Derek Chauvin trial megathread (SENTENCED TO 22.5 YEARS IN PRISON)

[Dereich]

Looks like today is the day.

I caught parts of a CBS News Special Report about the first day of the trial this morning, before I left out for work. Opening statements were delivered today. I'm somewhat surprised that CBS (and presumably other networks) decided to show coverage of that, given that the networks usually aren't interested in such procedural elements. But then again, the George Floyd murder was an event of national and international prominence, and it does feed into the media's need for stories that drive ratings and profits.

Opening statements aren't particularly procedural; in fact they tend to be much easier to follow narratives of the facts than witness testimony. Openings are (in theory anyway) the first time the prosecution and defense can lay out the whole story of the case for the jurors in an easy-to-digest manner. At that point in the process, jurors probably know very little about the case beyond hearing the charge; openings let the attorneys lay out in advance what the jurors should be primed for and cut out a lot of the necessary but boring information. If news media was to air any part of the trial, the openings are what they should be showing.

[Dereich]

The genuine guilt and trauma expressed by nearly all the witnesses so far has been very striking. If the jury can not put that into appropriate context from the people who were actually there than we have a broken judicial system.

That's something I hear a lot that makes zero sense to me. It wouldn't be broken. It'd be working as intended. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a very high standard to reach and juries are forces of darkness; you never know what minute details that the prosecution thought were irrelevant they will use to blow up what looks like a slam dunk case.

I can only think of three "solutions" if you really want to say the system is broken if this ends up in a not guilty: either some kinds of cases shouldn't get due process, the burden to convict on criminal cases is too high, or letting amateurs (jurors) try the facts is wrong. All of those sound awful to me. If there's some other solution I'm missing I'm all ears.

[Dereich]

Anyone trying to predict a jury's decision based on timing is a fool. Juries are forces of chaos. No juries are ever the same and it is impossible to generalize what verdict you're going to get from a quick or long deliberation.

[Dereich]

So the mob gets its pound of flesh. Good for civil strife at least.

[Dereich]

Prosecution is asking for 20-30 years, Chauvin's defense is asking for probation. 

Wait what, isnt the minimum sentence 10 years. Like how can you ask for probation in that case

"When presented with the motion, or on its own motion, the court may sentence the defendant without regard to the mandatory minimum sentences established by this section if the court finds substantial and compelling reasons to do so. A sentence imposed under this subdivision is a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines."

I don't know what sort of mitigators the Minnesota guidelines allow the court to consider for a downward departure but I'd assume that when it is their turn the defense will be presenting evidence of those asking the court to waive the minimum mandatory.