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

[Badger]

Yes, I think he'll go to trial. I don't believe he'll be found guilty of murder, though. Charging him with murder was always a pretty bold move, most likely done to calm the rioting. The manslaughter charge I do think he will be found guilty of, but there's no guarantee.

They dropped the manslaughter charge against him I believe.

They did? Well that's a big mistake, then.

Big time.

[Badger]

I mean he has already been prosecuted, but I don't think they'll convict him.  There will be riots because a lot of people don't understand our legal system, and think burning down a 7/11 will change it.

And breaking into the capitol didn't change the election result, but that didn't stop your side from doing it. You have no room to make these cracks anymore.

Well the difference is the capitol was directly implicated in the counting of the votes, it is where the certification takes place.  There was a purpose.  But the looting and riots were random and wasteful.  It had nothing to do with their grievance. 

Racist and an overt violence supporting traitor. You're really pulling double-duty in terms of the race to the bottom Olympics!

[Badger]

One of the jurors appointed today is a black man.

There'll be riots if not all of the jurors are black. I've got a gut feeling about that.

Yeah dude. Either an all 12-member black jury or riots.

[Badger]

I mean he has already been prosecuted, but I don't think they'll convict him.  There will be riots because a lot of people don't understand our legal system, and think burning down a 7/11 will change it.

And breaking into the capitol didn't change the election result, but that didn't stop your side from doing it. You have no room to make these cracks anymore.

Well the difference is the capitol was directly implicated in the counting of the votes, it is where the certification takes place.  There was a purpose.  But the looting and riots were random and wasteful.  It had nothing to do with their grievance. 

That's a nice way of legitimizing trying to overthrow democracy.

"democracy"

Don't cut yourself on that edge.

[Badger]

They won't work out a deal so a trial will be held.  But when he gets convicted on a charge less than 2nd degree murder the world will explode.

Nah. That charge carries plenty of time. I won't say there won't be any protests whatsoever if he gets anything less than first degree, but it'll be Limited.

[Badger]

I mean he has already been prosecuted, but I don't think they'll convict him.  There will be riots because a lot of people don't understand our legal system, and think burning down a 7/11 will change it.

And breaking into the capitol didn't change the election result, but that didn't stop your side from doing it. You have no room to make these cracks anymore.

Well the difference is the capitol was directly implicated in the counting of the votes, it is where the certification takes place.  There was a purpose.  But the looting and riots were random and wasteful.  It had nothing to do with their grievance. 

Racist and an overt violence supporting traitor. You're really pulling double-duty in terms of the race to the bottom Olympics!

Thanks man.  I know if I'm getting hate from you I'm doing something right.

Nope. You're just an obnoxious racist who somehow justifies their views as being synonymous with Mira conservatism, and supports the violent overthrow of democracy based on weekly world news level myths touting election fraud just because the results don't go your way.

[Badger]

when does the jury convene to decide the verdict?

Its over when its over, though it depends n how much I of a defense Chauvin presents.

Wonder if he testifies. My guess is yes.

[Badger]

Mistrial is the worst case scenario now I think. Before I thought he’d probably get off. Now I don’t see how all 12 jurors could possibly vote not guilty for all charges. I think guilty for the manslaughter charge at least is the most likely scenario.

Someone remind me again how much time Chauvin could face with a manslaughter conviction? I previously heard numbers in the High Teens, but maybe that was for one of the lower degree of murder charges that I don't think we're altimate Lee brought to trial. I think Grumps mention the other day possibly up to 10 years?

[Badger]

Anyone worried about a mistrial here?

For cases like this it shows that there needs to be the option of a supermajority verdict if an absolute verdict can't be reached.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/us-supreme-court-ruling-oregon-nonunanimous-jury-verdicts/

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday that the U.S. Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants in state criminal courts. The ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana not only overturns a previous Supreme Court ruling, but also ends Oregon's history of using non-unanimous juries to find people guilty of crimes other than murder. In Oregon and Louisiana, the ruling could affect hundreds, if not thousands of defendants who are appealing their cases.

Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates a person’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.

Oregon was the last state in the country that utilized a non-unanimous jury law, allowing convictions in many types of cases with an 11–1 or 10–2 decision.

