Chauvin’s lawyer seeks new trial, hearing to impeach verdict

[Ray From Cleveland]

He wasn't murdered in the police car, was he?

Apparently he was dying in the police car before they pulled him out. If he was murdered, it was by himself, not the police officer.

 

[initforme]

So why keep your knee on a dead man's neck when it's so so incredibly obvious he is dead. Only a complete useless person wouldn't know.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Apparently he was dying in the police car before they pulled him out. If he was murdered, it was by himself, not the police officer.

Please tell us how you know he was dying in the car. Have you not seen that Chauvin was convicted of murdering him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Please tell us how you know he was dying in the car. Have you not seen that Chauvin was convicted of murdering him.

I know what he was convicted of and I also know that the trial was unconstitutional. I just told you he was having breathing problems sitting in the police cruiser and you ask me how I know he was dying? He had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. He had that mixed with meth. He had serious heart and artery problems, he even had Covid.

 

[SavannahMann]

I know what he was convicted of and I also know that the trial was unconstitutional. I just told you he was having breathing problems sitting in the police cruiser and you ask me how I know he was dying? He had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. He had that mixed with meth. He had serious heart and artery problems, he even had Covid.

I’m curious. How was the trial unconstitutional?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I’m curious. How was the trial unconstitutional?

The US Constitution guarantees citizens a speedy trail by an unbiased jury. There was no possible way that jury wasn't biased given where the trial was held. Only those with a preconceived opinion would accept a position on that jury in fear of their safety and life if they voted anything but guilty.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, I'll wait for your credible evidence the NRA had anything to do with the federal backgrounds check. You should think out your lies better if you are going to post them because you know somebody is going to call you out on them.

Hey, check it out.

NRA spent $1.6 million lobbying against background check expansion laws in months leading up to latest mass shootings

Calls for tougher background checks and gun control in general have increased yet again in the wake of three mass shootings in California, Texas and Ohio that have left more than 30 people dead.

www.cnbc.com

This slug still pays property and city tax and also obeys our laws. Show me one area that was ever destroyed by people who ended up on disability. Again, think out your lies. If you can't, it's probably one of the many disorders that plague your life because you won't get psychological help for them.

Welfare Ray, you are living off kindness of others... deal with it.

They'd probably let me go back to work. What makes you think Republicans would not have programs to help people who can't work?

How could they let you go back to work, you are on death's door. At least that's what you claim when someone questions whether or not you are malingering.

 

[JoeB131]

The US Constitution guarantees citizens a speedy trail by an unbiased jury. There was no possible way that jury wasn't biased given where the trial was held. Only those with a preconceived opinion would accept a position on that jury in fear of their safety and life if they voted anything but guilty.

If people were biased, it was because he was caught on tape doing exactly what he was accused of.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I know what he was convicted of and I also know that the trial was unconstitutional.

What Article of the Constitution was violated?

I just told you he was having breathing problems sitting in the police cruiser and you ask me how I know he was dying?

You know this how, Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson told you that.

He had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. He had that mixed with meth. He had serious heart and artery problems, he even had Covid.

Please post the medical record stating that fact.

 

[SavannahMann]

The US Constitution guarantees citizens a speedy trail by an unbiased jury. There was no possible way that jury wasn't biased given where the trial was held. Only those with a preconceived opinion would accept a position on that jury in fear of their safety and life if they voted anything but guilty.

I’m going to take this seriously, and spend some time typing to explain why Chauvin was found guilty. And bias wasn’t one of the reasons. I’m going to compare and contrast with some other famous trials.

I’m going to start with the cops who beat Rodney King. The fatal flaw of that prosecution. The Prosecutor could not point to a single blow and say this was excessive. All blows from this point on were excessive. The Defense hung their hats on that particular hook and won. And honestly, I would have gone with the jury. Not because King was Black or any nonsense like that. But because the Prosecution had to demonstrate that the actions were excessive, and failed to do so.

OJ Simpson. The Defense in that case was fantastic. They were the best defense attorneys in the country at that time. It was literally the Defense dream team. They challenged every single piece of information. They created doubt on every single piece of information. They caught the cop Furman in a lie, on the stand. That created doubt on the star witness for the Prosecution.

