Jury Fear, not due process, lead to Chauvin verdict

[KarlMarx]

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said he was doubtful that the Derek Chauvin guilty verdict was a product of due process and the rule of law. Instead, he pronounced the verdict the result of "outside influences."

''I have no real confidence that this verdict, which may be correct in some ways, but I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law, rather than the influence of the crowd," Dershowitz said on Tuesday’s edition of ''Spicer & Co.''

Rest if article at:


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1018391/1

[NightTrain]

This will be thrown out.

Maxine Waters ensured a mistrial. And then our befuddled imbecile of a President opined on it, as well.

I saw the video and I think the knee on the neck was unnecessary, but he didn't get a fair trial with the jury hearing a Congresswoman and a sitting President saying he was guilty and calling for riots if he didn't get a guilty verdict. That's not a fair trial.

[jimnyc]

Yep, Biden was out there looking for a guilty verdict prior as well. :rolleyes:

I believe a year straight of protests and riots and killings and it not being stopped... and that feeling of anger towards Chauvin was in the air. The streets spoke and the media stayed on top of them and supported them & consistently condemned the actions of Chauvin.

I can't say all of these things prior to the jury being chosen and sequestered did anything for 100% - but no way in hell that folks went in this not knowing of the case, or truly having an open mind. Call me jaded, but I've found that many people over the years just have their ways & what they support and will make decisions on what they feel happened pretty much from the get go, and not much going to change their minds.

Prove me wrong. :)

[darin]

The chance of fairness in our legal system has been slim for decades. Now it's even less.

[fj1200]

Maybe so but he was guilty of something.

[KarlMarx]

My how times have changed! Back when Manson was on trial in 1970, President Nixon declared Manson guilty of murder, the press went crazy. The practice of using the term “alleged” when referring to a defendant who has not be found guilty resulted.

Today, Jumpin’ Joe Biden does the same think and crickets.

Maxine Waters committed a felony, in my opinion. She used language that caused the jurors to fear for their lives and those of their loved ones. Despite the fact that, as a Congresswoman, she is privileged from arrest, that immunity does not extend to felonies

Article I Section 6

...They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe so but he was guilty of something.

Lightning strike.
All the years and the first time that I have ever agreed with you.

And they say miracles never happen..-Tyr

[revelarts]

hmmm
"Jury Fear, not due process, lead to Chauvin verdict."

OK so.
everyone on the jury was afraid?... of Maxine waters? and Sleepy Joe?

If any of you were on the Jury would you have been afraid? and voted guilty on all counts becasue of your fear?
Do we have any evidence for the idea that the everyone on the jury was afraid?

Aren't jury members supposed be sequestered from Media reports during their time on a trial?
maybe i'm wrong, but I thought Waters comments came DURING the trial.
the reason I'm not sure is because I never saw her comments. I'm still not sure what she said. When i checked on "news" about the trial I didn't click on any that had her name in it.
Not sure why I should assume that the Jury was hanging on the words of Maxine Waters... instead of the testimony of the Medical Examiner that did the autopsy, the city Police Chief, training officers, the Pulmonologist, the wrestler, the 911 dispatcher, other wittiness... and the Video.

Should we assume that NONE of that is nearly close enough to convince people that a police officer, Chauvin, was actually guilty?
and that "the REAL" cause for the guilty verdict was fear of Maxine Waters... or something?
seriously?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

hmmm
"Jury Fear, not due process, lead to Chauvin verdict."

OK so.
everyone on the jury was afraid?... of Maxine waters? and Sleepy Joe?

If any of you were on the Jury would you have been afraid? and voted guilty on all counts becasue of your fear?
Do we have any evidence for the idea that the everyone on the jury was afraid?

Aren't jury members supposed be sequestered from Media reports during their time on a trial?
maybe i'm wrong, but I thought Waters comments came DURING the trial.
the reason I'm not sure is because I never saw her comments. I'm still not sure what she said. When i checked on "news" about the trial I didn't click on any that had her name in it.
Not sure why I should assume that the Jury was hanging on the words of Maxine Waters... instead of the testimony of the Medical Examiner that did the autopsy, the city Police Chief, training officers, the Pulmonologist, the wrestler, the 911 dispatcher, other wittiness... and the Video.

Should we assume that NONE of that is nearly close enough to convince people that a police officer, Chauvin, was actually guilty?
and that "the REAL" cause for the guilty verdict was fear of Maxine Waters... or something?
seriously?

CHAUVIN in the video was obviously inflicting as much pressure as he could to hurt Floyd. hell you can see it in his face--they knew each other and did not like each other. I'd voted guilty on the most serious of charges . Chauvin is a bad cop.
I've seen several in my youth. And I wanted to spit on those ffing bastards.--Tyr

[jimnyc]

hmmm
"Jury Fear, not due process, lead to Chauvin verdict."

OK so.
everyone on the jury was afraid?... of Maxine waters? and Sleepy Joe?

If any of you were on the Jury would you have been afraid? and voted guilty on all counts becasue of your fear?
Do we have any evidence for the idea that the everyone on the jury was afraid?