Though there is still issues that that law lasting until 2020 is causing today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/18/unanimous-jury-supreme-court-overturn-racist-state-law-column/4733396001/


This guy's conviction should be vacated imo

Agreed. Man, I would never have assumed Oregon to be the last holdout for such a statute. Not just because it doesn't fit The Stereotype of it Southern Jim Crow state, but because of its supposed progressivism one would think it would have changed the law on its own.

[Badger]

Anyone worried about a mistrial here?

For cases like this it shows that there needs to be the option of a supermajority verdict if an absolute verdict can't be reached.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/us-supreme-court-ruling-oregon-nonunanimous-jury-verdicts/

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday that the U.S. Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict defendants in state criminal courts. The ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana not only overturns a previous Supreme Court ruling, but also ends Oregon's history of using non-unanimous juries to find people guilty of crimes other than murder. In Oregon and Louisiana, the ruling could affect hundreds, if not thousands of defendants who are appealing their cases.

Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment incorporates a person’s Sixth Amendment right to jury unanimity.

Oregon was the last state in the country that utilized a non-unanimous jury law, allowing convictions in many types of cases with an 11–1 or 10–2 decision.

Though there is still issues that that law lasting until 2020 is causing today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/18/unanimous-jury-supreme-court-overturn-racist-state-law-column/4733396001/


This guy's conviction should be vacated imo

Agreed. Man, I would never have assumed Oregon to be the last holdout for such a statute. Not just because it doesn't fit The Stereotype of it Southern Jim Crow state, but because of its supposed progressivism one would think it would have changed the law on its own.

https://gizmodo.com/oregon-was-founded-as-a-racist-utopia-1539567040

Oregon sadly was probably the most racist non southern state in the nation for a long time

Wow. Incredibly interesting article. Very good read. Thank you!

[Badger]

Presentation of evidence is over. Closing arguments on Monday. Presumably they along with jury instructions won't take the entire day, and the jury will begin deliberations before the close of business.

How long till a verdict can be expected? God only knows. Could be an hour or two, could be days..

[Badger]

I have edited the poll due to the verdict being announced soon. Unfortunately due to forum stuff, I can't control how many votes you guys can cast, so you guys can only cast 1.

Huh, really?

Nothing I saw on the news about this. I assume the poster meant soon in that case has now gone to the jury.

[Badger]

By the way which idiot let this trial be televised?

Television cameras should be banned in all courtrooms, and the names of defendants should be kept anonymous until the trial has concluded.

I'd be fine with the recording provided said recording is only released after the trial is over.
It was incredibly stupid to make this a tv trial.

Honestly, could you imagine how much worse backlash there would be if the trial was kept hidden, especially if for some reason Chauvin does get acquitted/it ends in mistrial?

No television cameras in the courtroom is hardly synonymous with a hidden trial

[Badger]

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

I thought prosecutors like you were supposed to celebrate when criminals were successfully convicted. I know I always did.

[Badger]

Does he serve for both 2nd and 3rd murder? Or would the judge give him a concurrent punishment?

I don't know Minnesota law, but I would almost surely believe that the sentences merge, meaning the state has to choose which of the three charges he must be sentenced on rather than them even running concurrent. Obviously they will choose the second degree murder charge.

[Badger]

Mayor frey with a pelosi-esque take.

What the hell are they doing?

https://twitter.com/MayorFrey/status/1384619597576474625

Someone give Pelosi and Frey a 24-hour time out of saying anything to the media. Then extend that time out another 24 hours

[Badger]

You can hold this position at the same time :

- Chauvin should have been convicted

- What Waters said was terrible and censure worthy


They are not mutually exclusive at all

How on Earth is what Maxine Waters said censure Worthy? Hot-headed? Unhelpful? Premature? Sure, all of the above. But on what basis does it meet the lofty requirements for an outright Congressional censure?

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1384665501616545793?s=20
Why do they keep doing this?

I have no idea.
But I hate the verbiage some are using. People (and especially his loved ones) should want him alive and around them.

I am sure that they would prefer that he was still with them.  But since he's gone, I can see that there would be some comfort found in a loved one's death helping to achieve something meaningful.

Yeah, the place this is spoken from is much different than the tone-deaf attempts at martyrdom made by some politicians and organizations like the Raiders.