Here again, I would have probably voted with the Jury on that one too, because again, the Defense did the best job of any I’ve ever heard of.

The trial of Jim Wilson in Savannah Georgia. A local power Attorney named Sonny Seiler was able to show that the basis of the Prosecution was flawed. Basically the Police did not do all that they said they had in securing evidence, and had moved and manipulated the scene of the crime. That caused doubt in the minds of the Jury regarding the prosecution, and Jim Williams was found Not Guilty. This is covered in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

Now, Chauvin. What I have done is give you a short explanation why certain famous decisions were reached by Juries. The failures of Prosecutions, to prove their cases. Let’s move forward to Chauvin.

Chauvin had three legs to his argument that he was not guilty. 1) His actions were in keeping with the training and policies of the Police. 2) George Floyd presented a clear danger to officers and had to be restrained. 3) Chauvin’s actions were reasonable.

The Prosecution was able to demolish those three legs. For the first they presented experts from the Police including the Chief of Police who said that his actions were not in keeping with the training and policies of the Police. And they told the truth. Because here again, as I have said many many times. Chauvin was sacrificed, but not by the City to placate the Left or BLM. But by the Police to try and maintain the tattered curtain concealing the Wizard.

The truth is that while the official policy and training said one thing, the cops themselves expected people to do something else. But on paper the police prohibited it. That policy in writing is the official policy however.

Forgive the confusion, but lets take a moment and step back to the King trial. I thought the Prosecution screwed up. I thought they should have worked their way from policy to the beating, instead of mentioning the policy in passing. The official policy was to utilize the “Swarm Technique” and the police all wrote it on their reports, despite not actually doing this “Swarm Technique”.

If the Prosecution had walked the Jury through that way. The cops knew what they were supposed to do, they knew what the policy was. They did not enact that policy, but lied on their reports to knowingly cover up their misdeed, they would have gotten a Conviction.

Instead the Prosecution let themselves get bogged down in the debate over when the actions went from reasonable, to unreasonable, and lost.

Chauvin had the same problem, only this time the Prosecution covered that base well.

The second leg. George Floyd presented a clear danger to officers. When everyone including the police realized and admitted that Floyd was not breathing, Chauvin remained on his back. That action demolished his own argument. Seriously, Chauvin couldn’t claim that a dead body continued to present a clear danger to officers thus justifying his own actions.

The final leg of the defense was based upon Chauvin’s history as a police officer, showing his actions were reasonable. The problem is that by bringing in his long history as a police officer, you open up the door to the eighteen complaints including those which were sustained, or found to be correct that Chauvin had violated policy, into the mix.

I said above, and many times before. Chauvin was sacrificed by the Police. They had a choice. They could fall on their swords and admit that the policy was not enforced and was instead taught with a wink to the cops. This is why when Chauvin violated policy in the past it was handled with a pat on the back and a don’t do that again speech.

There was no way the cops were ever going to do that. Asking the entire department to admit that they lied regularly to save Chauvin was too much. Chauvin was sacrificed but not to the Left, to Public Opinion to save the rest of the Department from the truth. Just as the cops who beat Rodney King violated official policy, and lied about it.

Now, let’s be honest. Let’s say you run a company, and to keep the lawyers happy you write a policy that says the job should be done this way. But you know doing it that way takes twice as long as using some short cuts, and it is far more profitable to use the shortcuts.

Using one of those disapproved shortcuts an employee gets injured. The employee sues, saying the company policy was never enforced or followed. What would you do? If you admit the truth the Insurance isn’t going to cover the accident or you anymore. Your business will collapse. You will be ruined. You are going to do what the Chief, and the instructor both did. You’re going to go up on the Stand and swear that the policy was supposed to be followed and you can’t imagine anyone thinking that you or your company would endorse the violation of the policy.

The alternative is committing suicide.

Chauvin was sacrificed, but he knew this was a danger the moment he first understood that violating the official policy was if not expected by the others, at least it would be managed in a minimalist way. He knew what the official policy was, and he decided to ignore that policy and go with what he believed worked.

