Floyd verdict thread (moments away)

[22lcidw]

. Going to an area where rioting is currently taking place and telling the crowd to get MORE confrontational, and "making sure they know we mean business" is textbook incitement to riot. Trump was impeached and deplatformed for telling a crowd to protest peacefully.
She is trying to weasle out of what she said.

Trump did a lot more than that. For months prior to Jan. 6 he wipped his supporters into a frenzi with the big lie about then election. Then he organized the mob on the day that the election ws to be certifed and encourged them to march on the capital. He stood by and said nothing when Gulliania spoke of "combat" and he did nothiong to quell the riot as it happened

The globalists have endless resources to do what we see and you approve of. Psychiatry has been used on us all for many decades and many have fallen for it. Most of us on all sides to some degree have been indoctrinated. It is not easy to not to. You are so brainwashed that you believe that what we are seeing around the nation is right and just. Bombarded 24 hours a day by media, entertainment, business, elites and political shills who are tireless in their indoctrination to the public as their goal is Progressive Socialism intertwined into a world government. With over 8 billion people and we with 350 million at most, you are to dumb to figure out that they will not become richer to equal us, but we will decrease to meet them as they rise a bit from us transferring our wealth.

 

[struth]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The asshole was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

He was convicted of 3 count of murder through our countries legal system. God bless America. I don’t know what reality you’re living in but it sure isn’t this one

Yes, our legal system, while not 100 percent perfect, works. It's sad that so many folks have attempt to overthrow it...like firebombing Federal Courthouse, or ignoring Court's, and continuing to commit on cases as they jury is out.

It’s starting to work. Very few cop ever get prosecuted for abusing power and we know it happens often. The Floyd case barely made it through. Took many many steps that were pushed through by the will of the people. Look up the original police report of the incident.

Barely got through? The cop was fired the day after the event, and arrested four days later, and convicted of murder within a year...that was very fast for a murder case.

Yes, look at the timeline. I'd bet that if that young lady didn't release the video of the event the entire thing would have been swept under the rug. Have you read the report that the police department initially released?! She posted her video after that report came out and showed what actually happened, that spurred protests and pushed the Governor to appoint the AG to review the case which then lead to the arrest and prosecution of Chauvin. Had that girl not recorded the incident and released the video to the public I bet Chauvin would still be out there with a badge.

Death of George Floyd, trial of Derek Chauvin: Timeline of key events

George Floyd's death in police custody in May touched off a nationwide reckoning on race and led to the trial of ex-officer Derek Chauvin.

www.latimes.com

I just provided the time line....

Well yeah...obviously law enforcement needed evidence to make their case...thankfully there were witnesses. Had their been no evidence, or witnesses there likely woudn't of been charges...but that's true for most crimes

 

[struth]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The asshole was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

He was convicted of 3 count of murder through our countries legal system. God bless America. I don’t know what reality you’re living in but it sure isn’t this one

Yes, our legal system, while not 100 percent perfect, works. It's sad that so many folks have attempt to overthrow it...like firebombing Federal Courthouse, or ignoring Court's, and continuing to commit on cases as they jury is out.

Personally though, guilty or not, I feel like the cop did not receive anything remotely resembling a fair trial

The chances of any verdict but " guilty" was not happening in that environment, no matter what proof might have surfaced. the bullshit was off the charts, the prosecution was playing fuck fuck games, ( which the judge failed to deal with ), the threats to burn the city if not found guilty, the previous SHTF riots from last year in the jury's minds, intimidation of witnesses, doxxing of witnesses, threats against witnesses, threats against lawyers, threats against the jury, threats against the families of jury was intense, threats to dox jury and release their personal information after the trial for payback, threats / intimidation from the highest levels of government, from congressman, comments from the president, screaming violent mobs demanding guilty verdicts, jury not sequestered, so they talked to family and knew all about these threats and were thus scared of what might happen, the city paying the family 27 million settlement, and the jury knowing it, which screams guilt, and fuck,

The entire trial was offensive as hell to the ideals the country was founded on, the last 200 years of law and precedent.

Completely disgusting. Guilt or innocence should be determined in a fair, impartial court, free from threats, intimidation, and misconduct by elements on the street or government, as well as political interference by government, or mobs of angry rioters. steps should have been taken to reduce such interference and the fact they didn't happen, throws doubt on the entire thing. which should scare and offend everyone, as if it can happen there in that instance, it can in others and likely will, as when bad behavior is allowed to happen, it tends to spread.

It is disgusting to see how we threw away justice to satisfy the hateful Black mob. Equally disgusting was seeing how the pathetic weak White Guilt pukes went along with it.

