United States Minnesota; Man, George Floyd, dies during arrest, cause being a cop kneeling on his neck

Reader mode
The Trial for Derek Chauvin (State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin) has begun at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis, Minnesota where Derek Chauvin is facing second-degree unintentional murder and second-degree manslaughter charges. Jury selection was supposed to begin yesterday but was delayed until today. Derek Chauvin is to be tried separately from the other three police officers.

It's expected opening statements and the like will start on March 29th.

alphanewsmn.com

Chauvin Trial | Scott Johnson's notes from day one

Scott Johnson is on the ground at the Hennepin County Courthouse covering the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
alphanewsmn.com alphanewsmn.com
 
Husky_Khan said:
Jury Selection sounds fun. The Prosecutors for the State are already accusing Eric Nelson, Chauvins Defense Attorney, of racism.

Click to expand...
Which is preposterous. A defense attorney's job is to defend the defendant. Obviously, he is going to dismiss potential jurors who seem biased against his client, and since black people are going to be disproportionately biased against Chauvin, they are more likely to get dismissed as jurors. Basically, just like most accusations of racism in America.
 
ShieldWife said:
Which is preposterous. A defense attorney's job is to defend the defendant. Obviously, he is going to dismiss potential jurors who seem biased against his client, and since black people are going to be disproportionately biased against Chauvin, they are more likely to get dismissed as jurors. Basically, just like most accusations of racism in America.
Click to expand...
It's not preposterous, it's their job to accuse the defense attorney of racism if they think it'll get a better jury. On top of that, choosing jury members based on race is something you aren't allowed to do.
 
ShieldWife said:
Which is preposterous. A defense attorney's job is to defend the defendant. Obviously, he is going to dismiss potential jurors who seem biased against his client, and since black people are going to be disproportionately biased against Chauvin, they are more likely to get dismissed as jurors. Basically, just like most accusations of racism in America.
Click to expand...

It's actually not even that explicit. As per the article the Defense Attorney passed on two Hispanic/Latino/Latinx Jurors and that's what prompted the cries of racism. One of the Latinx jurors stated he had martial arts experience and stated that one of the moves performed by Derek Chauvin was an "illegal move" and thus dismissed on that grounds. The Judge backed him on that stating the man made it clear he would stick to his opinions until someone told him otherwise, improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.

In another source:

CBS Local said:
The defense uses one of its strikes to remove the fourth potential juror.

The fourth potential juror told the court that he moved from a small town in southern California to Minnesota three years ago in order to “chase the Minnesota dream.” While being questioned by the defense, he said that he has trained in martial arts, such as Brazilian jiu jitsu. In his questionnaire, he wrote that Derek Chauvin’s kneeling on George Floyd’s neck was an “illegal move.” He also wrote that the officers involved in Floyd’s fatal arrest took “the law into their own hands.”

The defense called for a peremptory challenge to remove him from the jury pool. The state then raised a Batson challenge. A Batson challenge stems from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that says a court can’t eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. The state was arguing that the defense was trying to remove him due to his race, as he is Hispanic. The only other person of color to be considered for the jury, potential juror No. 1, was also Hispanic; she was excused.
Click to expand...

As for the other Hispanic juror.

CBS Local said:
Jury selection begins in the Derek Chauvin trial. The first potential juror was dismissed. When questioned by the defense, it was revealed that on the 16-page questionnaire she wrote that she wanted to be a juror in the case so that she could give her opinion on the “unjust death of George Floyd.”
Click to expand...

 
Husky_Khan said:
It's actually not even that explicit. As per the article the Defense Attorney passed on two Hispanic/Latino/Latinx Jurors and that's what prompted the cries of racism. One of the Latinx jurors stated he had martial arts experience and stated that one of the moves performed by Derek Chauvin was an "illegal move" and thus dismissed on that grounds. The Judge backed him on that stating the man made it clear he would stick to his opinions until someone told him otherwise, improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.

In another source:



As for the other Hispanic juror.



Click to expand...

From this, it seems everything is normal then. Both sides did their job to try to win the case, which is what I want to see.
 
Abhorsen said:
It's not preposterous, it's their job to accuse the defense attorney of racism if they think it'll get a better jury. On top of that, choosing jury members based on race is something you aren't allowed to do.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if making up lies about the opposing attorney in order to poison the well is a recommended legal practice.
Husky_Khan said:
It's actually not even that explicit. As per the article the Defense Attorney passed on two Hispanic/Latino/Latinx Jurors and that's what prompted the cries of racism. One of the Latinx jurors stated he had martial arts experience and stated that one of the moves performed by Derek Chauvin was an "illegal move" and thus dismissed on that grounds. The Judge backed him on that stating the man made it clear he would stick to his opinions until someone told him otherwise, improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.