[Badger]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1384629828121468930

I didn't think I could hear support of the verdict from a less welcome source than OJ Simpson, but apparently I was wrong.

[Badger]

Does he serve for both 2nd and 3rd murder? Or would the judge give him a concurrent punishment?

I don't know Minnesota law, but I would almost surely believe that the sentences merge, meaning the state has to choose which of the three charges he must be sentenced on rather than them even running concurrent. Obviously they will choose the second degree murder charge.

Wouldn't he just serve what ever the longest sentence is:


Say he gets 5 years for Manslaughter, 15 for third degree murder and 25 for second degree murder wouldnt he basically be sentenced to 25 years.

No for two reasons. First, as noted there is the concept of merger. You can't convicted someone more than once for the same offense. Violates Double Jeopardy. There are a million cases in every state as to what set of facts and charges do and do not constitute offenses requiring merger, but in this case I'm going to Hazard a guess even without knowing Minnesota law that they absolutely have to merge and the most he can be sentence on is the second degree murder charge.

Secondly, even there he will almost surely not get the maximum possible second degree murder penalty of 40 years. Apparently Minnesota has sentencing guidelines not unlike the federal system which set fairly strict limits on sentencing discretion, either to increase or decrease be presumed standard settings. By comparison sake, here in Ohio offense is generally have a range of a minimum X months or years and a maximum of Y months or years, and the judge has damn near carte blanche compose a sentence anywhere within that range they deem appropriate, and only true the extreme deviations from very broad generalized guidelines stand a chance on appeal.

Reportedly the presumed default sentence for second-degree murder is 12 1/2 years, but the state is seeking upward modification on various statutory guidelines such as the crime having been committed in front of a child.

[Badger]

Does he serve for both 2nd and 3rd murder? Or would the judge give him a concurrent punishment?

I don't know Minnesota law, but I would almost surely believe that the sentences merge, meaning the state has to choose which of the three charges he must be sentenced on rather than them even running concurrent. Obviously they will choose the second degree murder charge.

Wouldn't he just serve what ever the longest sentence is:


Say he gets 5 years for Manslaughter, 15 for third degree murder and 25 for second degree murder wouldnt he basically be sentenced to 25 years.

No for two reasons. First, as noted there is the concept of merger. You can't convicted someone more than once for the same offense. Violates Double Jeopardy. There are a million cases in every state as to what set of facts and charges do and do not constitute offenses requiring merger, but in this case I'm going to Hazard a guess even without knowing Minnesota law that they absolutely have to merge and the most he can be sentence on is the second degree murder charge.

Secondly, even there he will almost surely not get the maximum possible second degree murder penalty of 40 years. Apparently Minnesota has sentencing guidelines not unlike the federal system which set fairly strict limits on sentencing discretion, either to increase or decrease be presumed standard settings. By comparison sake, here in Ohio offense is generally have a range of a minimum X months or years and a maximum of Y months or years, and the judge has damn near carte blanche compose a sentence anywhere within that range they deem appropriate, and only true the extreme deviations from very broad generalized guidelines stand a chance on appeal.

Reportedly the presumed default sentence for second-degree murder is 12 1/2 years, but the state is seeking upward modification on various statutory guidelines such as the crime having been committed in front of a child.

I’m not a legal expert but isn’t that what sentenced concurrently means where all the sentences run together at the same time so he would only really be sentenced to the most severe charge . I understand he won’t get the maximum sentence by 25 years is still 15 years shorter than the Maximum so is guidelines that in most cases the sentence for the offender has to be the minimum sentence .

Also 12.5 years for second degree seems relatively light  given that in many states people convicted of manslaughter have gotten 15 years and the minimum penalty for second degree murder is 25 years .

The best I can say, again, is these offences seen that they would be merged for sentencing. That is he can only be sentenced on one of the three charges. For the same reason you in charge and even if someone found guilty of theft and receiving stolen property for the same Act of shoplifting, but you can't sentence them on both. Again, I only know Minnesota law for whatever it in the news, but I would be shocked if he could be sentenced, even concurrently, on each of the three counts. Furthermore, the media is reporting as far as likely a potential sentences for the second degree murder charge only, so it appears in fact the other charges won't come into play sentencing.

