Derek Chauvin jury reaches verdict in George Floyd case

[El OchoCinco]

Probably not a whole lot. In my opinion it doesn’t seem very relevant as to whether or not they should add on years in this particular case. It might matter more if a father was abusing their mother in front of the children or something like that. A bigger factor is his position of authority. Isn’t that one?

Well it is not our opinion but what the judge feels. If there were cildren present or other factors he could bump it to 15 years or more if he wanted to.

 

[kmgilroy89]

Well it is not our opinion but what the judge feels. If there were cildren present or other factors he could bump it to 15 years or more if he wanted to.

It just doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. You're not supposed to just tack years on, because you don't like our history. Using police authority to commit a crime is much, much, much more relevant.

 

[kandlekid]

Dershowitz: Derek Chauvin Conviction Should Be Reversed on Appeal
https://www.breitbart.com/crime/202...onviction-should-be-reversed-on-appeal-biden/
What was done to George Floyd by Officer Chauvin was inexcusable, morally. But the verdict is very questionable, because of the outside influences of people like Al Sharpton, and people like Maxine Waters. Their threats and intimidation, and hanging the sword of Damocles over the jury, and basically saying if you don’t convict on the murder charge, on all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed, seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering the jury. So the judge himself said, this case may be reversed on appeal. And I think it might reversed on appeal. I think it should be reversed on appeal.
So I have no real confidence that this verdict — which may be correct in some ways — but I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law, rather than the influence of the crowd.

To me it sounds like Dershowitz agrees that Chauvin should have been found guilty, but the trial should have resulted in something like a mistrial. If in fact Chauvin was guilty, as the jury found, would not a reversal on appeal (simply due to outside influence) be an even greater miscarriage of justice? Of course this begs the question, how do you hermetically seal the jury on appeal, if you could not previously?

 

[Buy1Sell2]

To me it sounds like Dershowitz agrees that Chauvin should have been found guilty, but the trial should have resulted in something like a mistrial. If in fact Chauvin was guilty, as the jury found, would not a reversal on appeal be an even greater miscarriage of justice?

No. The greater good would be done by protecting the rest of society from the dangers of unfair trials and intimidated juries. Also, Dershowitz believes that the crime committed was second degree manslaughter only.

 

[kandlekid]

No. The greater good would be done by protecting the rest of society from the dangers of unfair trials and intimidated juries. Also, Dershowitz believes that the crime committed was second degree manslaughter only.

Ok. But if a jury acquits someone for the "greater good", has justice really been served? I think not.

 

[userque]

To me it sounds like Dershowitz agrees that Chauvin should have been found guilty, but the trial should have resulted in something like a mistrial. If in fact Chauvin was guilty, as the jury found, would not a reversal on appeal (simply due to outside influence) be an even greater miscarriage of justice?

What's the evidence that the jury was influenced?

There would be little miscarriage as a new trial would likely be the result; not a 'not guilty' verdict.

Of course this begs the question, how do you hermetically seal the jury on appeal, if you could not previously?

Who said you could not previously?

 

[userque]

Ok. But if a jury acquits someone for the "greater good", has justice really been served? I think not.

New trial is the likely result, IF an appeal is won.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Ok. But if a jury acquits someone for the "greater good", has justice really been served? I think not.

If a jury convicts someone for the wrong reasons, in this case fear and emotion, then the greater good of society is tremendously harmed. The convictions for 2nd and 3rd degree murder are unlawful kangaroo convictions at best.

 

[Tony Stark]

This will not be overturned on appeal.Judges will not set the precedent that a Congressmens words can overturn court verdicts.

 

[Cuddles]

This will not be overturned on appeal.Judges will not set the precedent that a Congressmens words can overturn court verdicts.

b.b.b.but GWB said otherwise?