Posted on 04/21/2021 7:28:09 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
The conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on all counts in the death of George Floyd "might be reversed on appeal" — likely by the U.S. Supreme Court — and it "should be," Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV after Tuesday's ruling.
"The judge himself said this case may be reversed on appeal, and I think it might be reversed on appeal," Dershowitz said on Newsmax TV's "Spicer & Co." Tuesday, shortly after a jury in Minneapolis returned guilty verdicts against Chauvin on counts of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If we had a functioning criminal justice system, Joe Biden would be in jail and Derek Chauvin would be free. . . .
I think they both agree that it will be upheld and Dersoshitz is proving my point. Lawyers are great actors.
There is no doubt that this trial was unfair, it can’t be given the interloper in the white house publicly stating that he prays the jury returns the right verdict, let alone maxine waters crap.. and BLM...
However, will the verdicts be overturned?
The key to this from where I sit, is was what this officer did felonious assault... if it was, the murder 2 is never going to be turned over on appeal.
If however that charge is overturned there there is no way he can be guilty of murder 2.
This will play out on appeal for years.
How would the trial played out had it just been a local story as it should have been, without every frickin’ politician and two-bit celebrity weighing in on it.
Does “reversed on appeal” mean the verdict will be changed by an appeal court to not guilty, or that the verdict will be vacated and there will be another trial?
The latter I think by a slam dunk.
Dershowitz has one of the sharpest legal minds in the entire country and is almost always right in his judicial prognostications, all while contending with his abhorrence of the media spotlight.
I would only point out that Jeanine Pirro is on double-secret probation from Fox because of things she said in the aftermath of the election. It’s clear that the coverage directive from management has been received by Fox news contributors.
IOW, what Pirro thinks and what she says on TV are not necessarily identical.
A new trial may be ordered?
No appellate courts either confirm verdicts or vacate verdicts and remand (or dismiss with prejudice, depending on the circumstances). They won’t replace a jury verdict with one of their own.
Generally, appellate courts give jury decisions incredibly broad latitude. Cases are almost never reversed on appeal based upon an appellate court’s finding that the evidence didn’t merit the verdict the jury reached. The chances of that happening in this case are zero.
Instead, Chauvin’s lawyers will have to demonstrate that the judge, rather than the jury, committed a reversible error, either in the application of the law as instructed to the jurors or in once of the decision he made during the course of the trial, like refusing the defense’s many motions (ie change of venue request).
Meanwhile he sits in prison. In protective custody. Solitary confinement. If I was him that’s where I would want to be.
In Pirro’s defense, the jury had sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. His attorney underestimated the impact of the video and relied entirely on his use of force experts and medical experts to refute what the jurors saw with their own eyes. The reason the verdicts came in so fast is because the only evidence they needed was the video of Chauvin dying while crying for his mama.
I doubt if they even discussed any of the expert testimony.
Chauvin’s attorney had an obligation to refute the video and the only witness available to do that was Chauvin himself. He needed to take the stand to give his side of what was in his mind for those nine minutes. He didn’t. In the minds of the jury they saw an evil man with evil intentions. Chauvin’s failure to tell his story sealed his fate.
Yes you have a right not to testify. But when your state of mind is the determining factor between involuntary manslaughter and murder, you’d better get up there and tell YOUR story.
Bad decision. I guess Chauvin was good at making bad decisions.
What's the difference? George Floyd's nickname for his girlfriend was - wait for it - 'Momma.' He was calling for his girlfriend as he was also calling for another name (which escapes me right now). Who was the other name he was calling for? His drug dealer who refused to testify and the state refused to immunize because his testimony would have wholly undermined their entire case.
Agreed. The only one who knew what was going through his mind was him. If he didn’t tell it, who else would?
Would the cross examination been tough? Sure, but even then, he was still the expert at what was going on in his own mind.
My personal opinion is that nothing would have gotten him off the 3rd degree murder charge.
Obviously you are not an attorney.
If the only evidence the prosecution put on was the film and Chauvin didn’t take the stand to give the jury evidence of his state of mind during those nine minutes, then the jury would still have come back with the same verdict.
He was not convicted of intentional murder. He was convicted of having a disregard for the life of Floyd. The video was more than sufficient evidence to support that inference. Chauvin did nothing to refute that evidence. His case relied entirely on expert witness testimony about drugs and police procedure. The jury probably didn’t take any of that into consideration. They had the video. They watched as Chauvin publicly swore that he was not taking the stand “on the grounds that his testimony might incriminate him.”
Yeah, the jury was admonished to disregard the fact that he refused to take the stand, but they didn’t. They couldn’t. They never do.
Chauvin closed the door on involuntary manslaughter. The only verdict available after his refusal to take the stand and say it was an accident was murder.
Yes the jury was probably intimidated. But their verdict under the circumstances was not unreasonable. It will not be overturned.
Janine obviously thinks that trial by mob is a-ok? Another reason that I have tuned out of fox!
Chauvin should have testified. The jury was stuck on stupid of 9 minutes and what they think he looked like and what they assume was in his head. He had nothing to lose knowing he was not getting a fair trial.
How many times has the Professor made the correct call since Nov 3?
one thing about Alan D, he can often be very honest (especially for a far leftie)
gotta give him some credit for this!
I've read some who are talking about this going to the US Supreme Court. No way. On what grounds? No one is talking of errors of law. The only possible avenue for an appeal at this point is the tampering/intimidation accusation leveled at Rep Waters by the trial judge. My understanding is that such a process would start just one step above this trial judge, so that would be within the state of Minnesota. And it would wend its way to the Minnesota Supreme Court if anything. The US Scotus wouldn't overturn a state supreme court on a jury tampering determination.
And they certainly wouldn't want to touch this political hot potato. Chauvin's best bet at this point is to become a warrior for Antifa while in prison and hope someone lets him out so he can cause mayhem. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.