12 and a half years is only the mid-range standard settings. The state is requesting a more severe sentence based on multiple statutory aggravating factors. I can't imagine he'll only get 12 and a half years, even if the ultimate sense is closer to that than the theoretical maximum of 40.

[Badger]

It's a damn cartoon.

It's a cartoon with a message that implies that a verdict should be about something other than proving a defendant guilty or innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.  ALL Lives Matter.  ALL Lives Matter EQUALLY.  That's God's view on it.  No, I will not pretend otherwise.

The trial was not about whether or not Black Lives Mattered or not; it was about whether or not Derek Chauvin's actions caused George Floyd's death, and whether or not those actions rose to the level of the crimes he was charged with.  Trials should not be about anything else, period.  

What this trial has is the look of a coerced verdict.  This, of course, does not mean that Chauvin was not guilty, and I am certainly not saying that.  But it is indisputable that the threat of massive violent demonstrations would occur in the event of an unsatisfactory verdict; this threat was never disputed and never downplayed by the media, and there was little reason to believe that this threat would be met with enough resistance to preempt significant damage.  What will happen if, indeed, Derek Chauvin's case IS reversed on appeal, even in part where the most severe charges are thrown out?  

How would YOU feel if it were YOU, or a loved one on trial, and the actions of others caused you to believe that the jury would be at risk for their own well-being, or the well-being of their city, if they returned a factual verdict that was not what a mob threatening violence wanted?  There is no place in a free, open, and honest society for a jury to have to think of the consequences if their proper verdict will be received with violence.  It may well be that in this case, the jury's verdict squared with the facts, but do appearances not matter here?  What happens to actual "justice" when the specter of mob violence is a factor at every significant jury trial?

Appearances matter in criminal justice.  What confidence can anyone have in a Criminal Justice system when the verdicts of juries have the appearance of being influenced by the coercive attempts of mobs?  Once that becomes a norm, there will never be such a thing as closure.  I would pray that those people who are sincerely liberal (in the true sense of the word) will stop enabling those elements in our society that seek not actual justice, but vengeance through coercion.

You're really not very smart, are you?  Black Lives Matter is in no way saying that black lives matter more than other lives.  It's a statement that black lives so often do not seem to matter, and they should matter equally to other lives.  If you don't understand that, no one can help you.

He never ceases to amaze me (in the most negative way possible).
Every chance he gets, he needs to degrade the BLM movement, and in essence dog-on black citizens through-out our nation.

You're absolutely correct.  I will degrade BLM when I get the chance.  They've earned the degradation by their behavior in multiple American cities over the past year.  That you have a noble-sounding name does not mean you are a noble group, and there is nothing noble about BLM.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Matthew 16:25

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.  Mark 8:35
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  Mark 8:34

ALL Lives Matter to God.  They should matter to those who claim to be His Children.  Do ALL Lives Matter?  If that is really so, that should be affirmed.  Whatever the original intent of the name "Black Lives Matter", we're WAY beyond that.  There is no reason for me to believe that MY life matters to BLM, or the lives of anyone in my family.  (There is no evidence the previous two posters consider my life to matter, either.)  People who say they are Christians have a choice; to affirm that ALL Lives Matter, or that just some do.

Fuzzy Bear blabbering inanities in bad faith? Must be a day that ends in y.

[Badger]

And fuzzy? By put up or shut up, we really mean shut up, because you can't put up. So shut up.

Look! There's a foreign looking Cloud you can yell at!

[Badger]

I'm not the one calling for pigs in a blanket to be fried like bacon.

This is one ten-second clip from six years ago of about eight people.  Using it to generalize about a movement of tens of millions of people six years later is pure hackery.

I'm not the one who's burning Federal courthouses.

This never happened.  Some idiots in Portland set a fire within the grounds of a courthouse, they did not commit arson on the courthouse.  The idiots in Portland are antifa and black bloc anarchists using BLM as a shield, they are not actually BLM.  Take it from someone who lives in the PNW -- we all hate them.

You're not the one calling THOSE folks out.

Perhaps you're a tad confused. 

You should apologize for being wrong.

He never will. He is utterly incapable of independent thought.

[Badger]

So while I get that the ongoing double standard of calling right-wingers Nazis as opposed to left-wingers being allowed to be called communist pretty much as a blank slate, apparently now it's a violation of t o s to even call a right-wing poster of fascist. How clever.