Former police officer Derek Chauvin is seeking a new trial after a jury last month found him guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder in connection with the death of George Floyd.
“The cumulative effect of the multiple errors in these proceedings deprived Mr. Chauvin of a fair trial, in violation of his constitutional rights,” the filing states.
The denial of a motion for a venue change was one of the various issues raised to argue for a new trial.
Predictions: Riots coming.
Any judge, including the one presiding over the first trial, would rule in his favor.
Well half of the judges. But only one is needed.
Don’t matter, Biden justice department said they would have arrested him if he was found not guilty.
…you are legally correct Mr. Lawyer, but we’re as ascared of angry dark people wanting to hang us because the lies Democrats told were too effective, plus we’re Democrats ourselves anyway so justice is what we SAY it is.
Motion is denied.
…now report to the media room for your doxxing, expect several visitors later on about this…
Won’t matter. Now that the mob knows it can intimidate jurors with no consequences no jury is going to exonerate him
…but do tell where the next trial is. Maxine likes to book her trips as far away from her district as possible as often and early as she can…
Murder is premeditated, if there is no premeditation it cannot be murder. Just an opinion.
Obviously a mistrial. The Black Colored Juror needs to trade places with the Defendant, but this probably won’t happen. More than likely, this judge will fail to follow the law and let higher Courts grapple with this legal mess. Remember that Rodney King’s riot provokers were found not guilty when their trial was moved to Simi Valley, but then they were tried and found guilty on Federal charges. Chauvin is facing the same legal conundrum.
I’d simply like to know how someone can be found guilty of both murder and manslaughter when there is only one dead body.
I would put an extremely low probability on this succeeding, but it will at least keep things open for more actions to overturn the verdict in the future.
Really doesn’t make any difference, IMO Chauvin will never be a free man again and the outlook for his lifespan doesn’t look good either.
Chauvin should have skipped to South America when he had the chance.
I predict suicide before it’s all over.
The article didn’t mention the juror who’s photo has surfaced wearing a BLM tee shirt complete with an image of George Floyd.
I think there were grounds for a mistrial during the proceedings themselves. But frequently judges deny motions for mistrial in case the end verdict is something everyone can live with. But that’s not the case here.
“Peaceful protestors” burned down, vandalized and looted sections of Minneapolis in the name of George Floyd. Maxine Waters essentially threatened more violence if Chauvin wasn’t convicted. President Cho Bao-din (thanks Peoples Cube) opined that guilty was the only proper verdict. Various celebrities demanded that Chauvin be convicted. Protestors seeking Chauvin’s head gathered outside the court house daily. Sections of cities all over the country were subjected to George Floyd riots; the jurors would have been subjected to this coverage on radio, on television, in print, and on social media on an almost daily basis. Keep in mind the jurors weren’t sequestered, and despite judicial admonitions at the beginning of the trial, the jurors could not help but be aware of this coverage.
With the cumulative effect of all of this, granting a motion for new trial should be a no-brainer – this was essentially a show trial. But is the judge willing to grant a motion for new trial when there is a high degree of probability of rioting, and the President and at least one sitting member of Congress has called for Chauvin’s conviction? It would take a high degree of courage for the trial judge to take this step unless he can find some relatively benign legal point in the trial transcript to hinge his decision on…and even them, the media and Democrat politicians will probably still whip up the malcontents into a frenzy.
For the record, I am willing to let a fair and impartial jury decide Chauvin’s guilt or innocence. I just don’t believe that Chauvin had a fair and impartial jury under all of the circumstances, and I am not willing to allow a leftist mob to impose its will on anything.
Wyatt, Insensitive Progressive Jerk
MAY 5, 2021 AT 12:48 PM
“…and I am not willing to allow a leftist mob to impose its will on anything.”
…too late.
They’ve already imposed their will on EVERYTHING.
…when they stole all the critical elections on 11/3/20 and demonstrated complete control of the judiciary by blackmail, threats, and previously installed subversives.
…crap like THIS is just mop-up, to neuter the police and put all White people into the role of the Jewish Scapegoats of the 2020s…
I’m out of breath like George Floyd when my Petey B pins down my unbleached elastic starfish!
Hey Chasty? Where’s the Ben Gay? I threw my left glute out last night.