Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Derek Chauvin trial. Murder of George Floyd. Convictions now appealed.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, rockaction said:

That we await one local trial in Minnesota so that there aren't nationwide riots about a killing is surely a sign of sickness within our own country. It is not about the impetus or urge to reform, it is simple hope against wanton destruction.

Things fall apart; The centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

I think you and I might differ on the diagnosis of the disease

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Well that sure didn't take long.  

I'm heading over to Minneapolis this weekend to buy a car for my son.  Hopefully the riots will be died down by Saturday.

He’s going down and there won’t be any riots. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Commish said:

damn....that was fast.  Can't think that's a good sign for the cop.

thinking the same.

going into this the defense needed there to be "unanimous doubt" from the jury. Everything I've heard about jury verdicts is that normally 50-70% are in agreement and need to persuade the outliers. Thats what takes the most time. For it to be this quick, there could not have been much need for negotiating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Well that sure didn't take long.  

I'm heading over to Minneapolis this weekend to buy a car for my son.  Hopefully the riots will be died down by Saturday.

you might be lucky and get a fire sale.....

(sorry bad joke, don't suspend me) 

  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Verdict is in.

No way there's a unanimous vote to acquit here, right?

I don't disagree. General rule of thumb is quicker the verdict the more likely the conviction. This is, however, not always the case. They could have quickly reached what I'll call the "compromise verdict" of guilty on the lesser included charge of manslaughter. 

I'm trying to recall the lengths of the verdicts (all acquittals) in my cases where there were equivalent to more serious charges (e.g. first degree murder). IIRC they ranged from at least 4-5 hours to three days. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Lawyer-folk can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe most juror info is public record.

I was curious, so I went and checked on two famous cases:

     - The OJ jurors' names were made public shortly after the trial. Some spoke to the media soon after the trial was over.

     - In the 2011 Casey Anthony trial, the judge ordered that the jurors' names would remain sealed for about 3 1/2 months after the verdict was rendered.

I don't know if it ever happens that jurors' names remained sealed for longer periods of time (say, a year or more).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think chauvin may have been in shock.  Haven’t most of us been in a situation where emotions run high in a confrontation and it’s all a blur looking back?

I am not arguing on his behalf - even if in shock, he has to be accountable

Edited by The Dude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug B said:

I was curious, so I went and checked on two famous cases:

     - The OJ jurors' names were made public shortly after the trial. Some spoke to the media soon after the trial was over.

     - In the 2011 Casey Anthony trial, the judge ordered that the jurors' names would remain sealed for about 3 1/2 months after the verdict was rendered.

I don't know if it ever happens that jurors' names remained sealed for longer periods of time (say, a year or more).

No one's releasing the names, correct? Only general info that seems to be public knowledge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Amused to Death said:

No one's releasing the names, correct? Only general info that seems to be public knowledge. 

It's also very unlikely that their juror questionnaires will be made public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He’s going down and there won’t be any riots. 

He's got to be guilty you'd think.

Is there is a guilty verdict that could be considered very light? If so then I could see there being big problems.

Edited by The General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

No one's releasing the names, correct? Only general info that seems to be public knowledge. 

Correct -- no names have yet been released.

...

I've heard some testimony on the radio, but I've not watched any of the Chauvin trial on television. During television coverage, are jurors every shown clearly enough to identify them? Or are they typically out of camera shot, or out of focus?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this one of those "where were you?" moments? 

I'll never forget where I was when the OJ Verdict was reached. I was in college and watched it in our student lounge. 

Funny thing is that I teach at that college now and I have a lesson that includes OJ,. Whenever I give it, I sidebar with that instance (that lounge is the bookstore now), and each time I get a bunch of "dayum teach, you're old!" laughs. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zow said:
5 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

No one's releasing the names, correct? Only general info that seems to be public knowledge. 

It's also very unlikely that their juror questionnaires will be made public. 

I thought the Star-Tribune had copies of these questionnaires, somehow. I had to have mis-read that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The General said:

He's got to be guilty you'd think.

Is there is a guilty verdict that could be considered very light? If so then I could see there being big problems.