Aren't jury members supposed be sequestered from Media reports during their time on a trial?
maybe i'm wrong, but I thought Waters comments came DURING the trial.
the reason I'm not sure is because I never saw her comments. I'm still not sure what she said. When i checked on "news" about the trial I didn't click on any that had her name in it.
Not sure why I should assume that the Jury was hanging on the words of Maxine Waters... instead of the testimony of the Medical Examiner that did the autopsy, the city Police Chief, training officers, the Pulmonologist, the wrestler, the 911 dispatcher, other wittiness... and the Video.

Should we assume that NONE of that is nearly close enough to convince people that a police officer, Chauvin, was actually guilty?
and that "the REAL" cause for the guilty verdict was fear of Maxine Waters... or something?
seriously?

Honestly Rev, I don't think it was fear from anything Waters said or Biden. Because they were sequestered. I don't know if they could have violated that but difficult if kept sequestered somewhere. As for Waters - her words have and will have more of an effect on the streets. No doubt, she was wrong, and just the appearance alone could be enough for the courts to overturn the verdict. But I don't think they knew what she said and didn't effect their verdict.

I think it was down to Chauvin's own actions on video - versus whether or not he acted reasonably, and also the drugs and other issues with George. No way he acted reasonably. Just no way, not what I watched. He's guilty for sure, just the murder count I'm not sure of. And the jury believed that Chauvin's actions and contribution to his inability to breathe was more likely than accompanying factors.

I respect their decision. Just not all of the particulars is all. But since his foot was off the ground told me he was putting his weight into it, and that's what I cannot forget.

[jimnyc]

CHAUVIN in the video was obviously inflicting as much pressure as he could to hurt Floyd. hell you can see it in his face--they knew each other and did not like each other. I'd voted guilty on the most serious of charges . Chauvin is a bad cop.
I've seen several in my youth. And I wanted to spit on those ffing bastards.--Tyr

What I wonder as well, did previous interactions or working together as security at a club? Did it perhaps have something to do with his extra weight on him? Punishing him in a manner? We'll never know, but with another officer asking to put him on his side, and all the people telling him he can't breathe and he just knelt there with a straight face.

[fj1200]

Lightning strike.
All the years and the first time that I have ever agreed with you.

And they say miracles never happen..-Tyr

I know it's not the first.

[fj1200]

OK so.
everyone on the jury was afraid?... of Maxine waters? and Sleepy Joe?


Maybe we'll get an idea of that if/when the jury starts to talk.


What I wonder as well, did previous interactions or working together as security at a club? Did it perhaps have something to do with his extra weight on him? Punishing him in a manner? We'll never know, but with another officer asking to put him on his side, and all the people telling him he can't breathe and he just knelt there with a straight face.

But they didn't spend any time talking about that did they? If they didn't I'd lean more towards manslaughter and away from murder.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I know it's not the first.

Perhaps so.
But my memory being so prone to failing, its seems to be so to me..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Maybe we'll get an idea of that if/when the jury starts to talk.



But they didn't spend any time talking about that did they? If they didn't I'd lean more towards manslaughter and away from murder.

I just see a huge difference between manslaughter & murder. And look, I don't care if he rots in there as he deserves to - but just the analyzing part in me looking at the case as a whole is all.

The law of 2nd degree murder in Minnesota is stricter though and applies to more. And the more I read the statute I can see who they proved it to the jury.

Here is the text:


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subdivision 1. Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

§Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

To me, it looks like it would apply to Subdivision 2 Part 1 and the Unintentional murder, which comes with the same sentencing guidelines. I guess they all fall under the same umbrella. So they would have to believe that Chauvin was committing a felony with force of violence. I can see that and them coming to that conclusion. I think manslaughter applies as well, but this one is tougher and I can see them having convicted of the man charges and not the murder.

Either way, he was guilty of something as you said.

[fj1200]

I just see a huge difference between manslaughter & murder. And look, I don't care if he rots in there as he deserves to - but just the analyzing part in me looking at the case as a whole is all.

The law of 2nd degree murder in Minnesota is stricter though and applies to more. And the more I read the statute I can see who they proved it to the jury.

Here is the text:



To me, it looks like it would apply to Subdivision 2 Part 1 and the Unintentional murder, which comes with the same sentencing guidelines. I guess they all fall under the same umbrella. So they would have to believe that Chauvin was committing a felony with force of violence. I can see that and them coming to that conclusion. I think manslaughter applies as well, but this one is tougher and I can see them having convicted of the man charges and not the murder.

Either way, he was guilty of something as you said.


while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense

The above part is what I get caught on. Not sure what felony offense he was committing but I didn't watch enough to know the whole thing. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it gets knocked down on appeal. Still be in prison for a good long time.

[jimnyc]

The above part is what I get caught on. Not sure what felony offense he was committing but I didn't watch enough to know the whole thing. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it gets knocked down on appeal. Still be in prison for a good long time.

Same here, but I think they believed that he committed a felony by his actions on his neck. I suppose if they think his actions were so egregious and beyond policy to the level of criminal. Only thing that may make sense to me. But the manslaughter charges are easy to make a case against him.