Crosby B. Alfred posted:

How soon do we think we will get a verdict? As far as I know it could take days? And I suspect Chauvin could appeal as well?

quote:

So how long will this take? It’s hard to say, [former head public defender Mary] Moriarty said.

“I can say that the fact that they are sequestered makes it likely that they’ll come back earlier,” Moriarty said. “There’s a lot of pressure on jurors who are kept together, they don’t get to go home at night and get refreshed, eat their own food, sleep in their own bed.”

quote:

1. George Floyd, the victim, was particularly vulnerable because officers had already handcuffed him behind his back and then placed him chest down on the pavement, and Mr. Floyd clearly and repeatedly told the officers he could not breathe. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(1); State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996).
   
   
2. Mr. Floyd was treated with particular cruelty. Despite Mr. Floyd’s pleas that he could not breathe and was going to die, as well as the pleas of eyewitnesses for Defendant to get off Mr. Floyd and help him, Defendant and his codefendants continued to restrain Mr. Floyd. Defendant kept his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck to hold him prone on the ground for approximately nine minutes, during at least four minutes of which Mr. Floyd was motionless. This maneuver inflicted gratuitous pain on Mr. Floyd. Those eyewitnesses, of whose presence Defendant was aware, had to watch Mr. Floyd die. Defendant also did not provide Mr. Floyd with any medical assistance and discouraged the efforts of others to provide such assistance. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(2); State v. Hicks, 864 N.W.2d 153, 159-60 (Minn. 2015); Tucker v. State, 799 N.W.2d 583, 587-99 (Minn. 2011); State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Minn. 1996); State v. Harwell, 515 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
   
   
3. Defendant abused a position of authority, as he was a licensed police officer in full uniform who, in conjunction with other officers, took full custody of Mr. Floyd. State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 475, 482 (Minn. 1992).
   
   
4. Defendant committed the crime as part of a group of three or more offenders who all actively participated in the crime. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(10).
   
   
5. Defendant committed the crime in the presence of multiple children, and Defendant’s criminal conduct was witnessed by children. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(13); State v. Profit, 323 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn. 1982).
   

LLCoolJD posted:

Special inmate placements really aren't that rare. Although going from a jail to a prison is something I've never heard of. I have only ever seen jail to jail transfers.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I don't understand how that would not be a (morally justified) call to imminent violence.

Paracaidas posted:

"Burn this city to the loving ground and slaughter every pig who stands in your way if they come back without a guilty verdict" would still fail to demonstrate (among other things) a call to imminent violence.

Morningwoodpecker posted:

If you tried it and the victim died or got hurt you'd be in the deep end of the poop pool.

BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:

Knowing nothing else about the guy beyond being Chavin's attorney it is his legal duty and obligation to provide the best defense possible. Of course he's appealing. He has to and he can get more money from Chauvin.

willie_dee posted:

You do it, lets do an experiment. I'll grab a sharpie pen (instead of an actual knife) and an innocent by stander. You have to use the taser and non lethal force to stop me killing both the person I am in the process of "killing" and stop me from killing you. (covering you in sharpie pen)

You going to intercept me with a baton? I'll kill you.

You going to talk me down? I'll kill you.

Give you a taser? With how unreliable they are? Innocent by stander is probably dead, you might survive if the prongs hit correctly, but even then, you willing to risk that chance?

HonorableTB posted:

Nobody has yet to answer the single question of "Should the cop have let that other girl get stabbed" given that the knife was literally on the way to being inside the victim when the cop fired and instead just deflects it with a snide comment about child murder while ignoring the attempted murder happening right there in front of their face

Morningwoodpecker posted:

The knife is right next to the intended victims throat it only has to move a few inches. You'd need to cover the gap between you preferably silently get control of the weapon and in America obviously you'd need to put your weapon away securely first or fight one handed with your off hand once you got there. If you go for a full on tackle you'll be pushing her in the direction of the victim blade first with all your bodyweight.

If you tried it and the victim died or got hurt you'd be in the deep end of the poop pool.

willie_dee posted:

You going to intercept me with a baton? I'll kill you.

You going to talk me down? I'll kill you.

Pablo Nergigante posted:

I dunno why nobody responded to this but it's 100% correct

Lord Stimperor posted:

I'm.sorry for just kramering in.

