Do you know if chauvin paid for his attorney out of pocket? Or was it the police union? Gofundme?
Shit gets expensive quickly and I would bet he doesn’t have much left to pay an attorney for the appeals process. So it’s probably a pro bono job or funded by a GoFundMe… And if rittenhouse is any indication he might afford a real good attorney.
How much does it cost to defend yourself in a murder case?
How much did the state pay to bring a in a bunch of hired guns to prosecute Chauvin?
There is quite a bit of variation on this depending on geography; you’ll pay a lot more in NYC than in Smithville, Kansas. When I was doing criminal defense in a large metro area, it would have been between $50k and $100k for a murder case that went to trial. Some fine lawyers would do it for slightly less. Surprisingly, if the charge is murder, you’re often better off with a public defender than most of the private defense bar, at least in a major city; big city public defenders do murder defense all the time, and most of them know how to do it right. By contrast, most private attorneys just don’t get that many murder cases. I’d bet anything that Chauvin would have gotten a far better defense from one of Minneapolis’ seasoned public defenders than he did from this fellow who was the go-to lawyer for the police union.
This is interesting since it seems to be similar everywhere else. There’s just not much money in criminal law compared to other areas of practice, unlike what’s normally depicted on TV. Over here, where there’s a very low crime rate, big firms have lawyers with limited experience and small ones or individual practices that specialize in this normally consist of shitty lawyers.
No chance in hell. Not only on basis of population percentage but also on basis of local demographics as well as demographics of who the crime was committed against.
I have no idea how heavily they weigh this agreement. This surely can’t be the only juror in history to throw a trial for a loop after being accepted as “unobjectionable” via questioning. There has to be consideration given to the question but I have no clue how much.
I don’t think I support this in most trials regardless of the specific circumstances of this one. First because “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a question for conviction not for jurors, which are bandied over all the time. Second because there’s a significant portion of any population that can lie through their teeth convincingly. I don’t think it should be solely on the defense to deal with it.
No clue in hell lol. I look forward to learning
I have no idea whether he did or not, that’s waaaaay over my pay grade lol
This is absolutely blowing my mind. I would never have thought this.
I stress that this applies to big urban public defender offices with full-time criminal defense attorneys. There are some systems in America for providing appointed counsel for indigent defendants that are notoriously terrible. Many counties in the South, for instance, just appoint someone at random from the roll of local attorneys. So you can be facing a murder charge and get appointed an attorney who does wills or family law.
I’ve never heard about anything like this before. I’m not saying it isn’t true, I’m just saying I would love to hear more about this lawyer draft. Can you point me in a good direction?
Ive been told similar by “industry” folks. Court, and especially jury trials, are a very different ballgame than the normal law practice that 95% of lawyers practice. I think people would be shocked to hear how utterly incompetent the vast majority of lawyers would be if forced into a criminal trial situation in the next couple weeks… thats just not the environment or arena they practice in.
Yeah, thats fair. I should have said- I dont think there is enough there for the court to say the juror intentionally misled or was not impartial and then declare a mistrial. I have no idea if he intentionally misled.
In law school our professors called them the hungry hoard…lawyers with tiny practices that hung around the courthouse hoping to pick up extra work as public defenders.
This to me is the biggest sign of bullshit. The idea that Chauvin is prosecuted by the state when he was the state. The mayor, chief, governor, etc., should all have been on trial with him. If these cases really are related to systemic racism then the system should be on trial, not some working class representative of the system. Chauvin goes to prison but the system is still in place.
Open question to the group:
Would you be okay if one of your loved ones was subjected to a Chau-trial sometime in the future?
Angry mob threatening jurors? No big deal.
President weighing in? Oh well, that’s part of the process now.
California congresswomen flying out to your location to whip up the mob against you? Uh, freedom of speech I guess?
Wall-to-wall media coverage by people who’ve painted your loved one as a racist murderer for months? Well, Chauvin was white, Floyd was black. Case closed. He obviously had racist motives.
Activist jurors lying to get on the case? Well, who’s to say what activism is, anyway? It’s just a t-shirt with an image and message directly pertaining to the case at hand. He may not have understood what he was wearing.
Who here would want that kind of trial for their son or daughter?
I am no judge or lawyer, but I just don’t see how one could not question the impartiality of an individual wearing a shirt that says “get off our necks” in the context of a trial in which a cop was being tried for a killing that resulted from a kneeling on the neck.
The government mandates an impartial jury, I don’t see how they can claim that here. The burden is on the state to provide an impartial jury (because of the 6th amendment mandate).
I like it.
It’s true, and when you compare this case to O.J.’s you can really see the white privilege.
At least we can be sure the only biased member of the jury was the one that made his participation on the jury known. I’m sure investigating the juror that basically said, “George Floyd? Who is that?” during selection wouldn’t result in anything like this.
Edit:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/28/jury-chauvin-trial-george-floyd/
These people really were selected for their ability to deliver a guilty verdict.
Possibly semantics, but I think you mean it’s problematic the juror had a shirt with a saying on it attributed to the victim in the case.
Get off our necks isn’t any more problematic than having a shirt that says “don’t shoot me” and being on a jury for a gun related homicide.
Similar to what constitutes “reasonable doubt”, It seems like most “lay people” have unrealistically high standards for an impartial jury of peers, in addition to other aspects of the court/judicial system. In so much as I understand from talking with judges/prosocuters/clerks over the years.
I would argue it is more problematic, because the “don’t shoot me” sounds pretty generic, the “get off our necks” is specific to this case (like they made those shirts because of Floyd).
I have a high standard for reasonable doubt, because we already put away people who turn out to be not guilty of the crime. What should the balance be in regards to the ratio of innocent to guilty people who get sent to prison? IMO, our ratio is currently incorrect. I think we imprison to many innocents. I guess if the prosecution can’t prove something, I don’t think it should be a conviction. Is that too much to ask, that the prosecution prove guilt?
Many (most?) judges use sentencing as a way to moderate the consequences of a guilty verdict on cases where it isn’t cut/dry, FWIW.
the prosecution will never be able to prove something 100% or in the scientific sense. Which is why it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And I believe the standard for “reasonable doubt” is the same when convicting for theft or murder (nealdog correct me if I’m wrong).
What’s worse, convicting a possibly innocent man for rape or murder, or aquiting a likely guilty man of rape or murder? That’s a rabbit hole philosophical discussion haha.
Some cases are very close to 100% if we exclude things like solipsism.
I believe according to our justice system, the former is worse.
It seems that our standard is based on the “Blackstone’s Formulation” which says it is better to release 10 guilty than convict one innocent.