Kalit posted:

I doubt a successful appeals will happen and there is a near 0% chance of a new jury trial actually occurring. The judge dismissed all objections along these lines, of course that could also be because the judge wanted to continue course and wanted to punt everything to appeals to sort through later.

But the burden of proof is extremely high to get an appeals hearing, and even higher to win an appeals decision of any kind. I think about the only way this would occur would be if they found something like a juror with notes that says "we need to convict, otherwise there will be riots" or something obvious along those lines.

Relentless posted:

From what I can tell, this is his legal team covering their asses. There's no argument left when they get a ruling back from the court of "After checking all 13 complaints, he's still going to jail". If they didn't appeal, then in a couple of years he might be able to argue "Well, my defense at the time didn't REALLY defend me that well, so I want a retrial on those grounds." and start the whole shitshow up again.

Aegis posted:

Sorta. It's likely not so much rear end-covering in a direct sense as it is what's called "preservation of error." In short, if you didn't object to a matter when it first comes up (or if you fail to get a clear ruling from the judge and just kind of roll with it) you usually can't raise that matter on appeal. So, if you have arguments you want to make on appeal (or at least want to ensure that you will have that opportunity) you need raise the matter when the opportunity comes up under the applicable rules of procedure.

Lawyers will frequently make pro forma objections or file motions they know the trial judge will deny just to get the denial on the record and preserve their client's appeal rights. As long as what the objection or motion is non-frivolous, this is just an accepted part of being a competent trial lawyer.

EDIT: And sometimes judge's will "appeal-proof" their overall rulings by granting motions or sustaining objections from the losing side that don't really change the overall outcome of the case, just so they have fewer avenues for appeal.

Relentless posted:

All I'm reading is "Lawyers and judges have an entire rulebook about rear end-covering.".

cr0y posted:

This fell off my radar after the verdict dropped, do we think a new trial is realistic?

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

no. chauvin's age means he will probably die in prison so there's no reason not to do this and his lawyer has extra hours he can extract from his bottomless gofundme pit so there's no reason not to do this.

Chauvin's buying his attorney a new boat; there's no appeal, filing or manuever that his lawyer will try to dissuade him from short of those risking disbarrment

mdemone posted:

Hey speaking of Chauvin dying in prison, when is the sentencing scheduled for? I can't seem to find that info.

Charlz Guybon posted:

The state has asked for 30 years. The defense has asked for time served.

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...ge-floyd-murder

Leon Sumbitches posted:

So the state has a week reasoned 20+ page argument for why 30 years is the appropriate sentence.

Is the defenses' argument publicly available? Cuz I'm willing to bet it's dog poo poo.

quote:

Mr. Chauvin is forty-five (45) years old now as he stands before the Court. At the time of the offense conduct, he was forty-four (44) years old, living with his wife. Mr.Chauvin’s age weighs in his favor when determining a sentence. The life expectancy of police officers is generally shorter, and police officers have a significantly higher average probability of death from specific diseases than did males in the general population. Mr. Chauvin is now forty-four years old and is nearing the healthier years of his life. He has been preliminarily diagnosed with heart damage and may likely die at a younger age like many ex-law enforcement officers.

quote:

Independent of the long-term damage a prison sentence would inflict upon Mr. Chauvin’s life prospects, given his age, convictions for officer-involved offenses significantly increase the likelihood of him becoming a target in prison

quote:

Mr. Chauvin is forty-five (45) years old now

Three sentences later posted:

Mr. Chauvin is now forty-four years old

oldskool posted:

At this rate Chauvin will be in juvi by lunch.

quote:

officer-involved offenses

PT6A posted:

"Your honor, my clients should not receive a prison sentence for killing a man because going to prison would make him sad, and is unpleasant."

HopperUK posted:

loving works sometimes, doesn't it. like that kid who got off for raping a woman because being punished would adversely affect his whole life.

PT6A posted:

That was also a miscarriage of justice, but that argument works a lot better with a 21-year-old rather than a middle-aged cop who was entrusted to use deadly force in service of maintaining law and order, and then killed a man.

