. His aggression and distaste for the individual caused him to apply too much pressure for too long. So he will spend his life in jail for it.

Police procedure needs an overhaul. Accountability needs to be raised. That overhaul should have happened when we learned how much police power police had by helping the mob crimes in NYC back in the day.

We are a country built on checks and balances. It's time we fixed those imbalances.

 

[KB5252]

Its human nature to fight when be contained. Non-Compliance is not an excuse to execute a murder. If he had complied would he be alive? more likely than the current situation. However that doesn't excuse the act by Chauvin. His aggression and distaste for the individual caused him to apply too much pressure for too long. So he will spend his life in jail for it.

Police procedure needs an overhaul. Accountability needs to be raised. That overhaul should have happened when we learned how much police power police had by helping the mob crimes in NYC back in the day.

We are a country built on checks and balances. It's time we fixed those imbalances.

I don't disagree with most of this. But the original statement by the teacher was most likely true. A major problem we have in this country is accountability. Kids aren't taught self control, compulsive behavior is excused rather than addressed. This is the end result unfortunately, it's pretty likely based on Floyd's past he wasn't held accountable.

I don't know if there was malice behind Chauvin's actions but there was certainly indifference.

 

[Weezer]

Its human nature to fight when be contained. Non-Compliance is not an excuse to execute a murder. If he had complied would he be alive? more likely than the current situation. However that doesn't excuse the act by Chauvin. His aggression and distaste for the individual caused him to apply too much pressure for too long. So he will spend his life in jail for it.

Police procedure needs an overhaul. Accountability needs to be raised. That overhaul should have happened when we learned how much police power police had by helping the mob crimes in NYC back in the day.

We are a country built on checks and balances. It's time we fixed those imbalances.

Did I excuse Chauvin's actions? No, I did not. Read my posts in this thread. I've said Chauvin was wrong. I've said he deserves to go to jail for what he did. But none of that excuses George Floyd's own actions. The MSM and many parts of the public have chosen to ignore the poor decisions George Floyd made, as if they don't matter, that led up to his death. He did not deserve to die, but we cannot ignore the teachable moment about where bad decisions may lead you. George Floyd chose to lead a life that would bring him in to conflict with the police. He could have complied with police orders and gotten into the back of that squad car. He knew he had broken the law. He knew why he was being arrested and that the arrest was justified. He was not a good guy and should not be painted as such. He was a victim, but he was not an innocent victim. Chauvin was absolutely wrong and deserves the punishment the justice system metes out, but people should not be cancelled for telling the truth about George Floyd rather than spreading this false narrative that he was a "good guy".

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Yes, there's clearly not enough outrage pointed at Floyd for forcing Chauvin to kneel.

 

[Weezer]

Yes, there's clearly not enough outrage pointed at Floyd for forcing Chauvin to kneel.

Who said outrage should be pointed toward George Floyd? What I said is we shouldn't be afraid or punished for telling the whole truth of the situation, and that while George Floyd was a victim, he was far from innocent. Maybe you just don't read so well, but I clearly said Chauvin was wrong. That doesn't mean George Floyd was right. Despite the narrative that's being pushed, he did commit an actual crime. His arrest was justified. Kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes was not.

 

[Weezer]