All three legs of the Defense were destroyed, not because of Black Bias, or anything like that. But by Chauvin’s own actions. No Medical Examiner including any the Defense consulted with would say that Floyd was killed regardless of Chauvin’s actions.

Three Autopsy reports. Three. And they all agree. Fact-checking the claim that drugs or heart issues contributed to George Floyd’s death

Floyd was killed by Chauvin.

Chauvin wasn’t convicted because of Bias, but because the Prosecution was able to focus the spotlight on Chauvin’s own actions and the ton of video that proved it.

Chauvin would almost certainly have been convicted anywhere in the State.

 

[JoeB131]

SavannahMann I agree with most of what you said except for OJ. That was jury nullification. The "Dream Team" didn't do a great job, you just simply had a jury that was pre-disposed to acquit because of Simpson's celebrity (We do love our celebrities in this country), anger over other LAPD misconduct, and fear of more riots if he was convicted. (They were only a couple years away from the King Riots.)

Clark and Darden did some dumb-ass things. So did Cochrane and Shapiro. (Shapiro pretty much tried to throw OJ under the bus at every opportunity.)

 

[SavannahMann]

SavannahMann I agree with most of what you said except for OJ. That was jury nullification. The "Dream Team" didn't do a great job, you just simply had a jury that was pre-disposed to acquit because of Simpson's celebrity (We do love our celebrities in this country), anger over other LAPD misconduct, and fear of more riots if he was convicted. (They were only a couple years away from the King Riots.)

Clark and Darden did some dumb-ass things. So did Cochrane and Shapiro. (Shapiro pretty much tried to throw OJ under the bus at every opportunity.)

Not a single piece of evidence went by without being challenged. The most famous of course is the gloves.

But the chain was weakened at every step. The cop who found most of the evidence and led the investigation was Mark Furman. The defense got to cross examine him. After he had testified about how he found the glove. The blood. All of the evidence was introduced by him.

He was the picture of cool, calm, professional detachment. He had no personal interest other than doing a fantastic job.

Then the Defense asked him if he had ever used the N word. He denied it. More than once. Absolutely sure he had never used it. They played the tape of him saying the word.

Then they attacked how he handled the evidence. Was he sure he had found the glove where he said? Oh yes. He was sure. The Defense didn’t have to ask if he was just as certain about this as he was about never using the N word.

In the minds of the Jury Furman was now possibly a liar.

It became possible that he mishandled the evidence. Contaminated it. Perhaps even planted it.

The Prosecution tried to convince the Jury that yes Furman lied. But it was unintentional and you can totally believe everything else that he said.

The next witness was Kato. Oh good Lord. Kato looked like he was either stoned as he testified or had been stoned so often that he had about four working brain cells.

Then we got the first use of DNA. This was practically Science Fiction for the era. It was new. And here the Prosecution spent an entire day describing how DNA testing worked.

Science Majors were bored to tears before the day was over.

And it picked up the next day. Finally the Defense got to cross. And it was blessedly short. The odds of a match were one in ten million or so. The defense point? About three people had the same genetic markers in the Los Angeles Basin based upon those odds.

No they could not say it definitely came from Mr. Simpson thank you very much.

Again. For most people the DNA stuff sounded far fetched.

We have to view events in context with the era they happened in.

The Jury Pool was restricted to people who didn’t read newspapers or watch the news. So they specifically wanted people who were unaware of their society and current events. That is where the Defense made their biggest win.

People like that will have a short attention span. They’ll be apathetic. And a full day plus of DNA testimony is hell on earth for them. They probably zoned out after ten minutes.

Even if they believed the DNA and believed that Furman was telling the truth about where and how it was found. Even if. The Defense was able to show that it could have been someone else.

Now I think OJ did it. But I don’t know. I wasn’t there. But based upon the trial I’d have my doubts.

I did Debate in High School. Based upon that I’d give the win to the Defense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Chauvin wasn’t convicted because of Bias, but because the Prosecution was able to focus the spotlight on Chauvin’s own actions and the ton of video that proved it.

Chauvin would almost certainly have been convicted anywhere in the State.