You can certainly argue that the jury was prejudiced, via the media, riots, and comments by the Dems...we will what the Court of Appeals says

In my opinion he was certainly at least guilty of manslaughter based on the evidence I heard at trial

You don't think Chauvin was being reckless and intending to inflict pain on Floyd as he knelt on his back and neck while Floyd screamed in pain and begged for his life? Manslaughter is an accident. 3rd and 2nd degree is being reckless and intending to inflict pain.

well no...3rd degree requires more then recklessness...it requires a depraved mind

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195#:~:text=(a)%20Whoever%2C%20without%20intent,not%20more%20than%2025%20years

.

I think that certainly can be argued.

I don't see 2nd degree at all, under the Minn law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Manslaugter, is unintented, and reckless....which i think is a slam dunk.https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

 

[Faun]

Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.

Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...

Hopefully not.

I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.

LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??

Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do

Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.

I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about

Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.

That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens

"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.

well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.

Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!

I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.

You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.

They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been

Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts

it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.

I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Grounds for Appeal​

​

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.​

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.

yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.

A mistrial based on what?

Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that

With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.

No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant

You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.

I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.

And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine

You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Chauvin likely to appeal, claiming trial tainted by civil settlement, media coverage | Reuters

Former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin will likely seek to overturn his murder and manslaughter convictions by arguing that the jury was prejudiced by media coverage and a settlement in the civil case brought by George Floyd's family, though his odds of success are slim, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

​

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.​

​

"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.​

​

John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.​

​

"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."​

Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring

LOL

Suuuure he is.

Well he's just expressing an opinion...his opinion is wrong...certainly it would be a slam dunk if they had direct evidence but that is not the legal standard on appeal..as I have already shown

And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?

 

[postman]

2. She is the most senior black Democrat in the country. She is Head of the Financial Services Committee. Ranked in the top 100 most influential people by Time magazine.

She is STILL not a member of the Biden Administration

I didn't say she was.
I said she was a leading member of the Biden Regime.

The 100 Most Influential People of 2020

Check out TIME's annual list

time.com

You said she was in time magazine top 100, and she's not.

 

[postman]

I don't see 2nd degree at all, under the Minn law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Manslaugter, is unintented, and reckless....which i think is a slam dunk.https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

Chauvin clearly intended to "hurt" Floyd. To teach him a painful lesson.


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

#464: it’s a mistake to discriminate counterfeit from fentanyl. Floyd swallowing the evidence is why: every organism that came in contact with the pos was in danger. Was it Chinese fentanyl, smuggled across China Joe’s new promiscuous border?

And that has what exactly to do with the facts of this case?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad

We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.

e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.

Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!

I did, I saw all the videos presented at trial.

I have no problem with using some force.

The issue was the 9 mins on the neck. He was not a threat at that point.

The cop was not doing his job when he did that, he was doing the lynching. Likely because, like most that resort of lynching, he's a got a small dick, and a bully with a Napolean complex. He'll enjoy the big dicks in his mouth soon enough, rightfully so.

I get sick of the folks that continue to defend these punk ass cops..it's an insult to all the good police officers out there that do a great and very tough job. Defending the punks, only makes it harder for the good police officers.

Did you see this video? It is a tactic used by police forces all over the world. It is not fatal. This Floyd piece of shit was killed by the drugs, not the policeman.

The policeman is being lynched by a hateful frenzy Black mob and it is despicable.

Give the horseshit a rest, Dude. It is used just long enough to get the subject under control .That not the case with Floyd

 

[struth]

Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.

Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...

Hopefully not.

I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.

LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??

Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do

Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.

I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about

Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.

That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens

"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.

well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.

Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!

I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.

You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.

They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been

Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts

it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.

I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Grounds for Appeal​

​

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.​

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.

yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.

A mistrial based on what?

Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that

With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.

No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant

You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.

I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.

And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine

You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Chauvin likely to appeal, claiming trial tainted by civil settlement, media coverage | Reuters

Former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin will likely seek to overturn his murder and manslaughter convictions by arguing that the jury was prejudiced by media coverage and a settlement in the civil case brought by George Floyd's family, though his odds of success are slim, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

​

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.​

​

"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.​

​

John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.​

​

"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."​

Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring

LOL

Suuuure he is.

Well he's just expressing an opinion...his opinion is wrong...certainly it would be a slam dunk if they had direct evidence but that is not the legal standard on appeal..as I have already shown

And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?

