Fogbow

Lani wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:22 pm CNN announced that Chauvin's attorney filed for a new trial.

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:20 pm The T-shirt is enough. Chauvin's lawyer will argue it was a George Floyd rally to anyone wearing that T-shirt, that the juror was biased, and that the juror lied. If the juror actually wore the T-shirt, I think it's a slam dunk for a new trial.

The juror should be prosecuted. Perhaps he can serve time (much less) with Chauvin.

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:20 pm The T-shirt is enough. Chauvin's lawyer will argue it was a George Floyd rally to anyone wearing that T-shirt, that the juror was biased, and that the juror lied. If the juror actually wore the T-shirt, I think it's a slam dunk for a new trial.

The juror should be prosecuted. Perhaps he can serve time (much less) with Chauvin.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:41 pm Now that they've had a practice run, I'm worried the next defense will be competent. If the bastard gets off...

LM K wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:49 pm[A] defense lawyer said that the Daunte Wright killing could be a reason for a new trial (if combined with other factors). Why would that be?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:41 pm Now that they've had a practice run, I'm worried the next defense will be competent. If the bastard gets off...

bob wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:00 pm

LM K wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 8:49 pm[A] defense lawyer said that the Daunte Wright killing could be a reason for a new trial (if combined with other factors). Why would that be?

The short answer is: it wouldn't.

It would require a chain of events to be true. And the defense would need to provide (1) evidence that is (2) admissible about the jurors.

Basically, the defense would have to prove that the jury was prohibited from learning about Wright's death but a juror nonetheless did. Or a juror made an incredible statement like, "We must vote to convict Chauvin to honor Wright."

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:17 pm One disagrees with bob at his or her peril.

bob wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:27 pm

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:17 pm One disagrees with bob at his or her peril.

That Guy knows nothing.

My guess is there will be a hearing about whether the juror lied concealed was omissive committed misconduct when answering the juror questionnaire. And the new-trial motion will rise or fall on the judge's credibility findings about why the juror didn't disclose going to the D.C. event.

And the t-shirt will be relevant circumstantial evidence; Chauvin's lawyers will ask, e.g., "You didn't think the D.C. event, which occurred three months after Floyd's death, was a protest about police brutality, but yet you wore that shirt?"

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:36 pmHe says he doesn’t remember the shirt.

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:17 pm I agree with bob.

(One disagrees with bob at his or her peril.)

bob wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:27 pm

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:17 pm One disagrees with bob at his or her peril.

That Guy knows nothing.

My guess is there will be a hearing about whether the juror lied concealed was omissive committed misconduct when answering the juror questionnaire. And the new-trial motion will rise or fall on the judge's credibility findings about why the juror didn't disclose going to the D.C. event.

And the t-shirt will be relevant circumstantial evidence; Chauvin's lawyers will ask, e.g., "You didn't think the D.C. event, which occurred three months after Floyd's death, was a protest about police brutality, but yet you wore that shirt?"

sterngard wrote: I think it's a slam dunk for a new trial.

noblepa wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 10:57 am Can an appeals look at the evidence of this juror's possible bias and conclude that it would not have made a difference in the outcome and therefore deny a retrial?

I know that, in the case of other minor procedural errors, the appeals court has said, in effect that "yeah, the judge made a mistake, but it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the trial. Therefore, we will allow the conviction to stand".

Can the same thing happen here, or is a new trial likely?

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 12:11 pmI think this is a very interesting question, and I'd like to take a crack at it when I have more time. But (assuming the juror was, in fact, biased), I think it's going to come down to (1) whether the appellate court finds that having a biased juror on the court is a "structural error" affecting the framework of the trial itself (slam-dunk dismissal); or (2) if it's not a structural error, whether the error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

"The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to an impartial jury." State v. Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615, 623 (Minn. 2015). See also U.S. Const. amend. VI ("the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State"); Minn. Const. art. 1, § 6 ("in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury"). "'The bias of a single juror violates the defendant's right to a fair trial,' because the 'impartiality of the adjudicator goes to the very integrity of the legal system.'" Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 732 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Minn. 2007)). "Permitting a biased juror to serve is structural error requiring automatic reversal." Id. (emphasis added).

https://www.wjtv.com/news/national/3-ex ... ral-court/
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal grand jury has indicted the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s arrest and death, accusing them of willfully violating the Black man’s constitutional rights as he was restrained face-down on the pavement and gasping for air.

A three-count indictment unsealed Friday names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao.

Specifically, Chauvin is charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure and unreasonable force by a police officer. Thao and Kueng are also charged with violating Floyd’s right to be free from unreasonable seizure, alleging they did not intervene to stop Chauvin as he knelt on Floyd’s neck. All four officers are charged for their failure to provide Floyd with medical care.

Chauvin was also charged in a second indictment, stemming from the arrest and neck restraint of a 14-year-old boy in 2017.
Conviction on a federal civil rights charge is punishable by up to life in prison or even the death penalty, but those stiff sentences are extremely rare and federal sentencing guidelines rely on complicated formulas that indicate the officers would get much less if convicted.

In Chauvin’s case, if the federal court uses second-degree murder as his underlying offense, he could face anywhere from 14 years to slightly more than 24 years, depending on whether he takes responsibility, said Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Osler said the guidelines clearly state that any federal sentence would be served at the same time as a state sentence — the sentences wouldn’t stack. Chauvin is due to be sentenced on the state charges June 25.

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 10:40 am He may have bigger worries than a state re-trial. Will the union (or whoever it is) continue pay his legal expenses indefinitely?

https://www.wjtv.com/news/national/3-ex ... ral-court/
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal grand jury has indicted the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s arrest and death, accusing them of willfully violating the Black man’s constitutional rights as he was restrained face-down on the pavement and gasping for air.

A three-count indictment unsealed Friday names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao.

Chauvin was also charged in a second indictment, stemming from the arrest and neck restraint of a 14-year-old boy in 2017.

neonzx wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 11:35 am

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 10:40 am He may have bigger worries than a state re-trial. Will the union (or whoever it is) continue pay his legal expenses indefinitely?

https://www.wjtv.com/news/national/3-ex ... ral-court/
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A federal grand jury has indicted the four former Minneapolis police officers involved in George Floyd’s arrest and death, accusing them of willfully violating the Black man’s constitutional rights as he was restrained face-down on the pavement and gasping for air.

A three-count indictment unsealed Friday names Derek Chauvin, Thomas Lane, J. Kueng and Tou Thao.

Chauvin was also charged in a second indictment, stemming from the arrest and neck restraint of a 14-year-old boy in 2017.

Sounds like these guys are having a bad year, don't you think? What are the federal sentencing guidelines if convicted on these charges? The article mentions they will run concurrent with the state convictions, but don't specify beyond that.

Conviction on a federal civil rights charge is punishable by up to life in prison or even the death penalty, but those stiff sentences are extremely rare and federal sentencing guidelines rely on complicated formulas that indicate the officers would get much less if convicted.

In Chauvin’s case, if the federal court uses second-degree murder as his underlying offense, he could face anywhere from 14 years to slightly more than 24 years, depending on whether he takes responsibility, said Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor and professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.