Derek Chauvin found guilty on all counts in the murder of George Floyd

[laylalex 7,247]

Quote

 

The jury has found former police officer Derek Chauvin guilty on all counts in the murder of George Floyd last May.

Chauvin, 45, was found guilty of second- and third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

The judge asked each juror if the verdict was correct, thanked them and dismissed them. "I have to thank you, on behalf of the people of the state of Minnesota, for not only jury service, but heavy-duty jury service," Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill said.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/04/20/derek-chauvin-jury-reaches-verdict-george-floyd-death-live-updates/7298158002/

[Dashinka 23,247]

So when do the “mostly peaceful” riots start?

[yuna628 9,530]

Completely expected this verdict, and you could hear how the jury felt in their voices.

[laylalex 7,247]

Maybe there won't be riots? I've been watching coverage all afternoon from Minneapolis and it's been images of many relieved people.

 

The defense had a really hard hill to climb and the prosecution put on a really strong case. When I listened to explanations of what the charges were, I thought the jury was not going to convict him on the most serious one (murder 2) but would on the other two. 

[Dashinka 23,247]

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Maybe there won't be riots? I've been watching coverage all afternoon from Minneapolis and it's been images of many relieved people.

 

The defense had a really hard hill to climb and the prosecution put on a really strong case. When I listened to explanations of what the charges were, I thought the jury was not going to convict him on the most serious one (murder 2) but would on the other two. 

I don’t disagree, but I still find it hard to believe they could come to the conclusion there was intent for 2nd degree murder.  Anyway, it is what it is, I am sure there will be an appeal filed, maybe Maxine the Mouth will be called.  I do feel there is a question as to the feelings of the jury, I know I would have voted for conviction on the top count if I were on it given the pressure from the outside and the fact that the MSM was doing everything they could to try and dox the members.  I still think there will be riots and mayhem, but I suppose no one will actually notice now days.

[Dashinka 23,247]

17 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Completely expected this verdict, and you could hear how the jury felt in their voices.

Fear of reprisals?

[yuna628 9,530]

19 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Fear of reprisals?

No.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I don’t disagree, but I still find it hard to believe they could come to the conclusion there was intent for 2nd degree murder.  

In Minnesota, second degree murder does not require intent to kill. An unintentional killing may be sufficient to support a charge of second degree murder if the homicide occurs as a result of the commission of a felony, i.e., pursuant to the felony murder rule. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1).

 

The felony here was Chauvin's felony assault of Floyd. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.223 subd. 1 (third degree felony assault), which provides: "[w]hoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both." (Emphasis added.) The test for assault itself is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1: "[w]hoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another."

 

So what the prosecutors had to prove was not an intent to kill, but rather the intent to commit an assault -- and a simple assault at that. Note that for third degree felony assault -- the predicate felony of the second degree murder charge -- there is no need to prove intent to inflict substantial bodily harm. Only intent to commit the simple assault itself must be proven. Putting it together, the prosecutors had to prove that Chauvin either intentionally committed an act (the knee on the neck) with an intent to cause fear in Floyd of immediate bodily harm or death, or intentionally inflicted (or attempted to inflict) bodily harm on Chauvin by applying a knee to Floyd's neck.

 

If you think this is a low hurdle, hey, I'm with you. It surprised me, but the law is the law. If the jury instructions properly set forth all the elements of the charge, and there were sufficient facts presented by the prosecution to prove the elements were present, the jury reached the correct verdict. 

 

Now of course Chauvin will appeal -- his attorneys would be remiss if they did not. But it is highly unlikely that Maxine Waters' comments will be sufficient to disturb the verdict here. There is an excellent article in Slate today on this topic: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/maxine-waters-derek-chauvins-impartial-jury.html Think of Slate what you will, but in terms of its legal reporting, it often strikes an excellent midpoint between accessibility and wonkishnesss. (I like the wonkishness myself.) 

 

And in looking for "who thinks the author of that Maxine Waters article sucks biggie style" I came across this chap who writes regularly on the law, ethics and religion, and has had some pieces published at the Federalist. I don't think our politics coincide, but he has a brilliant rundown on the charges that is worth reading if you find a few nibbles at Slate too rich: https://www.jamesjheaney.com/2021/04/20/breaking-down-the-chauvin-charges/

 

 

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Would like to hear Maven's thoughts about this analysis, from an attorney:

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/04/20/after-the-derek-chauvin-verdict-initial-thoughts-and-what-comes-next-n365446

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Dashinka 23,247]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Would like to hear Maven's thoughts about this analysis, from an attorney:

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/04/20/after-the-derek-chauvin-verdict-initial-thoughts-and-what-comes-next-n365446

Interesting analysis, time will tell.  With the huge amount of jobs available out there, I think the last paragraph may come to pass.

