The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

I agree, particularly in regards to Maxine Waters' comments. But considering the state of technology and media in 2021 we're going to have to seriously rethink our idea of a fair trial.

Anything that rises to a certain level is going to garner national, and very likely international, attention and it just isn't reasonable to expect to find people who aren't exposed to a lot of pretrial news and commentary.

Even sequestration from day one can't give any more of an expectation that jurors won't be exposed to something, short of taking their phones and computers and locking them in a room with no television and never letting them leave unless it's to go to court. I don't find that particularly reasonable, and I would say the judge in this case saw it the same way.

As we become more and more connected it's going to be more and more difficult to find people who have no exposure to high profile cases. Sooner or later we're going to have to accept the idea that somebody can be exposed to a high profile case, and even hold an opinion about that case, but still be capable of being impartial when presented with evidence and witness/expert testimony. The alternative is our current system fails sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I don't have any good answers either. Ultimately, people are going to have some knowledge of cases. The problem isn't that they know about the cases, but more that the knowledge they have will inevitably filtered through the media, who have their own agenda and biases. That's also an issue. Tough nut to crack imo.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I will be more shocked if he is found guilty than if he was acquitted and that has nothing to do how the case was prosecuted. I have seen this movie before and I have a clear understanding on how the justice system works in America and there is very little I can do to change the minds of potential jurors, all I can do is vote for adequate representation. I feel that protesting has become counterproductive due to so many criminals taking the opportunity to reek havoc which completely destroys all positive messaging that the actual activist are fighting to convey.

 

[superchuck500]

I agree, particularly in regards to Maxine Waters' comments. But considering the state of technology and media in 2021 we're going to have to seriously rethink our idea of a fair trial.

Anything that rises to a certain level is going to garner national, and very likely international, attention and it just isn't reasonable to expect to find people who aren't exposed to a lot of pretrial news and commentary.

Even sequestration from day one can't give any more of an expectation that jurors won't be exposed to something, short of taking their phones and computers and locking them in a room with no television and never letting them leave unless it's to go to court. I don't find that particularly reasonable, and I would say the judge in this case saw it the same way.

As we become more and more connected it's going to be more and more difficult to find people who have no exposure to high profile cases. Sooner or later we're going to have to accept the idea that somebody can be exposed to a high profile case, and even hold an opinion about that case, but still be capable of being impartial when presented with evidence and witness/expert testimony. The alternative is our current system fails sooner rather than later.

I think you're right that it's a challenge - but as we think about it, it is important to understand that the law does not require a standard that a qualified juror must not know anything about the case or have read/viewed any news about it. I think the courts have held that an impartial jury is one that is capable of rendering a verdict based solely on the courtroom presentation as directed by the judge. In the information age, the idea of a juror with zero knowledge of a high-profile incident is highly unlikely, and we don't expect there to be a panel full of such unicorns. But part of the jury selection process will entail counsel and perhaps even the court exploring each's juror's familiarity with the case and the degree to which, if any, that familiarity renders the prospective juror unable to be impartial.

But after the case begins, the court absolutely expects jurors to follow the instruction that they are not to talk about the case with anyone and are not to read or view news or analysis of the case, or social media about the case. I don't think this expectation is unreasonable or unmanageable. Sure, the information age challenges the jurors to a greater degree, but I'm pretty sure there are cases from the 80s that talk about cable TV and the 24 hour news cycle - and the expectation remains the same: jurors are instructed sternly and reminded daily not to do it. Jurors are reminded that their failure to adhere to these instructions could cause a mistrial and all the time and effort put into it by the parties will have been lost by that juror's failure to follow the court's express instructions. Extreme circumstances could even result in contempt.

Being realistic, I suspect that many jurors may talk about a case with their spouse, or might even see something about it if they can't resist the need to scroll facebook or their favorite news site as they unwind in the evening. But as they have sat through the entire trial and are reminded daily about their obligations to be impartial, I hope (and suspect) that instances where some outside information about something some analyst has said or some politician has said actually influences a juror's decision are uncommon.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Jeff Miller]

Two of the three charges you cite expressly don’t require an intent to kill.

I knew the manslaughter wouldn't (by definition) but 3 third degree murder charge does appear to leave that door open doesn't it.

 

[superchuck500]

I knew the manslaughter wouldn't (by definition) but 3 third degree murder charge does appear to leave that door open doesn't it.

"Leave the door open" to requiring intent to kill? Either it does or it doesn't . . . and it doesn't.