I don't think so which is why they didn't move the trial to another part of the state which they could have done. If they moved it to an area where the jurors were not prejudiced in the case nor felt threatened, it would likely have led to a different outcome. At the most, he might have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

The suspect was in terrible physical shape and it's clear on all videos how tanked up he was. While kneeling on the neck of the suspect was not part of their department policy, it's been used all across the country with no problems and taught in some police academies. I used to be an avid fan of the long running show C.O.P.S. I must have seen every episode in their 30 or so year run of the show.

All that aside, it's still clear to me the trial was unconstitutional because Chauvin was not afforded the constitutional right of being judged by an unbiased jury. That trial should have been moved to a small town somewhere that the animals wouldn't take the time to travel to in order to intimidate the jurors.

 

[LibertyKid]

I don't think so which is why they didn't move the trial to another part of the state which they could have done. If they moved it to an area where the jurors were not prejudiced in the case nor felt threatened, it would likely have led to a different outcome. At the most, he might have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

The suspect was in terrible physical shape and it's clear on all videos how tanked up he was. While kneeling on the neck of the suspect was not part of their department policy, it's been used all across the country with no problems and taught in some police academies. I used to be an avid fan of the long running show C.O.P.S. I must have seen every episode in their 30 or so year run of the show.

All that aside, it's still clear to me the trial was unconstitutional because Chauvin was not afforded the constitutional right of being judged by an unbiased jury. That trial should have been moved to a small town somewhere that the animals wouldn't take the time to travel to in order to intimidate the jurors.

There was no way Chauvin was not going to be found guilty. If he had been acquitted all hell would have broke loose.
The problem is personal choices and the consequences of making bad life and professional choices. No one cares the life that Floyd lived. No one cares about his personal choices and the type of person he was. That's illogical to exclude a person's character when it absolutely used in the court of law. But the same can be said for Chauvin.

Floyd was a bad person with a whole host of narcotics in his system.
Chauvin was a bad person who was, IMO, based on videos, postering as a bad ass cop.
Both Floyd and Chauvin made bad choices that day.
Unfortunately the narrative created and spurred by social media and the MSM and BLM is all wrong and is only creating more and more racial divide.

 

[SavannahMann]

I don't think so which is why they didn't move the trial to another part of the state which they could have done. If they moved it to an area where the jurors were not prejudiced in the case nor felt threatened, it would likely have led to a different outcome. At the most, he might have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

The suspect was in terrible physical shape and it's clear on all videos how tanked up he was. While kneeling on the neck of the suspect was not part of their department policy, it's been used all across the country with no problems and taught in some police academies. I used to be an avid fan of the long running show C.O.P.S. I must have seen every episode in their 30 or so year run of the show.

All that aside, it's still clear to me the trial was unconstitutional because Chauvin was not afforded the constitutional right of being judged by an unbiased jury. That trial should have been moved to a small town somewhere that the animals wouldn't take the time to travel to in order to intimidate the jurors.

Ok, you’ve watched thirty years worth of COPS. Great. Tell me how many times you’ve watched the officer, in any jurisdiction, kneeling on a guy after they say there is no pulse. I’m betting you’ve never seen that on TV.

Now, onto policy questions. What is authorized or permitted in other jurisdictions. I used the scenario above of you being the boss. Let’s continue that scenario.

Everyone is aware that sometimes ropes and cables break, and when the break under tension they can whip. The standard safety protocol is to stay away from those lines under tension because they can break and whip through the air with incredible force. There are videos of Naval people being struck down by breaking cables. Even stories of people losing limbs or lives from it.

Now, I’ve watched about every episode of Mythbusters. And they tested this “myth” and could not prove it happened. Yet, we know it happened in real life. The story of Chief Brasher is well known. His leg was nearly severed completely. The Navy attempted to reconnect the leg but infection and eventually Gangrene required the full amputation of the damaged portion of the limb.

So we know that it happens in real life. Back to the scenario. Let’s say your company deals with a lot of cables under tension, would you allow someone to stand near the cables because of the Mythbusters episode? Would you allow it if they argued that other companies permitted it? I certainly would not. I doubt you would either.

So now we have dealt with the policy. We are left with what would happen in other jurisdictions.

