Chauvin Seeks New Trial, Alleges Prosecutorial & Jury Misconduct

[pamak]

I am a Trump supporter and I dont support Chauvin. So much for your stupid theory.

Learn logic before you try to interpreter other people's theories

He did not say that all Trump supporters support Chauvin. He said "those who support Chauvin are also Trump supporters."

If you want to use your personal example to push back against his theory, you should say that "you are a Democrat and still support Chauvin"

Did not they teach you Venn diagrams in middle school or are you too young and you have not graduated from middeschool yet?

Venn diagram - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chagos]

You are not buying that this motion being filed is some big development in this case? Lol

No, not really.

 

[Tahuyaman]

That an appeal has been filed,...

I never said there was an "appeal" filed.

 

[Fletch]

Learn logic before you try to interpreter other people's theories

He did not say that all Trump supporters support Chauvin. He said "those who support Chauvin are also Trump supporters."

If you want to use your personal example to push back against his theory, you should say that "you are a Democrat and still suppot Chauvin"

Did not they teach you Venn diagrams in middle school?

Im 40 something years removed from middle school but if that is what you are studying, I will take your word for it.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I am a Trump supporter and I dont support Chauvin. So much for your stupid theory.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but I did in 2020. I have consistently said that Chauvin did exactly the wrong thing and that he should have been charged with a crime.

 

[BlueTex]

I never said there was an "appeal" filed.

Is there something unusual and earth shattering about this routine motion that we should be watching?

 

[Chagos]

I never said there was an "appeal" filed.

Indeed you didn't.

And when the falsity of that claim was pointed out to the poster making it, you shouted "hair splitting". Kinda gives the impression that you don't give much on precision of terms being used either.

 

[Tahuyaman]

For some reason I believe those who support Chauvin are also Trump supporters.

Wonder why?

Then it must be fair to say those who support defunding or eliminating police forces are also Biden supporters.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Is there something unusual and earth shattering about this routine motion that we should be watching?

I think so. A juror has admitted that the threat of violence was a factor in the verdict. One could conclude that more jurors were also influenced in that way. There were other documented mistakes made during the trial.

The motion may or may not fly. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it is successful. More than likely the trial and verdict will stand. No one wants to be responsible for the rioting should the verdict be tossed.

 

[Wayne Jr]

And if you can prove that, then the appeal may have some basis in fact.

He doesn't need to PROVE it in order to get a new trial. There just needs to be enough evidence to make misconduct plausible, and there is. Maxine's call on rioters to be more violent as the jury confirmed is by itself enough.

 

[Fletch]

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but I did in 2020. I have consistently said that Chauvin did exactly the wrong thing and that he should have been charged with a crime.

I think that is where most people on the right are. Most objections seem to fall somewhere between he was overcharged or may not have gotten a fair trial. I think he got a fair trial and the people who heard the case believed 2nd degree murder was justified. That said, unless there is some evidence I have not seen yet, I dont see any reason to charge the other 3 officers

 

[Chagos]

I think so. A juror has admitted that the threat of violence was a factor in the verdict. One could conclude that more jurors were also influenced in that way. There were other documented mistakes made during the trial.

The motion may or may not fly. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it is successful. More than likely the trial and verdict will stand. No one wants to be responsible for the rioting should the verdict be tossed.

Yeah, one can conclude a load of things, on the jury as a body and on every member singly. But speculation remains neither here nor there.

That also goes for concluding that the jury (singly or as a body) was more interested in preventing riots than considering the presented evidence.

But the motion flying or not won't be dependent on speculations made, nor on what conclusions anyone draws from any such speculations anywhere.

That's neither how trials work nor the judiciary process in general.

 

[BlueTex]

I think so. A juror has admitted that the threat of violence was a factor in the verdict. One could conclude that more jurors were also influenced in that way. There were other documented mistakes made during the trial.

The motion may or may not fly. I wouldn't be all that surprised if it is successful. More than likely the trial and verdict will stand. No one wants to be responsible for the rioting should the verdict be tossed.

LOL... good luck

 

[BlueTex]

He doesn't need to PROVE it in order to get a new trial. There just needs to be enough evidence to make misconduct plausible, and there is. Maxine's call on rioters to be more violent as the jury confirmed is by itself enough.

Upon what are you basing this opinion?

 

[Fletch]

Yeah, one can conclude a load of things, on the jury as a body and on every member singly. But speculation remains neither here nor there.

That also goes for concluding that the jury (singly or as a body) was more interested in preventing riots than considering the presented evidence.

But the motion flying or not won't be dependent on speculations made, nor on what conclusions anyone draws from any such speculations anywhere.

That's neither how trials work nor the judiciary process in general.