Minnesota Statutes 609.195, Murder in the third degree:

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(emphasis added)

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

(Note I'm not saying I think Chauvin committed third-degree murder, I'm just saying that it doesn't require his intent to kill Floyd, as you suggested).

 

[EGLSShin]

Its not hard, if you're an elected official currently serving a term, shut the hell up about how the jury should go. Why is it so hard to just say, "Well, the Jury has a big task on their hands and that is how our system works" if you HAVE to make a comment about the case.

 

[rajncajn]

Its not hard, if you're an elected official currently serving a term, shut the hell up about how the jury should go. Why is it so hard to just say, "Well, the Jury has a big task on their hands and that is how our system works" if you HAVE to make a comment about the case.

Biden Praying for "Right Verdict"

It amazes me that after the last four years of complaining about Trump's rhetoric, they still can't fix their own.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

How is saying he's praying for the right verdict a negative comment?
That is not even in the same universe as what Maxine Waters said. And he waited until the jury was sequestered before even saying anything.

 

[saintmdterps]

Biden Praying for "Right Verdict"

It amazes me that after the last four years of complaining about Trump's rhetoric, they still can't fix their own.

It amazes me that anyone can make any sort of false equivalence between the rehetoric emanating from the White House between 2016-2020 and the rhetoric since Joe Biden assumed the presidency.

 

[rajncajn]

It amazes me that anyone can make any sort of false equivalence between the rhetoric emanating from the White House between 2016-2020 and the rhetoric since Joe Biden assumed the presidency.

I didn't say it was equivalent, but it could be just as dangerous, divisive & inflammatory and it certainly is hypocritical and counterproductive.

 

[DaveXA]

How is saying he's praying for the right verdict a negative comment?
That is not even in the same universe as what Maxine Waters said. And he waited until the jury was sequestered before even saying anything.

Yeah, but that implies he has a "right" verdict in mind. I suppose most would assume that would be a guilty verdict. To me, the jury may not ever see his comments, but I just feel like comments from political leaders like that poisons the well. The judge had already asked local politicians to stop commenting on the case. They obliged, but others with national exposure have just made things more complicated with their own comments.

I'd hate to be the jury. What happens if they feel the defense raised enough issues to warrant reasonable doubt and they ignore that because they feel the rest of the world expects a guilty verdict? Shirt, I'd probably have to leave the country. Is that a fair trial?

 

[FullMonte]

I didn't say it was equivalent, but it could be just as dangerous, divisive & inflammatory and it certainly is hypocritical and counterproductive.

Let's see..he said:

"They're a good family and they're calling for peace and tranquility no matter what the verdict is."
"I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. I think it's overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn't say that unless the jury was sequestered now."

So, he reinforced the calls for peace, regardless of the verdict. He said he hopes the jurors reach the right verdict (one that isn't swayed by outside opinion, but that is based on the facts presented). He said that he was only making that comment because the jurors can't hear it, so it won't affect their decision.

What part of that is dangerous, divisive, or inflammatory? And how is it so?

 

[FullMonte]

Yeah, but that implies he has a "right" verdict in mind.

I disagree. It implies that there is a right verdict. Either Chauvin was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he wasn't. Whichever of those two is true, the verdict that matches that case is the right verdict. Biden's comment didn't imply, in any sense, that he hoped they reached the verdict that he wants them to reach.

 

[rajncajn]

How is saying he's praying for the right verdict a negative comment?
That is not even in the same universe as what Maxine Waters said. And he waited until the jury was sequestered before even saying anything.

From the article:

Biden's comments come a day after Judge Peter Cahill, who is presiding over the trial, admonished elected officials for speaking out about the case.

“I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that’s disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function,” he said shortly after sending the jury to begin deliberations.

Biden’s comments come with some risk. Defense attorneys often cite remarks made by public officials as a reason to appeal a verdict, in part because it could poison the jury against the defendant.

Cahill delivered his rebuke after rejecting a defense request for a mistrial based in part on comments from California Rep. Maxine Waters, who said “we’ve got to get more confrontational” if Chauvin isn’t convicted of murder. Speaking of politicians in general, he said, "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government. Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent.”

What the judge didn't say is that if the "right verdict" isn't found (and we all know that means a guilty verdict) then it's only fuel to fan the flames of hostility. Politicians, especially the president, shouldn't be trying to influence outcomes in a trial case, plain and simple.