Because mine is based on the law. Feel free not to, nobody has to accept anyone's opinion

 

[struth]

I don't see 2nd degree at all, under the Minn law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Manslaugter, is unintented, and reckless....which i think is a slam dunk.https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

Chauvin clearly intended to "hurt" Floyd. To teach him a painful lesson.


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

you have to read that all together...he wasn't committing or attempting to commit a felony offense. What that is, is Minn Felony Murder Stat. You can't used the assault, as the felony that would merge..via the merger doctrine of felony murder. Because the assault, caused the death.

 

[Flash]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad

We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.

e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.

Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!

I did, I saw all the videos presented at trial.

I have no problem with using some force.

The issue was the 9 mins on the neck. He was not a threat at that point.

The cop was not doing his job when he did that, he was doing the lynching. Likely because, like most that resort of lynching, he's a got a small dick, and a bully with a Napolean complex. He'll enjoy the big dicks in his mouth soon enough, rightfully so.

I get sick of the folks that continue to defend these punk ass cops..it's an insult to all the good police officers out there that do a great and very tough job. Defending the punks, only makes it harder for the good police officers.

Did you see this video? It is a tactic used by police forces all over the world. It is not fatal. This Floyd piece of shit was killed by the drugs, not the policeman.

The policeman is being lynched by a hateful frenzy Black mob and it is despicable.

Give the horseshit a rest, Dude. It is used just long enough to get the subject under control .That not the case with Floyd

You are confused Moon Bat.

The real horseshit is an innocent policeman has been lynched by the filthy ass hateful woke Left to appease the Negro scum and that is despicable.

You Moon Bats are destroying this nation and you are too damn stupid have a clue as to what you are doing that is wrong.

 

[postman]

Chauvin clearly intended to "hurt" Floyd. To teach him a painful lesson.


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

you have to read that all together...he wasn't committing or attempting to commit a felony offense. What that is, is Minn Felony Murder Stat. You can't used the assault, as the felony that would merge..via the merger doctrine of felony murder. Because the assault, caused the death.

And you claim to know law? The felony being committed by Chauvin was assault. Putting one's knee on somebodies neck is clearly an assault under any statute. A law officer normally would not be charged with assault if that level of force was needed to control or restrain someone being arrested or detained, but in light of it resulting in unintended death, the felony assault is the underlying crime, supporting 2nd degree murder.

 

[struth]

Chauvin clearly intended to "hurt" Floyd. To teach him a painful lesson.


609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

you have to read that all together...he wasn't committing or attempting to commit a felony offense. What that is, is Minn Felony Murder Stat. You can't used the assault, as the felony that would merge..via the merger doctrine of felony murder. Because the assault, caused the death.

And you claim to know law? The felony being committed by Chauvin was assault. Putting one's knee on somebodies neck is clearly an assault under any statute. A law officer normally would not be charged with assault if that level of force was needed to control or restrain someone being arrested or detained, but in light of it resulting in unintended death, the felony assault is the underlying crime, supporting 2nd degree murder.

Yes I claim to know the law

Felony-Murder Rule

Definition of Felony-Murder Rule in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

.

" Felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder."

You are welcome.

The level of force used, goes to 3rd degree v Vol Manslaughter. But you can't use the assault itself to convict of felony murder

 

[Faun]

Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.

Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...

Hopefully not.

I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.

LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??

Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do

Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.

I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about

Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.

That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens

"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.

well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.

Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!

I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.

You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.

They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been

Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts

it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.

I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Grounds for Appeal​

​

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.​

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.

yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.

A mistrial based on what?

Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that

With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.

No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant

You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.

I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.

And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine

You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Chauvin likely to appeal, claiming trial tainted by civil settlement, media coverage | Reuters

Former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin will likely seek to overturn his murder and manslaughter convictions by arguing that the jury was prejudiced by media coverage and a settlement in the civil case brought by George Floyd's family, though his odds of success are slim, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

​

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.​

​

"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.​

​

John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.​

​

"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."​

Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring

LOL

Suuuure he is.

Well he's just expressing an opinion...his opinion is wrong...certainly it would be a slam dunk if they had direct evidence but that is not the legal standard on appeal..as I have already shown

And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?

Because mine is based on the law. Feel free not to, nobody has to accept anyone's opinion

LOL

But the lawyer's opinion is not based on the law??

 

[struth]

Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.

Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...

Hopefully not.

I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.

LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??

Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do

Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.

I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about

Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.

That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens

"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.

well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.

Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!

I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.

You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.

They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been

Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts

it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.

I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Grounds for Appeal​

​

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.​

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.

yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.

A mistrial based on what?

Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that

With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.

