The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Kaitzilla]

Continuing on from the locked 193-page thread "George Floyd And Protesting While Black" and the also-locked following thread "BLM and Protesting", the Murder Trial of Derek Chauvin, the cop who kneeled on George Floyd's neck for 9 minutes, starts tomorrow.

The other 3 cops involved (J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao) will be having a separate trial.


The charges against former officer Derek Chauvin are:
https://www.startribune.com/derek-c...ghter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

• Second-Degree Unintentional Murder
• Third-Degree Murder
• Second-Degree Manslaughter

What is second-degree unintentional murder?
For a conviction of second-degree unintentional murder, the state's prosecutors will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while assaulting him. This is the most serious charge and carries a presumed sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

What is third-degree murder?
Third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Legal experts note that the definition of "depraved mind" is murky— as is the legal line between "depraved mind" and the "culpable negligence" standard for manslaughter.

What is second-degree manslaughter?
In order to convict Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "culpably negligent" and took an "unreasonable risk" with Floyd's life when he restrained him and that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great harm. Prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin's actions intended to cause Floyd's death, only that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great bodily harm. This charge carries a presumptive sentence of 41-57 months.

The Major Players:
https://www.bemidjipioneer.com/dere...-guide-to-main-players-in-Derek-Chauvin-trial
Judge is Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill
Defense Attorney is Eric Nelson (Assistant is Amy Voss)
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office is prosecuting Chauvin’s case.
Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank is the lead prosecutor of Chauvin’s case


Jury selection for Derek Chauvin took 2 weeks as the prosecutor and defender presumably got rid of jurors who they were reasonably sure would be bad for their side.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...re-opinions-police-discrimination/7003860002/
Juror 1 - Chemist, White Man in his 20s
Juror 2 - Mixed Race Woman in her 20s
Juror 3 - Business auditor, white man in his 30s
Juror 4 - Information technology manager, Black man in his 30s
Juror 5 - Health care advocacy group executive, white woman in her 50s
Juror 6 - Banking professional, Black man in his 30s
Juror 7 - Executive assistant, white woman in her 50s
Juror 8 - Management professional, Black man in his 40s
Juror 9 - Company reorganization employee, mixed-race woman in her 40s
Juror 10 - Nurse, white woman in her 50s
Juror 11 - Marketing retiree, Black woman in her 60s
Juror 12 - Insurance company client advocate, white woman in her 40s
Juror 13 - Former customer service rep, white woman in her 50s
Juror 14 - Social worker, white woman in her 20s
Juror 15 - Accountant, white man in his 20s

Twelve people will sit on the jury and two will serve as alternates.
For Chauvin's trial, a 15th person was selected too.
He is set to be dismissed Monday morning if the others arrive as scheduled.

Here are some pre-trial notes from the PowerLine Blog about the jurors.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/final-chauvin-pretrial-notes.php

The 12 jurors will be under a lot of pressure!

One prospective juror's voice quivered as she told attorneys during jury selection that she feared for her family's safety if chosen for the panel that will decide the fate of a white former police officer charged with killing George Floyd. When the judge excused her, the woman exhaled in relief.

For some reason the judge thought the trial was just fine to have in Minneapolis and not move it somewhere else?!
https://www.radio.com/wccoradio/news/local/no-change-of-venue-or-delay-in-chauvin-trial

This is the biggest trial since O.J. in the 90's!


Anyway, anyone who has Court T.V. should get a lot of info since the cameras will be on.
https://www.courttv.com/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56512090

From Monday, three discreet TV cameras will offer anyone with an internet connection a front-row seat to a criminal trial of global interest.

One of those cameras will be trained on Derek Chauvin, the former policeman accused of killing George Floyd in custody.
...

Never before has a judge allowed cameras to film a full criminal trial in the state of Minnesota.

This access was granted to Court TV, a US network best known for its slick yet lurid coverage of criminal cases in the 1990s. Its "gavel-to-gavel" footage will be shared with media outlets and broadcast live to audiences globally.

Every move Mr Chauvin makes, down to the faintest facial expression, will be open to public scrutiny. During the jury selection, which was also filmed live, a suited Mr Chauvin was seen day after day, listening intently and taking notes.

Whoa, could be intense.


Here is the leaked 30 minute police bodycam footage that the Daily Mail obtained.
(18 minutes from one cop and 10 minutes from another)
Graphic Viewing Warning!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ds-harrowing-final-moments-brutal-arrest.html

Due to publishing it, the Daily Mail was denied press credentials for the trial tomorrow.