I have no doubt that every member of that jury was well aware of the gravity of that trial on how the entire world would be hanging upon what they decided. But since there was no defense for what Chauvin did and the defense didnt even attempt to make one, the verdict was easy

 

[Tahuyaman]

I think that is where most people on the right are. Most objections seem to fall somewhere between he was overcharged or may not have gotten a fair trial. I think he got a fair trial and the people who heard the case believed 2nd degree murder was justified. That said, unless there is some evidence I have not seen yet, I dont see any reason to charge the other 3 officers

I think he should have been charged with some degree of manslaughter. As far as the trial is concerned, I think the venue should have been changed and the jury should have been sequestered from the start.


They have to charge the three others because of the optics. One of the others had only been on the job for a matter of days. He should not be charged with anything. He was basically in the field training mode and was a bystander.

I was a deputy sheriff for 14 years and I would have stopped Chauvin from doing that and then secured Floyd in the car.

 

[Lutherf]

No, thats not what I am saying. When you watch the tape you get to see Chauvins actions and you get to watch the guy under Chavins knee expire. What Chauvin needs to do is prove that his actions were justified and the proper way for an officer of the law to deal with a subdued subject. So yes, there was a burden upon him. He failed to live up to that burden and that is why he was convicted.

Chauvin didn't need to prove anything. The prosecution, for the murder charge, needed to prove that Chauvin's actions were either "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" or "without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II".

The second half of that doesn't apply to Chauvin (though it may have applied to Morris).

That is the state requirement for 3rd degree murder.

For second degree murder, which Chauvin was also found guilty of, the state needed to prove that Chauvin was either in the process of committing a felony or was "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.".

Chauvin was using a normal restraint technique, called the EMTs, called to expedite the response of the EMTs and did not do anything that could reasonably be considered to intentionally inflict bodily harm.

At most, Chauvin was guilty of "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another" which is the manslaughter statute.

The jury went WAY overboard in this case and it is quite possible that the reason they went so far overboard is because:

a. Like you, they believed that Chauvin needed to prove his innocence
and/or
b. They were totally swayed by the political narrative surrounding the whole incident.

For reference - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609

 

[Tahuyaman]

LOL... good luck

I don't need luck. I have no dog in this fight.

 

[Tahuyaman]

I have no doubt that every member of that jury was well aware of the gravity of that trial on how the entire world would be hanging upon what they decided. But since there was no defense for what Chauvin did and the defense didnt even attempt to make one, the verdict was easy

I didn't watch any of the trial, but from what I read, Chauvin's defense team is incompetent.

 

[Fletch]

Chauvin didn't need to prove anything. The prosecution, for the murder charge, needed to prove that Chauvin's actions were either "eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life" or "without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II".

The second half of that doesn't apply to Chauvin (though it may have applied to Morris).

That is the state requirement for 3rd degree murder.

For second degree murder, which Chauvin was also found guilty of, the state needed to prove that Chauvin was either in the process of committing a felony or was "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.".

Chauvin was using a normal restraint technique, called the EMTs, called to expedite the response of the EMTs and did not do anything that could reasonably be considered to intentionally inflict bodily harm.

At most, Chauvin was guilty of "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another" which is the manslaughter statute.

The jury went WAY overboard in this case and it is quite possible that the reason they went so far overboard is because:

a. Like you, they believed that Chauvin needed to prove his innocence
and/or
b. They were totally swayed by the political narrative surrounding the whole incident.

For reference - https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609

I didnt say Chauvin had to prove his innocence. I said he had to explain his actions. He didnt, probably because he couldnt. Thats why he was convicted.

 

[BlueTex]

I didn't watch any of the trial, but from what I read, Chauvin's defense team is incompetent.

Is that what you expect them to argue in this motion? That the he should get a new trial because they are incompetent?

 

[Cardinal]

He doesn't need to PROVE it in order to get a new trial. There just needs to be enough evidence to make misconduct plausible, and there is. Maxine's call on rioters to be more violent as the jury confirmed is by itself enough.

Yeah, actually he does. Sorry.

 

[Chagos]

I have no doubt that every member of that jury was well aware of the gravity of that trial on how the entire world would be hanging upon what they decided. But since there was no defense for what Chauvin did and the defense didnt even attempt to make one, the verdict was easy

Indeed.

As I said, hanging the success of any appeal (or right now the motion) on speculations about what the jury might have felt over the gravity of the trial, isn't going to help Chauvin one bit.

Chauvin flunked it, better said his counsel did. Whether the course of action you outline (potentially) would have changed anything is doubtful but relying (as the chief line of defense) on being able to prove that Floyd died of something other than being choked by Chauvin was not wise.

 

[Tahuyaman]

Is that what you expect them to argue in this motion? That the he should get a new trial because they are incompetent?

No. I already told you what I expect some of their argument to be. Do you liberals here read things then interpret them to mean something else? Do you also read comments then fail to address the actual comments made if they are too hard to dispute?

 

[BlueTex]

No. I already told you what I expect some of their argument to be. Do you liberals here read things then interpret them to mean something else? Do you also read comments then fail to address the actual comments made if they are too hard to dispute?

This motion is filed by his CURRENT attorneys... There will be a hearing on this motion within 30 days... Are you suggesting that he will fire his counsel before the hearing?