Judge John Wilson analyzes the controversial trial of Derek Chauvin. Throughout American history, the right to a fair trial has always been held sacrosanct, no matter how heinous the crime or how outraged the public may be. Was that concept violated in this case?
On April 20, 2021, a Minneapolis jury found Police Officer Derek Chauvin guilty of murdering George Floyd. Not since the OJ Simpson verdict in 1995 has a jury’s decision been more anticipated by our nation. Or more divisive.
Officer Chauvin was charged with, and ultimately found guilty of, three separate counts under Minnesota state law;
– Section 609.19, Murder in the Second Degree, which reads at Subdivision 2, ” Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (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…”
– Section 609.195, Murder in the Third Degree, which states at subsection (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.” and
– Section 609.205, Manslaughter in the Second Degree, which states at subdivision 1 that a person is guilty of this charge when “by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”
Was the jury correct? Is Officer Chauvin actually guilty of the charges for which he was convicted?
Almost everyone in the world has seen the video of George Floyd’s arrest, and the actions of Officer Chauvin. The jury had the opportunity to view that same video, to hear the witnesses, medical examiners, and whatever other evidence that was presented by both the prosecution and the defense. After doing so, they discharged their duty, and rendered a verdict.
But was that verdict based upon the evidence presented alone? Or were there other factors present which impacted the jury’s ability to remain fair and impartial?
generic cialis levitra The chain slings offer a great strength and reliability. You began to lose cialis pharmacy online files; you get millions of pop-ups, and spammers trying to sell you pills. Kamagra is purchase generic viagra raindogscine.com one of the best medicines of curing the erectile dysfunction of male reproduction and sometime the proof says this is similar effective on women sex. To bring the wild fire of impotency effects in to control and to check out its bad impacts many anti-impotency drug structures were already cheap sildenafil tablets introduced in the market, ED is no longer a problem.Almost to a certainty, the answer is obvious – Derek Chauvin did not get a fair trial by an impartial jury.
During Jury selection, the City of Minneapolis settled a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of George Floyd for $27 million dollars. As noted by the Associated Press, “Ted Sampsell-Jones, a criminal law expert at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, said it’s additional pretrial publicity that is ‘bad for the defense’ and could lead some jurors to think guilt has already been decided.'” Yet, the trial judge, Peter Cahill, refused a defense motion to either delay the trial, or more importantly, to change the venue of the trial from Minneapolis.
“The record-breaking payout, which is still being finalized, led Cahill to re-interview several jurors and dismiss two after Chauvin’s attorney Eric Nelson…argued that news of the settlement could prejudice the mostly seated jury…(Cahill said that) while he was surprised to see the impact of the settlement on jurors, he still didn’t think time or distance would improve the fairness of the trial. ‘Unfortunately, I think the pretrial publicity in this case will continue no matter how long we continue it,’ he said. ‘And as far as change of venue, I do not think that would give the defendant any kind of a fair trial beyond what we are doing here today. I don’t think there is any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been subjected to extreme amounts of publicity on this case.’”
Under this cloud, jury selection continued, and the trial commenced.
As reported by the Associated Press, “More than 3,000 National Guard soldiers, along with police officers, state police, sheriffs deputies and other law enforcement personnel have flooded (Minneapolis) in recent days, with a verdict looming in the trial of Derek Chauvin… Concrete barriers, chain-link fences and barbed wire now ring parts of downtown Minneapolis so that authorities can quickly close off the courthouse where the trial is being held. It’s become normal in recent days to pass convoys of desert-tan military vehicles on nearby highways, and stumble across armed men and women standing guard… Meanwhile hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of stores and other buildings have been boarded up across the city…behind all the security are the days of violence that began with protests over Floyd’s death…City officials estimate the city suffered roughly $350 million in damage, mostly to commercial properties.”
One tool the Court can use to insure a fair trial is to sequester a jury; that is, keep them separated from the general public from their selection until the end of the trial. The Chauvin’s defense attorney asked for the sequestration of the jury before the trial started, but that motion was denied by the court. During the trial, “(a)fter a fatal police shooting near Minneapolis…former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s attorney expressed concern that jurors in his murder trial could be swayed by the events… Defense attorney Eric Nelson asked that jurors be questioned on what they had heard about the police shooting of 20-year-old Daunte Wright in Brooklyn Center, a nearby city in Hennepin County. Unrest followed the shooting: Police deployed tear gas and flash-bang grenades to clear protesters who had gathered outside the Brooklyn Center Police Department. One of the jurors lives in Brooklyn Center, and others have ties to the city, Nelson said. He said jurors should have already been sequestered due to the high-profile nature of the case and its tendency to evoke strong emotions… Nelson also expressed concern that jurors might be made nervous to deliver a verdict with which the public does not agree.” Once more, the motion to sequester the jury was denied.
The Report concludes tomorrow
Photo: Pixabay