No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant

You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.

I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.

And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine

You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Chauvin likely to appeal, claiming trial tainted by civil settlement, media coverage | Reuters

Former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin will likely seek to overturn his murder and manslaughter convictions by arguing that the jury was prejudiced by media coverage and a settlement in the civil case brought by George Floyd's family, though his odds of success are slim, legal experts said.

www.reuters.com

​

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.​

​

"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.​

​

John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.​

​

"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."​

Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring

LOL

Suuuure he is.

Well he's just expressing an opinion...his opinion is wrong...certainly it would be a slam dunk if they had direct evidence but that is not the legal standard on appeal..as I have already shown

And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?

Because mine is based on the law. Feel free not to, nobody has to accept anyone's opinion

LOL

But the lawyer's opinion is not based on the law??

Is conclusion isn't. He's incorrect in stating that direct evidence is absolutely needed.

 

[postman]

Yes I claim to know the law

Felony-Murder Rule

Definition of Felony-Murder Rule in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

.

" Felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder."

You are welcome.

The level of force used, goes to 3rd degree v Vol Manslaughter. But you can't use the assault itself to convict of felony murder

You clearly don't understand. the felony murder rule is not the same as a degree of murder being a felony. The felony murder rule is about charging co-conspirators

Your citation:

A Rule of Law that holds that if a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (a major crime), the person or persons responsible for the felony can be charged with murder.

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

 

[Slade3200]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The asshole was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

He was convicted of 3 count of murder through our countries legal system. God bless America. I don’t know what reality you’re living in but it sure isn’t this one

Yes, our legal system, while not 100 percent perfect, works. It's sad that so many folks have attempt to overthrow it...like firebombing Federal Courthouse, or ignoring Court's, and continuing to commit on cases as they jury is out.

Personally though, guilty or not, I feel like the cop did not receive anything remotely resembling a fair trial

The chances of any verdict but " guilty" was not happening in that environment, no matter what proof might have surfaced. the bullshit was off the charts, the prosecution was playing fuck fuck games, ( which the judge failed to deal with ), the threats to burn the city if not found guilty, the previous SHTF riots from last year in the jury's minds, intimidation of witnesses, doxxing of witnesses, threats against witnesses, threats against lawyers, threats against the jury, threats against the families of jury was intense, threats to dox jury and release their personal information after the trial for payback, threats / intimidation from the highest levels of government, from congressman, comments from the president, screaming violent mobs demanding guilty verdicts, jury not sequestered, so they talked to family and knew all about these threats and were thus scared of what might happen, the city paying the family 27 million settlement, and the jury knowing it, which screams guilt, and fuck,

The entire trial was offensive as hell to the ideals the country was founded on, the last 200 years of law and precedent.

Completely disgusting. Guilt or innocence should be determined in a fair, impartial court, free from threats, intimidation, and misconduct by elements on the street or government, as well as political interference by government, or mobs of angry rioters. steps should have been taken to reduce such interference and the fact they didn't happen, throws doubt on the entire thing. which should scare and offend everyone, as if it can happen there in that instance, it can in others and likely will, as when bad behavior is allowed to happen, it tends to spread.

It is disgusting to see how we threw away justice to satisfy the hateful Black mob. Equally disgusting was seeing how the pathetic weak White Guilt pukes went along with it.

You can certainly argue that the jury was prejudiced, via the media, riots, and comments by the Dems...we will what the Court of Appeals says

In my opinion he was certainly at least guilty of manslaughter based on the evidence I heard at trial

You don't think Chauvin was being reckless and intending to inflict pain on Floyd as he knelt on his back and neck while Floyd screamed in pain and begged for his life? Manslaughter is an accident. 3rd and 2nd degree is being reckless and intending to inflict pain.

So, why didnt he taze him, as legally entitled and instead used less lethal methods of restraint.??
Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before Chauvin even touched him.

Right he was saying he couldn't breath before... They called an ambulance. So why throw the man on his face while handcuffed and kneel on his neck and back?! Thats insane. And even more insane that he stayed there as long as he did while Floyd begged for his life. Sit the man up. Its not difficult.

 

[Slade3200]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The asshole was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

He was convicted of 3 count of murder through our countries legal system. God bless America. I don’t know what reality you’re living in but it sure isn’t this one

Yes, our legal system, while not 100 percent perfect, works. It's sad that so many folks have attempt to overthrow it...like firebombing Federal Courthouse, or ignoring Court's, and continuing to commit on cases as they jury is out.