I think the Manslaughter charge is the lightest 

 

Quote

 

Each count carries a different maximum sentence: 40 years for second-degree unintentional murder, 25 years for third-degree murder, and 10 years for second-degree manslaughter.

But under Minnesota sentencing guidelines, for a person with no criminal history, each murder charge carries a presumptive sentence of 12 1/2 years in prison, while manslaughter has a presumptive sentence of four years.

 

 

Edited by glvsav37
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I thought the Star-Tribune had copies of these questionnaires, somehow. I had to have mis-read that.

This is what the Star-Tribune wrote -- doesn't say they have the actual questionnaires:

Quote

Through the jury selection process, in which Judge Peter Cahill and attorneys from both sides questioned potential jurors, we have gathered information on those who were selected for the jury: their ages, marital status and occupations, as well as how they feel about Black Lives Matter, police in general and the presumption of innocence.

Although ... if they don't have questionnaires, what do they have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, glvsav37 said:

Is this one of those "where were you?" moments? 

I'll never forget where I was when the OJ Verdict was reached. I was in college and watched it in our student lounge. 

Funny thing is that I teach at that college now and I have a lesson that includes OJ,. Whenever I give it, I sidebar with that instance (that lounge is the bookstore now), and each time I get a bunch of "dayum teach, you're old!" laughs. 

Almost the exact same thing. In college at the student union building. Skipped a class to stay and watch, place was beyond packed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zow said:

I don't disagree. General rule of thumb is quicker the verdict the more likely the conviction. This is, however, not always the case. They could have quickly reached what I'll call the "compromise verdict" of guilty on the lesser included charge of manslaughter. 

I'm trying to recall the lengths of the verdicts (all acquittals) in my cases where there were equivalent to more serious charges (e.g. first degree murder). IIRC they ranged from at least 4-5 hours to three days. 

I was more suggesting that if he were going to get off it would be via one (or a few) holdouts rather than unanimous acquittal.  Just based on the facts of the case and etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The General said:

He's got to be guilty you'd think.

Is there is a guilty verdict that could be considered very light? If so then I could see there being big problems.

I haven't read the indictment or listened to the jury instructions, but my understanding is that there were lesser includeds alleged that went to a jury. I believe the most serious charge is second degree murder with a lesser included charge of first degree manslaughter (and maybe second degree?) all went to the jury for their decisions. 

A lesser included offense a charge that encompasses all the elements of the more serious offense but for at least one. Here, the "action" element of the charges are the same - whether the defendant caused the victim's death. The difference is whether the defendant specifically intended at the moment of Floyd's death to kill him versus whether he was acting very recklessly with a wanton disregard for whether Floyd dies. This is a difference in mental state and our criminal justice system is designed to punish in part on intent. 

So, in this sort of case, it is very possible that a jury could convict a defendant of a lesser included. I, and many who do what I do, call this a "compromise verdict." Sometimes, as a defense counsel, with my client's permission, I will strategically concede my client's guilt on a lesser charge to try to proffer the jury this sort of compromise (because we, as humans, tend to like to compromise). A good example of this is when a defendant is caught with a significant amount of drugs that he could be assumed to be selling them. Somebody like me at trial would then concede a possession charge (a lesser included of the more serious sales charge) and argue hard to the jury that the state can't convict my client of the more serious sales charge. In contrast, sometimes a prosecutor may ask for a bunch of lesser included counts if he or she thinks the more serious count is a weak one. 

 

The key thing to remember here is that the jury will not be instructed about and should not consider the possible punishments for each charge. So, sometimes a jury's "compromise verdict" really isn't a win or even a tie for a particular side because of the disparity in sentencing ranges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I thought the Star-Tribune had copies of these questionnaires, somehow. I had to have mis-read that.

I suppose it's possible. In my jurisdiction they are immediately destroyed after voir dire. 

I did a handful of jury trials in MN as a student attorney but I don't recall what happened to the questionnaires. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

I was more suggesting that if he were going to get off it would be via one (or a few) holdouts rather than unanimous acquittal.  Just based on the facts of the case and etc.

That would presumably then result in a mistrial and there would be a second trial if the state chose to do one. 

