Jurisprudence

So Derek Chauvin is filing for a new trial.

Citing "abuse of discretion that deprived the Defendant of a fair trial; prosecutorial and jury misconduct; errors of law at trial; and a verdict that is contrary to law", Chauvin's attorney filed the request yesterday, just two weeks after a jury found the former officer guilty for the death of George Floyd.

Among the reasons: the fact that the jury was not sequestered prior to deliberations, possibly providing opportunities for the jury to be prejudiced; the defense's belief that the location of the trial should have been moved; the defense's contention that the judge did not sufficiently lay down the law to prevent prosecutors disparaging the defense, (which is considered prosecutorial misconduct in Minnesota); and lastly jury misconduct.

The alleged jury misconduct cited is the photo of Brandon Mitchell wearing a Black Lives Matter hat, and a T-shirt that said, "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" at a march commemorating Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech in Washington, DC last August.  The pre-trial jury questionnaire asked whether the prospective juror had participated in any marches or demonstrations within a recent time period, as well as other questions designed to gauge the level of preconception about racial issues, especially in relationship to police.  It is apparent that Mitchell did indeed attend a march.

While it is doubtful that Chauvin's guilty verdict would be "impeached" or struck down, this blogger very much wants all concerned to be sure that a verdict in this case would be arrived at by obeying every jot and tittle of every letter of the law.  So Chauvin's attorneys have indicated that they probably will appeal after Chauvin's June 25 sentencing, and I hope they do.  But I don't think it will do them much good, because I don't think they lost their case because of jurors' prejudice, intimidation, inadequate sequestration, or attorney misconduct.  I believe the defense lost its case because it didn't have a case to begin with, and they did very little to make a case after.

Let's face it: in America, every detained suspect has the right to legal counsel via 1966's Miranda Decision, so someone had to defend Chauvin.  The prosecution was extremely thorough, calling 38 witnesses over a course of 11 days, and showing dozens of video clips.  The defense called only 7 witnesses over the course of 2 days.  Chauvin invoked his Fifth Amendment Right To Avoid Self-Incrimination, declining to testify on his own behalf.  So, all over America, Chauvin's nine and a half minutes kneeling on George Floyd's neck was shown countless times.  It didn't reflect well on him.  The prosecution did their job and heaped a ton more incriminating detail on the pile.  Did the defense show us anything we hadn't already seen or heard?  In short, Chauvin looked guilty in the videos, and nothing that he or his attorneys did in those two (!) days explained his actions, rehabilitated his image or truly defended Chauvin in any way.  They needed to play way over their heads, and they didn't even play up to par.  If the defense wants to win on appeal, they will have to present a much stronger case.  The American legal system owes justice all around: to the American people, to the plaintiff, to the defendant, to the concept of justice itself.  So impeach/overturn the verdict if that is ruled judicially proper. Or give Chauvin his day in court to appeal, if he so desires.  But if they really want to make it worthwhile to him, Chauvin's attorneys need to up their game.

Wow, this is Call-Outs And Shout-Outs Blog's 100th post!  Thank you, readers, for making it such a pleasure :)