Has it been addressed here or elsewhere what the chances are on an appeal on the Chauvin conviction? Will the conviction be safe?

quote:

The jurors who held the fate of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in their hands took their job so seriously that to protect the process they didn't learn one another's names, jobs, family ties or personal interests.

They came from various backgrounds and spanned five decades in age but somehow came to an unspoken understanding early in their three weeks together that they would limit conversation to the weather, a shortage of Cheetos at their snack table and their pizza orders every Wednesday, said Lisa Christensen, who served as an alternate juror in the case.

"We didn't want to do or say anything to jeopardize this process … so we were very careful. We were responsible. We took it seriously," said Christensen. "I felt everybody was coming from a good place, a good heart. I felt everyone was genuine. I don't think there were any ulterior motives at all."
[...]
Christensen still can't shake the testimony of Darnella Frazier, who was 17 when she recorded the video of Floyd's arrest that became key to the prosecution's case, and Frazier's then 9-year-old cousin, Judeah Reynolds.

"To this day it's still in my mind that [Frazier is] … apologizing to Mr. Floyd at night because she can't go to sleep," Christensen said. "It's pretty heartbreaking. The 9-year-old, I could feel her sadness."

There were several moments during such testimony where jurors retired to a locked room guarded by a deputy and, overcome by emotion, cast their eyes downward to avoid eye contact and waited in complete silence until their return to the courtroom.

"While we were in there it was just us, you know?" Christensen said. "I feel like even though we didn't talk about it, I felt like we were supported by one another, gained strength. … It was a good group."

Frazier's video was integral to the state's case, she said, adding that the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Martin Tobin was crucial to establishing that Floyd died of asphyxia while Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds.

"It never got any easier no matter how many times we saw it," she said of the video. "I still felt the pain I thought Mr. Floyd was going through. I never understood it any better from the first time I saw it to the last time I saw it."

Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, was unable to raise doubts about the state's case or show that Floyd died of a cardiac arrest affected by drug use, or that Chauvin's actions were reasonable, Christensen said.

FilthyImp posted:

I didn't watch a lot of it, but the clips that came out where people were weeping or emotionally wrecked because they blamed themselves were really, really affecting. It took the focus off of stopping Chauvin to helping Floyd.

There's a teenager that recorded the whole thing. The MMA guy who couldn't intervene. The older gentleman who broke down on the stand. The store clerk who regretting drawing attention to the bill... all of them felt personal responsibility in a way that's just deep.

FoolyCharged posted:

And in a way Chauvin didn't.

reposted in full posted:

Chauvin verdicts 'not a cause for celebration,' prosecutor says
Several days after jurors returned full convictions against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, the prosecutors who pieced together the case against him say they have refrained from celebrating their win and struggle to sleep a full night.

While there were congratulations in the immediate aftermath of last Tuesday's three guilty verdicts, the weight of the case loomed over the team that spent nearly a year poring through evidence and stitching together a careful attack on Chauvin's claims that he followed his training as he knelt on George Floyd's neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds last May.

"It's not a cause for celebration," Attorney General Keith Ellison said of Chauvin's conviction. "It's sad, very sad. One man's dead and another man's going to prison for a long time."

"It's a tragedy, and there really are no winners in a tragedy," said Special Assistant Attorney General Jerry Blackwell, who played a key role by delivering the state's opening statement, questioning witnesses and giving the rebuttal closing argument.

In four months they expect to be back in court trying Chauvin's three former colleagues — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — in one trial on charges of aiding and abetting Floyd's murder. Chauvin is scheduled for sentencing June 16.

The Attorney General's Office led the prosecution with assistance from the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. Ellison brought together several high-profile outside attorneys, including Blackwell, to work with prosecutors from both offices to try Chauvin for second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

Ellison, Blackwell and Special Assistant Attorneys General Lola Velazquez-Aguilu and Steve Schleicher, also outside attorneys, sat down for a recent interview to discuss how the team prepared for and executed the six-week trial that was livestreamed and watched around the world.

"I asked these guys when we got here, 'Are you sleeping yet?' and for all of us the answer is no, we're not sleeping yet," said Velazquez-Aguilu.