The city of Minneapolis has already awarded George Floyd's family $27 million.
It is the largest pretrial settlement in a civil rights wrongful death case in U.S. history
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/13/9767...s-to-pay-27-million-to-family-of-george-floyd

Here is a preview of both sides' arguments.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...expected-argue-derek-chauvin-s-trial-n1262198


Thanks Bamspeedy

 

[Senethro]

Is the bodycam footage going to be admissible evidence?

 

[Yeekim]

Is the bodycam footage going to be admissible evidence?

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Samson]

To continue my rants that "no one else is objective like us scientists": His defence is that since he had taken drugs and had a heart issue he just died, it had nothing to do with the knee on his neck. This is the sort of thing that could be answered numerically, we must have a lot of examples of people with heart problems and with drugs in their system, and we must know what their death rate is in at least some situations. We must be able to put a number on the probability that someone in his state would die in an 8 minute period. The number may have a significant confidence interval, but even the top of that confidence interval will be a very small number. The problem then comes that no one has put a number on "reasonable doubt", and I cannot see a reason why not.

 

[Sarin]

And now we'll see why the American system of jury drawn from public is a bad idea....

 

[Samson]

And now we'll see why the American system of jury drawn from public is a bad idea....

1. Where else can you choose a jury from?
2. What do you expect to happen to show this?

 

[Sarin]

1. Where else can you choose a jury from?
2. What do you expect to happen to show this?

1. Pool of experts from legal and associated studies like forensic science for example. At least for such high profile cases you need people who deal with such things and won't be easily swayed by the whole lawyer show that'll constitute most of the trial.
2. It already started to happen. One juror was dismissed on the grounds of fear of reprisal. The rest are already under pressure and due to sheer amount of media coverage of the case, in no way really objective. There's no way to check, of course, but I'd bet that at least half of the jury made up their mind or are strongly predisposed to vote in a certain way.
While those factors would impact the jury no matter the composition, people whose education and job prepared them to deal with objective evidence and pressures of legal dealings would be more resistant to them.

By the way...how's the identity of the jury protected? In a case like this, there's no way they won't be targeted and pressured.

 

[Samson]

1. Pool of experts from legal and associated studies like forensic science for example. At least for such high profile cases you need people who deal with such things and won't be easily swayed by the whole lawyer show that'll constitute most of the trial.
2. It already started to happen. One juror was dismissed on the grounds of fear of reprisal. The rest are already under pressure and due to sheer amount of media coverage of the case, in no way really objective. There's no way to check, of course, but I'd bet that at least half of the jury made up their mind or are strongly predisposed to vote in a certain way.
While those factors would impact the jury no matter the composition, people whose education and job prepared them to deal with objective evidence and pressures of legal dealings would be more resistant to them.

By the way...how's the identity of the jury protected? In a case like this, there's no way they won't be targeted and pressured.

If you have experts chosen by the state, it at least has the potential to come down to the state decided the verdict. I see no evidence that people whos job is on the line in them coming up with the "right" answer are likely to be less biased than members of the public. If you were Aung San Suu Kyi, or communists under MccArthy, or the Chicago 7, would you want a panel of experts chosen by the state to decide your fate, or a jury of the general public?

Those are most certainly issues, but as you say "there is no way to check", so how will it show it to be a bad idea?

The protection of the jury is a big issue. Why on earth there are cameras in the courtroom is a big question, and there should be heavy penalties for disclosing any personal information about them.

 

[Sarin]

If you have experts chosen by the state, it at least has the potential to come down to the state decided the verdict. I see no evidence that people whos job is on the line in them coming up with the "right" answer are likely to be less biased than members of the public. If you were Aung San Suu Kyi, or communists under MccArthy, or the Chicago 7, would you want a panel of experts chosen by the state to decide your fate, or a jury of the general public?

Those are most certainly issues, but as you say "there is no way to check", so how will it show it to be a bad idea?

The protection of the jury is a big issue. Why on earth there are cameras in the courtroom is a big question, and there should be heavy penalties for disclosing any personal information about them.

Oh, I'm not talking about handpicking the experts. I'm talking about the pool from which the jury is drawn being smaller without changing the way how it's selected.

By the way, jury isn't completely anonymous. Their identity is protected from public, but the state apparatus does record it. So if I were to stand trial when state intends to affect the outcome, the jury would be packed either way.

And how does it show? The sheer quantity and severity of retrials, wrongful convictions and so on in the US shows damn well that it's a bad idea.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not expecting a conviction. If I'm wrong, it'll be the minimum charge and the minimum sentence.

 

[Samson]

I'm not expecting a conviction. If I'm wrong, it'll be the minimum charge and the minimum sentence.

If they decide that is legal, I predict violence as what could be illegal if not this?

 

[Cutlass]

If they decide that is legal, I predict violence as what could be illegal if not this?