Though this could be very jurisdiction specific. In my jurisdiction any verdict must be unanimous or there's a mistrial on that count. I don't recall how it works in MN. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Well that sure didn't take long.  

I'm heading over to Minneapolis this weekend to buy a car for my son.  Hopefully the riots will be died down by Saturday.

I am heading to Fargo tomorrow so hopefully they dont shut down the freeway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, steeler6 said:

He'll be found guilty but it will be appealed and there will be riots. 

Of course it'll be appealed. Why do you think that would cause a riot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zow said:

I haven't read the indictment or listened to the jury instructions, but my understanding is that there were lesser includeds alleged that went to a jury. I believe the most serious charge is second degree murder with a lesser included charge of first degree manslaughter (and maybe second degree?) all went to the jury for their decisions. 

A lesser included offense a charge that encompasses all the elements of the more serious offense but for at least one. Here, the "action" element of the charges are the same - whether the defendant caused the victim's death. The difference is whether the defendant specifically intended at the moment of Floyd's death to kill him versus whether he was acting very recklessly with a wanton disregard for whether Floyd dies. This is a difference in mental state and our criminal justice system is designed to punish in part on intent. 

So, in this sort of case, it is very possible that a jury could convict a defendant of a lesser included. I, and many who do what I do, call this a "compromise verdict." Sometimes, as a defense counsel, with my client's permission, I will strategically concede my client's guilt on a lesser charge to try to proffer the jury this sort of compromise (because we, as humans, tend to like to compromise). A good example of this is when a defendant is caught with a significant amount of drugs that he could be assumed to be selling them. Somebody like me at trial would then concede a possession charge (a lesser included of the more serious sales charge) and argue hard to the jury that the state can't convict my client of the more serious sales charge. In contrast, sometimes a prosecutor may ask for a bunch of lesser included counts if he or she thinks the more serious count is a weak one. 

 

The key thing to remember here is that the jury will not be instructed about and should not consider the possible punishments for each charge. So, sometimes a jury's "compromise verdict" really isn't a win or even a tie for a particular side because of the disparity in sentencing ranges. 

Thanks.

If he's found not guilty which seems really unlikely, well, be safe out there everyone, I'd expect awful things to happen unfortunately.

In what you laid out I'd hope even the lesser charges will be perceived as at least some form of justice. Large crowds, with this type of deal who knows. Hoping for a quiet night for Minneapolis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He’s going down and there won’t be any riots. 

Fast verdict so One thing is true..he will be convicted on something. Second part..not so sure.

Edited by Da Guru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug B said:

Correct -- no names have yet been released.

...

I've heard some testimony on the radio, but I've not watched any of the Chauvin trial on television. During television coverage, are jurors every shown clearly enough to identify them? Or are they typically out of camera shot, or out of focus?

 

They arent on camera at all.  Heck the defense attorney said he cant even see some of them.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Well that sure didn't take long.  

I'm heading over to Minneapolis this weekend to buy a car for my son.  Hopefully the riots will be died down by Saturday.

Should I expect you to deliver me some some of that sweet legal SD weed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Da Guru said:

Fast verdict so One thing is true..he will be convicted on something. Second part..not so sure.

I once got a full acquittal in 8 minutes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cjw_55106 said:

Of course we all want the right verdict. What that verdict is exactly, differs greatly amongst people. 

There aren't many people besides Chauvin, his attorney, and a few highly paid expert witnesses that differ greatly from the concensus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, da_budman said:

They arent on camera at all.  Heck the defense attorney said he cant even see some of them.  

Really? Now I'm curious about how the courtroom is laid out. I did see that the jurors' seats are socially distanced ... it didn't look like a normal jurors' box.

So often, the attorneys address the jury directly. Nelson's comment makes it sound like they aren't able to do so for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, the moops said:

There aren't many people besides Chauvin, his attorney, and a few highly paid expert witnesses that differ greatly from the concensus

Why do you think they differ from the consensus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zow said:

Why do you think they differ from the consensus?

Because they are being paid to think that way? Or to put it more politely, they are doing a great service and providing a solid defense for a defendant - something that every defendant should have the fortune to receive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug B said:

Really? Now I'm curious about how the courtroom is laid out. I did see that the jurors' seats are socially distanced ... it didn't look like a normal jurors' box.

