Anonymous wrote:Chauvin says he can't make a statement because of some other pending legal issues, but gives his condolences to the Floyd family and says there will be some information released soon that he hopes gives them peace. WTF is he talking about?

" there will be some information released soon that . . . ." blah blah blah And then .... nothing.
It's straight from the playbook. Aren't you tired of this move?

Anonymous wrote:Chauvin says he can't make a statement because of some other pending legal issues, but gives his condolences to the Floyd family and says there will be some information released soon that he hopes gives them peace. WTF is he talking about?

Maybe he wrote a letter to them that won’t be released to them until appeals are over.

Perfectly fine I think. Of course CNN is going on and on about how it's a light sentence bc he'll only serve 2/3 of it (you can get 1/3 of a sentence reduced in Minn for good behavior) blah blah. But even in 15 yrs, he'll be 60 -- he gets out as a senior citizen. Perfectly fine sentence.

Finally.

Sentenced to 22.5 years.

Judge is talking now, sentencing coming.....

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching the sentencing?

Can you believe his moms statement?
When you sentence Derek, you’ll be sentencing me. I will not be able to give him our “special hug".

There's going to be one less competitor at MotherBoy this year, that's for sure.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone watching the sentencing?

Can you believe his moms statement?
When you sentence Derek, you’ll be sentencing me. I will not be able to give him our “special hug".

And not one mention or acknowledgment of George Floyd or his family and their loss. Oh, and she said Derek is her favorite kid. Wow, talk about a punch in the gut to her other children.

Unbelievealbe!

I think Brock Turner's parents said something similar with his '7 minutes' comment. And there was another parent of a murderer that will always stick in my mind who said her son wouldn't be able to get his nice dinner handmade by her anymore. People like this live in another reality.

Chauvin says he can't make a statement because of some other pending legal issues, but gives his condolences to the Floyd family and says there will be some information released soon that he hopes gives them peace. WTF is he talking about?

It's sentencing day

Anyone watching the sentencing?

Can you believe his moms statement?
When you sentence Derek, you’ll be sentencing me. I will not be able to give him our “special hug".

And not one mention or acknowledgment of George Floyd or his family and their loss. Oh, and she said Derek is her favorite kid. Wow, talk about a punch in the gut to her other children.

Unbelievealbe!

Anyone watching the sentencing?

My prediction: 10 years (max is 30)

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Attorney Eric Nelson has filed a motion for a new trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of murdering George Floyd last month.

Nelson claims the court violated Chauvin’s constitutional rights for several reasons, including not allowing the trial to move outside of Hennepin County, and not sequestering the jury the entire time. He also says the jury committed misconduct, and wants a hearing to throw out the verdict.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/05/05/derek-chauvins-attorney-files-motion-for-new-trial/

Link to blank Jury Questionnaire:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JurorQuestionnaire12222020.pdf

This was sent to prospective jurors ahead of (in-court, mostly publicly recorded) voir dire. Presumably some prospective jurors were excluded prior to questioning on the basis of their answers, although it would be partially speculation at this point as to what exactly would disqualify someone. Obviously we can use some common sense and the reasons that other prospective jurors were dismissed for cause on the record in court.

There are two questions that could potentially be meaningful. One is question 7:

Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s death?  Yes, me  Yes, someone close to meNo.
If you participated, explain how much you were involved.

This obviously specifies “in Minneapolis.” I don’t know why it doesn’t include “or anywhere else” but it plainly does not include that. So if a juror answered no but then attended some kind of demonstration in Washington DC, they could just mark no.

For some reason a similar question, minus the Minneapolis specification, appears in another section. Question 12:

Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality? YesNo

Following question 12, prospective jurors are asked how favorably they rate the statements “Black Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter.”

Question 12 does seem to frame things quite narrowly in terms of police use of force and brutality. So if you were at the March on Washington and didn’t perceive your involvement in the activities you attended to be about that, it seems you could say no. How objectively reasonable that is would probably require some more info at this point I think. But I definitely foresee no issues for the juror himself unless there’s some bombshell revelation of contemporaneous records that show he intended to mislead the court. Which I doubt.

From what I remember about Mitchell’s in court questioning, he said he’s seen police use more force than he thought was necessary but also knows cops who are “great guys.” He also said something along the lines of he didn’t think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd but he didn’t know why someone didn’t intervene. Nelson didn’t try to get him dismissed for cause or use a peremptory. Why? Total speculation but possible fear of a Batson challenge (where the state would challenge the attempt to get the juror dismissed by saying the dismissal was on the basis of race) or possibly defense interpreted some of Mitchell’s answers as potential sympathetic to Chauvin (not many prospective jurors said they knew MPD cops who were “great guys”, also if such a person came along had a connection to one of the four former officers on trial, they would have been dismissed).

What does it mean for a new trial? It’s probably not as easy as some online comments seem to be making it out but it’s early to tell without more info. Defense asked for more time today. Impeaching a verdict on juror testimony alone is very difficult. The Supreme Court has set very stringent limits on it, basically allowing it only where certain racial animus towards the defendant existed. So the defense will need more than just the statements made to the media so far about what happened during deliberations, at least as far as the statements I’ve been tracking.

Every juror has personal opinions and a personal life. The attorneys have every opportunity to ask potential jurors questions. As long as this guy didn't lie, it shouldn't be considered prejudice to the trial. I guarantee there's a rabid Fox news consumer on the jury too, and if the decision went the other way, it couldn't be said that it was because of rabid Fox news consumption.