PT6A posted:

That was also a miscarriage of justice, but that argument works a lot better with a 21-year-old rather than a middle-aged cop who was entrusted to use deadly force in service of maintaining law and order, and then killed a man.

LeeMajors posted:

It actually doesn't work at all in either case.

Punishment is supposed to be loving unpleasant.

I'm like really against our carceral state, but violent criminals like rapists and murderers are the ones who probably do deserve jail time and the argument that "jail sucks" doesn't fly here.

Jaxyon posted:

Not really because society is even more OK with cops killing minorities than it is with men raping women, which it is also very very OK with

PT6A posted:

Brock Turner was shown leniency that most other people convicted of similar crimes at that age are not, and probably too much leniency at that, but the reasoning isn't inherently unsound if applied equally and reasonably.

raminasi posted:

An interesting fact about the Brock Turner case is that the judge was arguably doing just that.

mdemone posted:

Kinda makes me feel better to know that the judge in that case is just a big ol' softie who doesn't really seem interested in sending people to prison. At least his sentencing of Turner was in character and in keeping with his past decisions.

willie_dee posted:

quote:

Howard, of Minneapolis, said she was especially swayed by the detailed testimony of Dr. Martin Tobin, the lung specialist who bolstered the prosecution's contention that Floyd died from asphyxiation as a direct result of being pinned facedown on the pavement at 38th and Chicago on May 25, 2020, for more than 9 minutes by Chauvin and two other officers.

"He was fantastic," Howard told the Star Tribune, who added that Tobin's credibility was enhanced by not being paid for his testimony. "He was very, very convincing. He was probably my favorite."

Among the other witnesses for the prosecution, Howard also gave high marks to Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo.

"He shocked me with his testimony," she said. "I wasn't expecting him to be so blunt when he said this is not what we teach or how we train."

quote:

Howard, who identified herself during the jury selection process as biracial and is the daughter of a white mother and a Black father, said she like didn't like how Nelson was so confrontational with prosecution witness Donald Williams III, another of the witnesses who stood within feet of Chauvin and Floyd. Nelson drew criticism for appearing to portray Williams as an angry Black man whose foul language and tone created a threatening atmosphere for the officers.

Nelson tried to make Williams "seem angry and emotional in a negative way," Howard said. "[Williams] did an excellent job staying poised and truthful in his testimony. I don't think it turned out as well for the defense as he wanted it to"

quote:

Chauvin's choice to exercise his constitutional right and not testify on his own behalf had little effect, Howard said.

"I wouldn't say I wanted him to," she said. "I don't want to lie, it wouldn't have made a difference to me. If he had something he really, really wanted to say to get off, he would have

quote:

Deliberations after more than three weeks of testimony lasted just a few hours spanning two days before the unanimous verdicts were reached — a brief amount of time that "came as a shock to all of us" on the jury, Howard said Thursday. She pointed out that she and the other sequestered jurors had enough clothing packed to last several weeks.

"We were expecting at least through the end of that week and maybe come back Monday and be done," she said. We did not know [at the start] where everyone stood. We started having dialogue and realized we were all on the same page. We were a lot more in sync than any of us expected."

Foxfire_ posted:

Increase from presumptive sentencing guidelines because trial proved four possible aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt:

"(i) That Mr. Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority;
(ii) That Mr. Chauvin treated George Floyd with particular cruelty;
(iii) That children were present during the commission of the offense; and
(iv) That Mr. Chauvin committed the crime as a group with the active participation of three other individuals, former
Minneapolis Police Officers Thou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng, who all actively participated with
Mr. Chauvin in the crime in various ways."

Charlz Guybon posted:

Can the prosecution of those other officers point to this, or would that not be allowed?

quote:

Adding third-degree murder to the cases would likely increase the probability of a conviction against some of the defendants, said Joseph Daly, an emeritus professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.

"It's going to be hard to convince a jury to convict any of these other three officers on second-degree," Daly said, "but third-degree, there's a likelihood that some of them could be convicted on that."

Daly said adding the count would also likely give the defendants more motivation to entertain plea deals