A team of about 13 attorneys, 10 from outside the attorney general's office and some from as far away as Washington D.C., were assigned to committees covering different topics, including law enforcement and policing; medical issues and causation of death; and "themes" and "the art of presentation," among others. Some additional attorneys from Ellison's office provided part-time assistance. All outside contributors worked for free, according to Ellison's office.

The key to a successful operation, Ellison said, was to assign attorneys as leaders in one committee and followers in others to empower everyone to contribute. Blackwell and Schleicher said Ellison's guidance, weekly Zoom meetings, organized groups and clearly outlined tasks and purposes eased the process.

"It was not a pirate ship," said Schleicher, who focused on policing and questioned several witnesses at trial. "It was a warship, and it was ready to go."

"Everybody was willing to take out the trash, to literally do anything large or small," said Velazquez-Aguilu, who focused on medical issues, preparing experts and outlining questions behind the scenes. "At no time did I see anyone with a hint of ego say, 'Well, I'm too important to do this thing.' "

But the path wasn't always smooth. Ellison has said he assembled a team of "Michael Jordans" — star attorneys used to calling the shots now suddenly thrust into a massive group project coordinated over Zoom because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some attorneys met each other for the first time in person six months after their collaboration began.

"There were times it felt like trying to mix oil, water and a brick," Blackwell said, prompting laughter from the others. "You take deep breaths and you keep working at it. Everyone was committed to finding the best way to win. We understood we couldn't take anything for granted. These cases are difficult."

Blackwell was credited for crafting the mantra, "You can believe your eyes," which was introduced in his opening statement on March 29 and repeated several times in Schleicher's closing argument on April 19. He said he intentionally delivered an even-keeled opening statement centered on reason and logic instead of emotion so the evidence could speak for itself and to avoid playing into expectations that he would be overly emotional because he is Black.

"We felt that the most potent, powerful evidence there was the video and let people see it for themselves, judge it for themselves, reach their own conclusions and be able to say to them, 'There's no optical illusion in this; you can believe your eyes,' " Blackwell said.

The video, taken by Darnella Frazier, then 17, became the theme, Ellison said. The prosecution structured its case around it by calling several bystanders at the scene to the witness stand in the first few days of trial, then calling several Minneapolis police officers who testified Chauvin used excessive force and lastly, reinforcing what the bystanders saw with medical experts who testified that Floyd died of asphyxiation, Ellison said.

"Even though the video was incredibly powerful, I always was thinking about how we need to present this case if we somehow didn't have the video," Ellison said. " … I thought we needed to try the case imagining we didn't have the video and that was important, because I was always mindful, 'Are we playing it too much? At what point do you desensitize?' "

Prosecutors argued that the video showed Floyd dying of asphyxia breath-by-breath as Chauvin knelt on his neck while Kueng and Lane knelt and held the rest of his body stomach-down in the street. Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, argued that Floyd died from a cardiac arrest due to pre-existing heart disease and clogged arteries, among other health issues, and drug use

Citing the pending cases against Chauvin's former colleagues, Ellison declined to comment about his office's position on Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker's findings that Floyd died of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression."

When asked whether he had prior knowledge of the City of Minneapolis' record $27 million settlement with the Floyd family, Ellison said: "I don't believe I knew anything about it. I certainly didn't factor it in. I didn't have any authority over it. … Didn't care, didn't matter to me."

The settlement was announced at the end of the first week of jury selection, angering the defense and trial judge because of its possible prejudicial impact. Settlements typically are resolved after a case concludes. Nelson argued that the announcement could have biased several seated jurors and prospective jurors. Ultimately, two jurors who had been seated were dismissed when they said it had affected their objectivity.

The attorney general's handling of the prosecution diverged from past practices in which county attorneys reviewed cases in their own jurisdictions. Several metro county attorneys signed an agreement last year to defer officer-involved fatalities in their jurisdiction to an outside county until later this year or until state lawmakers approve forwarding all future cases to the attorney general.

Ellison said he won't usurp the authority of county attorneys, "but they know we're ready to help."

"We will be a player in this space," Ellison said. "Will we take all the cases? I doubt it. Will we take some of them? Yes, I'm sure we will. We're prepared to do it. We're building expertise."

quote:

Leading up to Derek Chauvin's murder trial, Justice Department officials had spent months gathering evidence to indict the ex-Minneapolis police officer on federal police brutality charges, but they feared the publicity frenzy could disrupt the state's case.