The same trial would have taken place in those other jurisdictions. No Coroner would have sat on the chair and sworn that Floyd died from an overdose. All three coroners would have said that it was Homicide from the actions of Officer Chauvin. Exactly as they said in the original trial. So nothing would have changed there.

The argument about Policy would have gone down exactly the same, so Chauvin who was responsible for the death would have still been violating policy. A fact you now admit.

That leaves reasonable. Now, your argument is that this notional jury in a small town somewhere would have decided that despite the fact that it violated policy, and clearly led to the death of Floyd, that it was reasonable to kneel on his back for minutes after no pulse was found.

I don’t think so. The only way you could feel it was reasonable is something that LibertyKid mentioned. There was a good guy.

I suspect, and it is a suspicion not a belief, that you believe anyone who stands up to or tries to stop a bad guy is automatically good. There were no good guys that day. Floyd was a bad guy. But so was Chauvin.

History books are always so difficult. Take World War II. The people writing the book want the forces of good to win out over the forces of evil. Hitler was evil. So those who opposed him were good. But one of those opposing him was Stalin, who would never be good. He was honestly as bad as Hitler was. He murdered citizens, tortured them, and about every crime that Hitler committed was done by Stalin.

But the History books don’t deal with that. It is suddenly that Stalin is a bad guy ten minutes after the end of the Second World War. Yesterday he was a friend and a great guy who helped us defeat Hitler. Today he is the madman who is the head of the Evil Empire who is bent upon world domination and the Cold War has begun.

This situation is much like that. There were no good guys that day. Floyd was a bad guy. He should have gone to jail for his crimes. If he had died at home from an overdose, nobody would have cared.

But he died in police custody. And that is a problem. He died as a direct result of the actions of a cop. And that is a possible crime. The specifics of the day mean it was definitely a crime.

There were no good guys, not on that day. And it is debatable if Chauvin ever was a good guy. And the police department themselves have nobody to blame but themselves for that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So now we have dealt with the policy. We are left with what would happen in other jurisdictions.

The same trial would have taken place in those other jurisdictions. No Coroner would have sat on the chair and sworn that Floyd died from an overdose. All three coroners would have said that it was Homicide from the actions of Officer Chauvin. Exactly as they said in the original trial. So nothing would have changed there.

The argument about Policy would have gone down exactly the same, so Chauvin who was responsible for the death would have still been violating policy. A fact you now admit.

That leaves reasonable. Now, your argument is that this notional jury in a small town somewhere would have decided that despite the fact that it violated policy, and clearly led to the death of Floyd, that it was reasonable to kneel on his back for minutes after no pulse was found.

I don’t think so. The only way you could feel it was reasonable is something that @LibertyKid mentioned. There was a good guy.

I suspect, and it is a suspicion not a belief, that you believe anyone who stands up to or tries to stop a bad guy is automatically good. There were no good guys that day. Floyd was a bad guy. But so was Chauvin.

No, I never said that all cops are good guys. In fact one of the stories in our news today was a cop in one of our suburbs that was busted with pictures of nude teenage girls.

In any case, the standard instructions to a jury are that a guilty verdict must be without a reasonable doubt. I think the fact he was crying he couldn't breathe while sitting upright in the police car, the fact he had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system mixed with meth, a bad heart, clogged arteries is what I would consider reasonable doubt of what he died from if I were a juror.

Murder is the intent to kill, and I have no reason to believe that Chauvin deliberately killed this lowlife. It was accidental which in any court of law is manslaughter at the most. And again I reiterate that this trial was conducted without Chauvin's constitutional right to an unbiased jury. Now if they moved the trial away from the city to an area where a fair trial could be heard, I would agree with any decision an unbiased jury came to. Maybe Chauvin isn't a nice guy, I don't know, but he's still a citizen deserving of his rights no matter what I or anybody else thinks of him or what he did.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There was no way Chauvin was not going to be found guilty. If he had been acquitted all hell would have broke loose.

And I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, jurors were under threat if they found Chauvin not guilty or guilty of a much lesser charge. That's my entire point. Nobody would accept a position as a juror unless they had their mind made up before the judge hit his gavel on his desk. That is not justice in the USA.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, I never said that all cops are good guys. In fact one of the stories in our news today was a cop in one of our suburbs that was busted with pictures of nude teenage girls.