So often, the attorneys address the jury directly. Nelson's comment makes it sound like they aren't able to do so for some reason.

Maybe from different angles? I would be shocked if there was not a position in the courtroom where the attorney could not stand to directly address all jurors. 

There's a courtroom I practice pretty regularly in that was the very subject of an appeal on this issue. There's a giant pillar in the middle which obstructs some of the jury's view of the defense table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zow said:
8 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Fast verdict so One thing is true..he will be convicted on something. Second part..not so sure.

I once got a full acquittal in 8 minutes. 

This all reminds me of the Seinfeld Finale and Jackie Chiles reaction when he's in bed with Teri Hatcher thinking the jury will be out weeks, but then the phone rings.....

Edited by dkp993
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, the moops said:

Because they are being paid to think that way? Or to put it more politely, they are doing a great service and providing a solid defense for a defendant - something that every defendant should have the fortune to receive

:D 

Put it even more differently, their personal opinions don't matter and should not impact how they do their jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have not followed the details, but:

is he still in custody? 

if guilty does he go straight to prison?

or does he have time between now and sentencing? 

As I type this, I couldn't imagine being minutes away from freedom or a very long, immediate prison sentence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the moops said:

There aren't many people besides Chauvin, his attorney, and a few highly paid expert witnesses that differ greatly from the consensus

This kind of impugns the profession a bit ... but trial attorneys on some other boards are VERY invested in Chauvin getting acquitted. Even several that seem politically progressive overall ... they're kind of treating it like watching an Evel Kneivel stunt: Can Eric Nelson jump 30 cars? And if he does, wouldn't that be SO COOL!!  A very, very emotionally-detached viewpoint -- that's not a head-space a lot of people can access..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zow said:

Of course it'll be appealed. Why do you think that would cause a riot?

I don't think the appeal will cause the riot. I just think no matter what the verdict is there will be rioting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, glvsav37 said:

have not followed the details, but:

is he still in custody? 

if guilty does he go straight to prison?

or does he have time between now and sentencing? 

As I type this, I couldn't imagine being minutes away from freedom or a very long, immediate prison sentence

It's likely he will be held in the local jail until sentencing. A defendant has a right to a meaningful sentencing here and will be afforded the opportunity to present mitigation. 

 

Four times now I've stood next to a person who, depending on whether he or she heard one word or two, was either walking out the courtroom door or being taken into custody for a mandatory natural life sentence. It's, um, intense. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glvsav37 said:

As I type this, I couldn't imagine being minutes away from freedom or a very long, immediate prison sentence

It's one of the reasons I quit drinking alcohol. The thought of that is harrowing.

I'm serious.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Da Guru said:

With a 9 minute video of a person kneeling one someones neck until they died?  

Of course not. 

I'm just pointing out that it's not 100% like you said. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zow said:

Maybe from different angles? I would be shocked if there was not a position in the courtroom where the attorney could not stand to directly address all jurors

There's a courtroom I practice pretty regularly in that was the very subject of an appeal on this issue. There's a giant pillar in the middle which obstructs some of the jury's view of the defense table.

You're correct -- layout of the Chauvin trial courtroom.

However, I think I see what Nelson means. When speaking from the attorney podium, most of the jury is out of his line of sight. And presumably with COVID constraints in place, the attorneys may not be free to approach the jury, pace in front of them, etc.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the moops said:

Because they are being paid to think that way? Or to put it more politely, they are doing a great service and providing a solid defense for a defendant - something that every defendant should have the fortune to receive

I have been forunate or unfortunate to know a couple of prosecutors and a couple defense lawyers.   My one good friend was a prosecutor now turned defense.  Heard some stories from both.

No matter how serious the crime the defense only has one job  "Put doubt in the jurys mind"  This case was more difficult because of the video but they still did a nice job.  

OJ Simpsons lawyers did a great job..but if they had security cameras back when he murdered his wife he would not have been aquitted.    Video is the best witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • NorvilleBarnes changed the title to Derek Chauvin trial. Murder of George Floyd. Convictions now appealed.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...