It's not so much they declare it legal, as that actually getting a conviction of a cop in America is damned near impossible. And when it does happen, it's usually the minimal charge and sentence. But yeah, if he gets off too light, there will be protests, and maybe riots.

 

[Samson]

It's not so much they declare it legal, as that actually getting a conviction of a cop in America is damned near impossible. And when it does happen, it's usually the minimal charge and sentence. But yeah, if he gets off too light, there will be protests, and maybe riots.

It is a bit of a semantic argument, but in this case the material facts are not in dispute and the whole thing was caught on camera. If he is not found guilty of a crime then this behaviour is de facto legal.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Might want to edit the OP to include the paragraph of the description of third degree murder, to compare against the other charges, rather than posting the paragraph of the legal proceedings in this case of that charge.

(This should be deleted):

Initially, Chauvin faced an additional charge of third-degree murder, but Cahill dismissed that charge and denied a request from the prosecution to reinstate it. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the judge was wrong to refuse reinstating the third-degree murder charge and sent the case back to Cahill for consideration. After the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from the defense, Cahill reinstated the charge Thursday. It also carries a presumptive sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

Though the one sentence about the length of sentence could remain to compare with other charges.

(This should be added):

Third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Legal experts note that the definition of "depraved mind" is murky— as is the legal line between "depraved mind" and the "culpable negligence" standard for manslaughter.

Violence if he is found not guilty is too easy of a bet.

Hung jury is a possibility, it only takes 1 of the 12 to refuse to change their mind, one way or another.
Manslaughter should be the easiest to convince the jury, since that is the lowest charge.
The other two murder charges, while different from each other, carry the same sentence, so I don't think it should matter which of the two, as long as it's one of them.

 

[EgonSpengler]

If they decide that is legal, I predict violence as what could be illegal if not this?

I think kneeling on someone like that might be technically legal*. There was a retired Minneapolis police officer on the radio this morning, and she said she was taught to do that. She said that he did it for too long, in her opinion, and that the officers on the scene didn't get medical help quickly enough. But it sounded to me like those were both judgment calls, exactly the sort of thing people use to exonerate individual police officers (e.g. "He made a mistake").

It is a bit of a semantic argument, but in this case the material facts are not in dispute and the whole thing was caught on camera. If he is not found guilty of a crime then this behaviour is de facto legal.

I was reading about the jury selection this morning, and at least one person in the jury pool said she didn't think the video we've seen showed everything that happened. As usual, there are people who will reach, reach, and reach some more to find anything at all that can justify a police officer's actions. There are people who cannot allow themselves to live in a world where police aren't shining knights of courage and integrity.


* Although that might not matter. When Eric Garner was killed in New York for selling cigarettes, the choke-hold the officer used had already been banned by the NYPD. The officer in that case wasn't even indicted.

 

[Samson]

I think kneeling on someone like that might be technically legal*. There was a retired Minneapolis police officer on the radio this morning, and she said she was taught to do that. She said that he did it for too long, in her opinion, and that the officers on the scene didn't get medical help quickly enough. But it sounded to me like those were both judgment calls, exactly the sort of thing people use to exonerate individual police officers (e.g. "He made a mistake").

I do not really see how this matters. Law is not defined by training, or police procedures. People go down all the time for making mistakes that kill people.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I do not really see how this matters. Law is not defined by training, or police procedures. People go down all the time for making mistakes that kill people.

It probably doesn't. The mere fact that an officer is on trial for someone dying while in his custody or by his actions is unusual. Nobody was indicted in the deaths of Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor or Sandra Bland, for three more examples. In the incident that killed Taylor, one of the officers was indicted for "wanton endangerment", for firing rounds that went through the walls and into neighboring houses, because the Grand Jury was never even presented with homicide charges for Taylor's death. When you say, "People go down all the time for mistakes that kill people", I assume you mean people in professions other than law enforcement?

 

[Samson]

When you say, "People go down all the time for mistakes that kill people", I assume you mean people in professions other than law enforcement?

I do indeed.

 

[Kyriakos]

I thought republicans were against taking a knee

 

[Cutlass]

It is a bit of a semantic argument, but in this case the material facts are not in dispute and the whole thing was caught on camera. If he is not found guilty of a crime then this behaviour is de facto legal.

Well, sort of. Not technically legal, just the grey area where 'the situation was such that we can't actually say the cop was wrong to do that enough to convict him of it'. Which seems to be were most cop investigations and trials end up.

See, the missing piece with cops is that there's a segment of the population which is just naturally law abiding because they are that kind of people. And there's a segment of the population which obeys the law for fear of the consequences. Cops face no consequences for law breaking, and so it in effect encourages them to do so.