I’m not sure what jurisdiction you’re practicing in, but in mine, there is no law prohibiting a politician from commenting on a pending case, either criminal or civil.
1 Like
I see now from your earlier comments that you’re in England. Sorry for my confusion.
1 Like
What are the chances of a revision of the case by higher courts? Is this even a possibility?
I’m not extremely familiar how you US people handle it, but given the circumstances that have also been discussed in this thread, it seems in European countries this verdict would not be accepted and higher courts would reopen the case.
If the defense can prove that any of the comments made influenced even one juror, it is possible that the courts could declare that a retrial at the lower court is needed. An appeal is not a guarantee of acquittal.
2 Likes
It is certainly a possibility, though I’ll leave an opinion about the likelihood of such an appellate ruling for someone who is familiar with Minnesota courts (I am not). The failure to grant a motion for change of venue seems like an egregious error to me, as is the failure to sequester the jury once media coverage became so pervasive and it was clear that riots would ensue if Chauvin wasn’t convicted.
There is another mechanism that Chauvin may explore, and that is a “petition for post-conviction relief.” This is not a direct appeal, but a petition filed in the trial court setting forth reasons for overturning the conviction. This tool is often used for an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, that is, an allegation that one’s attorney’s performance was so bad that the defendant didn’t get even the minimal Constitutionally-guaranteed level of legal counsel. I would expect Chauvin to pursue that avenue as well. His attorney, Eric Nelson, committed a number of blunders that were just inexplicable. To give but one example, Nelson badly misstated the law in his closing argument, thereby losing all credibility with the jury when the prosecutor pointed out Nelson’s errors.
4 Likes
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “revision” but it is almost certain that the case will be appealed and at least make an appearance before a higher court.
Edit - nealdog had a way better post. Leave law to the lawyers lol.
1 Like
I did not know this (didn’t watch arguments). Wow.
Are there any reasonable methods of hardening anonymity of jurors, without turning it into some nebulous and secret tribunal?
1 Like
I’m not really sure to be honest. I’ll leave that up to lawyers here. My feeling is an appeal has a chance of being successful.
Yes. That’s often done in organized crime, drug cartel, and terrorism trials. That will likely be the state’s counterargument on appeal - “Look, people feel apprehensive about sitting on a jury for a trial of a member of Al Qaeda, but we still proceed with those trials and take reasonable measures to protect the jurors. This case is no different in that regard.” To me, the difference here is that there is nowhere in America where people feel less apprehensive about serving on a jury in a case involving Al Qaeda, so no particular place is better than anywhere else in that regard. By contrast, there are probably communities in Minnesota whose residents would have had much less fear of rioting in the event of an acquittal.
1 Like
Loved this.
1 Like
Babylon Bee - yes, but it could be any number of reprehensible er…reputable media. And without the slightest trace of regret on their part.
What would constitute such proof? Does the jury member have to testify that he was influenced?
I talked to my wife about this last night (she is a law student currently) and she said they wouldn’t necessarily have to compel a juror to testify if they can prove there is essentially a non-zero chance that any one of the jurors could have seen influencing media. The defense could also argue that the comments made by Waters and others threatening violence is akin to jury intimidation.
My wife thinks the biggest issue is that the jury was not securely sequestered when the trial started. The appellate court basically has three choices, affirm the verdict, overturn the verdict, or remand back to lower courts for a new trial with better instructions to the lower court.
2 Likes
Well, if they weren’t compelled then the system worked all on it’s own. The protests and riots were for naught.
1 Like
All around the world, it is not uncommon for Executive Command to throw operational police to the wolves. They are basically politicians.
2 Likes
Some of these are pretty funny:
1 Like
I see White House questioning latest shooting of black woman actively attempting to stab 2 different people and recorded on body cam.
The lawlessness being cultivated by Dems is bizarre.
3 Likes
Some of the cases that these people hang their hats on to make their point are head scratchers.
2 Likes
Many of them are doing a large disservice to their causes when they lump in justified killings with unjustified ones. Ma’kiah was attempting armed assault. Why lump her (or guys like Mike Brown) in with guys like Philando Castile (who’s killing was untenable)?
I think it is a desire to “pump up the numbers”. I have seen it work on many people, but it isn’t going to work on all people, and it is easy to point out. Just pointing out the killings that are not justified is enough to convince many people that police reform of some sorts is needed (stuff like body cams, better training).
2 Likes