So they came up with a contingency plan: If Chauvin were found not guilty on all counts or the case ended in a mistrial, they would arrest him at the courthouse, according to sources familiar with the planning discussions.

The backup plan would not be necessary. On April 20, the jury found Chauvin guilty on all three murder and manslaughter counts, sending him to the state's most secure lockdown facility to await sentencing, and avoiding the riots many feared could engulf the city once again.

Now, with Chauvin's state trial out of the way, federal prosecutors are moving forward with their case. They plan to ask a grand jury to indict Chauvin and the other three ex-officers involved in George Floyd's killing — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — on charges of civil rights violations, a source said.

If the grand jury votes to indict, the former officers will face the new civil rights charges on top of the state's cases, meaning all four could be headed toward yet another criminal trial in federal court.

quote:

For an order granting a new trial, pursuant to Minn. R. 26.04, subd. 1, on the following
grounds: the interests of justice; abuse of discretion that deprived the Defendant of a fair
trial; prosecutorial and jury misconduct; errors of law at trial; and a verdict that is contrary
to law. The specific bases for this motion include, but are not limited to:
a. The Court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a change of
venue, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 24,03, subd. 1, and 25.02, subd. 3, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to a due process and a fair trial. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966).
b. The Court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the grounds that “publicity during the proceedings threaten[ed] the fairness othe trial[.]” Sheppard, supra. Such publicity included post-testimony, but pre-deliberation, intimidation of the defense’s expert witnesses, from which the jury was not insulated. Not only did such acts escalate the potential for prejudice in these proceedings, they may result in a far-reaching chilling effect on defendants’ ability to procure expert witness—especially in high-profile cases, such as those of Mr. Chauvin’s codefendants—to testify on their behalf. The publicity here was so pervasive and so prejudicial before and during this trial that it amounted to a structural defect in the proceedings. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 508-09 (1983) (certain errors involve “rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as a harmless error”).
c. The Court abused its discretion when it failed to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial, or in the least, admonish them to avoid all media, which resulted in jury exposure to prejudicial publicity regarding the trial during the proceedings, as well as jury intimidation and potential fear of retribution among jurors, which violated Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial. Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 5.
d. The State committed pervasive, prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, which deprived Mr. Chauvin of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, including but not limited to: disparaging the Defense; improper vouching; and failing to adequately prepare its witnesses.
e. The Court abused its discretion and violated Mr. Chauvin’s rights under the Confrontation Clause when it failed to order Morries Hall to testify, or in the alternative, to admit into evidence Mr. Hall’s statements to law enforcement regarding his interactions with George Floyd and presence at the May 25, 2020 incident. U.S. Const., amend. VI.
f. The Court abused its discretion when it submitted instructions to the jury that failed to accurately reflect the law with respect to second degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and authorized use of force.
g. The Court abused its discretion, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, when it permitted the State to present cumulative evidence with respect to use of force.
h. The Court abused its discretion, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, when it ordered the State to lead witnesses on direct examination.
i. The Court abused its discretion, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, when it failed to order that a record be made of the numerous sidebars that occurred during the trial.
j. The cumulative effect of the multiple errors in these proceedings deprived Mr. Chauvin of a fair trial, in violation of his constitutional rights. See State v. Duncan, 608 N.W.2d 551, 551-58 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000 (“when the cumulative effect of numerous errors” even if, alone, the errors are harmless—“constitutes the denial of a fair trial, the defendant is entitled to a new trial”).
2. An order for a hearing to impeach the verdict, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 20(6) and Schwartz v. Minneapolis Suburban Bus Co., 104 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. 1960), on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct, felt threatened or intimidated, felt race based pressure during the proceedings, and/or failed to adhere to instructions during deliberations, in violation of Mr. Chauvin’s constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. State v. Larson, 281 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Minn. 1979); State v. Kelley, 517 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1994); State v. Bowles, 530 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. 1995).
3. For an order granting the Defense additional time to thoroughly brief the above issues, in light of the time that was required for preparation of partial transcripts of the proceedings.
4. Any other relief deemed fair and equitable by the Court.
This motion is based upon the files and records in this case, the Minnesota Statutes, the
Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States and Minnesota Constitutions and upon
such other and further points and authorities as may subsequently be presented to the Court.

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

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."

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