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.
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