It’s starting to work. Very few cop ever get prosecuted for abusing power and we know it happens often. The Floyd case barely made it through. Took many many steps that were pushed through by the will of the people. Look up the original police report of the incident.

Barely got through? The cop was fired the day after the event, and arrested four days later, and convicted of murder within a year...that was very fast for a murder case.

Yes, look at the timeline. I'd bet that if that young lady didn't release the video of the event the entire thing would have been swept under the rug. Have you read the report that the police department initially released?! She posted her video after that report came out and showed what actually happened, that spurred protests and pushed the Governor to appoint the AG to review the case which then lead to the arrest and prosecution of Chauvin. Had that girl not recorded the incident and released the video to the public I bet Chauvin would still be out there with a badge.

Death of George Floyd, trial of Derek Chauvin: Timeline of key events

George Floyd's death in police custody in May touched off a nationwide reckoning on race and led to the trial of ex-officer Derek Chauvin.

www.latimes.com

I just provided the time line....

Well yeah...obviously law enforcement needed evidence to make their case...thankfully there were witnesses. Had their been no evidence, or witnesses there likely woudn't of been charges...but that's true for most crimes

The cops had body cams. There shouldn't be a need for kids to tape arrests and post on social media after the cops misrepresent what occurred in their reports. Thats called a broken system

 

[Slade3200]

The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.

Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

Sec. 609.195 MN Statutes

Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.

He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?

I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.

The asshole was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.

He was convicted of 3 count of murder through our countries legal system. God bless America. I don’t know what reality you’re living in but it sure isn’t this one

Yes, our legal system, while not 100 percent perfect, works. It's sad that so many folks have attempt to overthrow it...like firebombing Federal Courthouse, or ignoring Court's, and continuing to commit on cases as they jury is out.

Personally though, guilty or not, I feel like the cop did not receive anything remotely resembling a fair trial

The chances of any verdict but " guilty" was not happening in that environment, no matter what proof might have surfaced. the bullshit was off the charts, the prosecution was playing fuck fuck games, ( which the judge failed to deal with ), the threats to burn the city if not found guilty, the previous SHTF riots from last year in the jury's minds, intimidation of witnesses, doxxing of witnesses, threats against witnesses, threats against lawyers, threats against the jury, threats against the families of jury was intense, threats to dox jury and release their personal information after the trial for payback, threats / intimidation from the highest levels of government, from congressman, comments from the president, screaming violent mobs demanding guilty verdicts, jury not sequestered, so they talked to family and knew all about these threats and were thus scared of what might happen, the city paying the family 27 million settlement, and the jury knowing it, which screams guilt, and fuck,

The entire trial was offensive as hell to the ideals the country was founded on, the last 200 years of law and precedent.

Completely disgusting. Guilt or innocence should be determined in a fair, impartial court, free from threats, intimidation, and misconduct by elements on the street or government, as well as political interference by government, or mobs of angry rioters. steps should have been taken to reduce such interference and the fact they didn't happen, throws doubt on the entire thing. which should scare and offend everyone, as if it can happen there in that instance, it can in others and likely will, as when bad behavior is allowed to happen, it tends to spread.

It is disgusting to see how we threw away justice to satisfy the hateful Black mob. Equally disgusting was seeing how the pathetic weak White Guilt pukes went along with it.

You can certainly argue that the jury was prejudiced, via the media, riots, and comments by the Dems...we will what the Court of Appeals says

In my opinion he was certainly at least guilty of manslaughter based on the evidence I heard at trial

You don't think Chauvin was being reckless and intending to inflict pain on Floyd as he knelt on his back and neck while Floyd screamed in pain and begged for his life? Manslaughter is an accident. 3rd and 2nd degree is being reckless and intending to inflict pain.

well no...3rd degree requires more then recklessness...it requires a depraved mind

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195#:~:text=(a)%20Whoever%2C%20without%20intent,not%20more%20than%2025%20years

.

I think that certainly can be argued.

I don't see 2nd degree at all, under the Minn law: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

Manslaugter, is unintented, and reckless....which i think is a slam dunk.https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

From your link for 2nd degree, this is pretty spot on... How do you not see it?

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order.

 

[marvin martian]

Quick verdict. Looks like Nig-Nog celebration day.
Have to wait for an appeal for a mistrial.

The Nig-Nogs will get their asses kissed today.

Stay classy, Trumpsters.

The US has lost its class pandering to the Black scum. The officer did nothing wrong dealing with this street thug and he is being lynched because of racial hatred from the Negroes. Shame!

The only scum is the racist right.

Meanwhile in Virginia, you made sure this guy still has his job.