In another source:



As for the other Hispanic juror.



Click to expand...

I wasn't claiming that the defense attorney was deliberately choosing jurors just based on race (though statistically speaking in lieu of other information it isn't a bad idea) but just that if the defense attorney passes on a juror because they seem biased against his client, he is more likely to pass on black jurors because they are more likely to be biased against his client. I'm confident that if a black potential juror walked in wearing a MAGA hat and said that he was a a retired police officer of 30 years that it's unlikely the defense attorney would exclude him from the jury.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Abhorsen said:
Trying to stop your opponent from striking jurors is absolutely part of being a trial lawyer, and this is a tactic that seems viable.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is literally both lawyers doing their job the way it is supposed to be done in an adversarial system -- neither is guilty of any wrongdoing, and neither should be criticized for it for political reasons, in either direction.

In other news on this case, the court system has now reinstated the secondary charge of third degree murder against the defendant. This was part of the original charges filed against him, but had been dismissed by the trial judge on the grounds that third degree murder only applies when the "eminently dangerous" act which results in the victim's death endangers persons in addition to the victim. This dismissal was appealed by the prosecution on the grounds that a recent verdict in another case set a precedent which overturned this interpretation of the statute, and last week the appeals court agreed that this was correct. The defense appealed that to the state supreme court, which has now rejected the appeal, which means the charge is now back on the docket in the original trial court.

Given that this entire back and forth was on a legal technicality of how third degree murder was defined, I would say it all fits under "everyone is doing their job properly and with impressive attention to detail." The defense will jump at any possible chance of getting charges taken off the table on technicalities instead of having to fight them on the facts, the prosecution will push back, and the judges at the trial court and appeals levels decide between these rival interpretations of the technicalities based on the exact wording of the law plus precedents set in other cases.
 
ShieldWife said:
I'm not sure if making up lies about the opposing attorney in order to poison the well is a recommended legal practice.

I wasn't claiming that the defense attorney was deliberately choosing jurors just based on race (though statistically speaking in lieu of other information it isn't a bad idea)
Click to expand...

Considering Dominicans turned Cicero into a shooting gallery and killed dozens of rioters and posted videos all over Twitter and YouTube encouraging Latinos all over America to rise up in a race war and exterminate blacks? If I were a defense attorney I would pick exclusively Latinos.

And speaking as one myself if I were on that jury I would be tempted to acquit solely to cause more harm to a leftist city.

See a lot of us believe in salting the earth in response to having our homes torched. And we tend to view our political opposition as diseased whether left or right.

And if the Defense Attorney were a cynic he would make sure as many of those Helterskelter Dominicanos were on that panel as possible.

And then I'd let them tank the trial out of sheer hatred for BLM/the left
 
Last edited:
I actually do think that cop should go to jail, for kneeling on his neck like that, as well as for the apparent pattern of abuses in his service. Just because I hate the commies doesn't mean I don't also want to see people in power who abuse their authority held to account for it. Lady Justice can fuck that cop with a strap-on for all I care, as long as the blindfold stays on. ;)
 
Captain X said:
I actually do think that cop should go to jail, for kneeling on his neck like that, as well as for the apparent pattern of abuses in his service. Just because I hate the commies doesn't mean I don't also want to see people in power who abuse their authority held to account for it. Lady Justice can fuck that cop with a strap-on for all I care, as long as the blindfold stays on. ;)
Click to expand...
Except that had no effect on what happened to Floyd
 
Captain X said:
I actually do think that cop should go to jail, for kneeling on his neck like that, as well as for the apparent pattern of abuses in his service. Just because I hate the commies doesn't mean I don't also want to see people in power who abuse their authority held to account for it. Lady Justice can fuck that cop with a strap-on for all I care, as long as the blindfold stays on. ;)
Click to expand...

If they charges him with manslaughter and reckless endangerment. He would very likely get convicted.

Shitheel prosecutor thinking more about clout and Keith "white Genocide is our plan, I rape and beat my wife and mistresses" Ellison decided politics and letting a bunch of black separatists incinerate half his city than actual justice.

And any way it was the Hmong cop, Tau that tried to instigate a riot but since he isn't white, he got the comperative wrist slap.

Zachowon said:
Except that had no effect on what happened to Floyd
Click to expand...

The Hmong tried to start a riot.

Other than that.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top