In any case, the standard instructions to a jury are that a guilty verdict must be without a reasonable doubt. I think the fact he was crying he couldn't breathe while sitting upright in the police car, the fact he had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system mixed with meth, a bad heart, clogged arteries is what I would consider reasonable doubt of what he died from if I were a juror.

Murder is the intent to kill, and I have no reason to believe that Chauvin deliberately killed this lowlife. It was accidental which in any court of law is manslaughter at the most. And again I reiterate that this trial was conducted without Chauvin's constitutional right to an unbiased jury. Now if they moved the trial away from the city to an area where a fair trial could be heard, I would agree with any decision an unbiased jury came to. Maybe Chauvin isn't a nice guy, I don't know, but he's still a citizen deserving of his rights no matter what I or anybody else thinks of him or what he did.

Oh I agree 100% that he is deserving of every single right. I don’t think that the trial would have had a different outcome in a different area. I believe that the Jury was as unbiased as could be expected anywhere in the state.

The jury included two African Immigrants. Half Of The Jury In The Chauvin Trial Is Nonwhite. That's Only Part Of The Story

Those two expressed moderate views on policing and race relations during the jury selection process. If they both told the truth, and I have no reason to doubt that, they were as unbiased as you could hope to get. But every Juror was interviewed, and each Lawyer had a Jury Consultant there who read nuanced physical mannerisms to try and divine who would be good. They conducted investigations into the background of the potential jurors. Almost certainly checking their online posts and that sort of thing.

One Juror who spoke of his own views of the Police was struck.

So the Jurors they got were the ones the Defense felt would give Chauvin the best chance, I’ll grant you this, of the potential jurors who were available.

But moving it to a smaller town wouldn’t be helpful either. Now, imagine someone from that small town, isolated and insulated against the actions we know are common in cities. Imagine that Mother of two sitting in the Jury box and listening to people beg for Floyd’s life. Imagine the horror she would feel watching Floyd die and Chauvin checking the pulse, and another cop checking the pulse, and saying he couldn’t find one with Chauvin continuing to kneel on him.

That Mother of two would find Chauvin guilty so fast it would boggle the imagination.

Deliberations would take fifteen minutes, long enough for everyone to have a cup of coffee. In their insulated and isolated world, the cops don’t kneel on someone after they are dead. They wouldn’t see a big scary black guy. They would see a man restrained, begging for his life, pleading with the police to help him. They would see the crowd begging for his life. And their Christian upbringing would fling their minds to the part of the Bible, where the crowd chooses Barbaras. Where Mary cried at the cross. And they would convict.

Moving to a small town wouldn’t help Chauvin, it would hurt him. In the city, people are more accustomed to violence, and if we operate on the assumption that the Jury was as unbiased as it was possible to be, would know that sometimes the police have to use force to subdue a subject.

You are operating under the assumption that the small town people would be more understanding of the authority of the police to use force. They might, but they would also be more outraged at the continued use of force after the suspect was dead. They would be furious that Chauvin kept the pressure on despite no pulse. They would not understand why he did not allow a Paramedic to assist the man.

Chauvin would probably be sentenced to life in the electric chair by a small town Judge in that case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh I agree 100% that he is deserving of every single right. I don’t think that the trial would have had a different outcome in a different area. I believe that the Jury was as unbiased as could be expected anywhere in the state.

I disagree. You are asked to be a juror, the protests and riots were very much in the open. You are in their town breathing their air. Do you actually expect me to believe that you would vote to acquit if you really believed that after the testimony, he was not guilty of anything?

Nobody wants to live the next several months if not the next few years with a target on their back. Especially with covid, people are yearning to go out and freely be part of society without fear. Even if you didn't care about yourself as much, certainly you'd have to worry about family members living in the area.

Move it far away to a different location, and if those jurors not under threat found him guilty of anything, at least we could all be convinced it was a fair and constitutional trial.

 

[toobfreak]

The defense attorney for the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of killing George Floyd has requested a new trial, saying the court abused its discretion​

Imagine that, a court abusing its discretion!