[Dashinka 23,247]

6 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

In Minnesota, second degree murder does not require intent to kill. An unintentional killing may be sufficient to support a charge of second degree murder if the homicide occurs as a result of the commission of a felony, i.e., pursuant to the felony murder rule. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1).

 

The felony here was Chauvin's felony assault of Floyd. See, Minn.Stat. § 609.223 subd. 1 (third degree felony assault), which provides: "[w]hoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both." (Emphasis added.) The test for assault itself is set forth in Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1: "[w]hoever does any of the following commits an assault and is guilty of a misdemeanor: (1) commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or (2) intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon another."

 

So what the prosecutors had to prove was not an intent to kill, but rather the intent to commit an assault -- and a simple assault at that. Note that for third degree felony assault -- the predicate felony of the second degree murder charge -- there is no need to prove intent to inflict substantial bodily harm. Only intent to commit the simple assault itself must be proven. Putting it together, the prosecutors had to prove that Chauvin either intentionally committed an act (the knee on the neck) with an intent to cause fear in Floyd of immediate bodily harm or death, or intentionally inflicted (or attempted to inflict) bodily harm on Chauvin by applying a knee to Floyd's neck.

 

If you think this is a low hurdle, hey, I'm with you. It surprised me, but the law is the law. If the jury instructions properly set forth all the elements of the charge, and there were sufficient facts presented by the prosecution to prove the elements were present, the jury reached the correct verdict. 

 

Now of course Chauvin will appeal -- his attorneys would be remiss if they did not. But it is highly unlikely that Maxine Waters' comments will be sufficient to disturb the verdict here. There is an excellent article in Slate today on this topic: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/maxine-waters-derek-chauvins-impartial-jury.html Think of Slate what you will, but in terms of its legal reporting, it often strikes an excellent midpoint between accessibility and wonkishnesss. (I like the wonkishness myself.) 

 

And in looking for "who thinks the author of that Maxine Waters article sucks biggie style" I came across this chap who writes regularly on the law, ethics and religion, and has had some pieces published at the Federalist. I don't think our politics coincide, but he has a brilliant rundown on the charges that is worth reading if you find a few nibbles at Slate too rich: https://www.jamesjheaney.com/2021/04/20/breaking-down-the-chauvin-charges/

 

 

Interesting articles.  It will be hard to say what influenced the jury unless any of them (outside of their best interest) decide to talk.  I tend to think with them not being sequestered for the entire trial, that there may have been some intimidating factors in their decision.  I know if I were on that jury, I would have worried about the potential outcome for me or my family had I voted to only convict on one or both of the lesser charges, but not the top charge.  Heck the media did all but publish names and addresses, and certainly there are others who knew who the jurors were.  We are moving more and more to mob rule and that is or can also impact the legal system.  Look no further than Brooklyn Center where a city council member said they voted to fire the city manager out of mob fear when the city manager simply suggested we have to afford the police officer due process.  Then there was a stellar legal analyst on CNN that said the reason the accused in the case being discussed here was convicted is because he did not prove his innocence.  It is scary when a political leader, and a supposed legal expert are now suggesting we should move to a mentality of presumed guilt (I guess only in some cases at least to start).  Beyond that, I am still having trouble justifying the top count conviction.  Even in your analysis, the top count does require a beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to commit assault.  Since the accused did not testify, it is hard to say what the intentions were other than to restrain a much larger person hopped up on drugs.  From the second article, the analysis on the 2nd degree manslaughter seems to leave open that if Floyd had not resisted, but was simply cuffed (restrained) and then died in the back seat of the squad car, the LEOs could be charged accordingly.

 

The appeals will be interesting, but of course those will take years.

[Crazy Cat 39,257]

I think he will get a re-trial.......thanks to Maxine Waters.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[OriZ 3,157]

15 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I don’t disagree, but I still find it hard to believe they could come to the conclusion there was intent for 2nd degree murder.  Anyway, it is what it is, I am sure there will be an appeal filed, maybe Maxine the Mouth will be called.  I do feel there is a question as to the feelings of the jury, I know I would have voted for conviction on the top count if I were on it given the pressure from the outside and the fact that the MSM was doing everything they could to try and dox the members.  I still think there will be riots and mayhem, but I suppose no one will actually notice now days.

it's definitely a bs, politically motivated, based on public perception and pressure and detached from actual facts verdict. Maybe should have had Casey Anthony's lawyer. One thing I do know is that I would not have voted for conviction on the top count no matter what amount of pressure...I would have shamelessly hung the whole thing. Manslaughter is about it for me.

[yuna628 9,530]

Could any of the esteemed potential armchair jurors in this thread tell us if they watched the actual trial?