The Chauvin Appeal: How The Comments Of The Court and The Prosecutors Could Raise Challenges Going Forward

Below is my column in The Hill on two issues that arose on the final day of the trial of Derek Chauvin that could now feature prominently in any appeal. There will likely be an array of conventional appellate issues from the elements of the murder counts to the sufficiency of the evidence. Obviously, any appeal will wait until after sentencing, which will take many weeks. However, two issues were highlighted on the final day which could play a role in the appeal even if the odds are against Chauvin. The first on the denial of a venue change and the sequestering of the jury is very difficult make work on appeal. However, there are strong arguments to be made in this case.  I believe Judge Cahill should have granted the venue change and also sequestered this jury. It is not clear if the court polled the jury on trial coverage, particularly after the inflammatory remarks of Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.). However, there are credible grounds for challenging how this jury may have been influenced by the saturation of coverage of the trial as well as rioting in the area.

Here is the column:

The final day of the Derek Chauvin trial in Minneapolis seemed at times to be a remake of the 1981 neo-noir film, “True Confessions.” Call it “True Concessions.” Judge Peter Cahill acknowledged that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) may have given the defense a basis to overturn any conviction, while prosecutors seemed to drive a stake through the heart of their cases against three other officers charged in the death of George Floyd. And it all played out on live television.

Damage Below the Waters Line

Rep. Waters ignited a firestorm of controversy by flying to Minnesota to tell protesters to remain in the streets and fight for “justice,” to be “more confrontational,” despite days of rioting, looting and other violence. She said no verdict in the Chauvin trial would be accepted except a conviction for first-degree murder — a demand that might be a tad difficult to satisfy since Chauvin is not charged with first-degree murder. All of this as the jury literally headed off to deliberate.

Some of us immediately noted that Waters single-handedly succeeded in undermining not just the Chauvin case but her own case against former President Trump. Waters, one of several House members suing Trump for inciting violence on Jan. 6, is now his best witnesses against her lawsuit. Where she charged that Trump sought to incite violence and intimidate Congress, Waters is being denounced for inciting violence and intimidating the trial court.

One of those denouncing Waters was Judge Cahill, who declared in open court that “I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. If they want to give their opinions, they should do so … in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution.” Calling such comments “abhorrent,” Cahill added this haymaker: “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

His statement was not just a criticism but a concession that Waters’ comments could not have come at a worse time or put the court in a worse position. Some of us have criticized Cahill — who has done an otherwise outstanding job — for not changing the trial’s venue or sequestering the jury. Those rulings came back to haunt him as protests grew before the trial and then exploded with the killing of Daunte Wright in nearby Brooklyn Center, Minn. One of the Chauvin jurors lives in Brooklyn Center, where rioting and looting occurred even before Waters flew in to throw gasoline on the fire.

Cahill denied a defense motion for a new trial but acknowledged that Waters’ comments magnified the appellate challenges in sustaining any conviction. Such statements alone are unlikely to overturn a conviction — indeed, such motions are notoriously hard to win — but Waters has made it far more difficult for prosecutors in the case. The tragic irony is that Waters could be used to overturn the very conviction she demanded. If that happens, it is unlikely that rioters will go to her home or burn businesses in her district. Those crimes will be focused in Minnesota but could spend across the country, too.

The danger for unrest may be greater due to the array of charges. It is not clear that a manslaughter conviction will satisfy protesters if it is accompanied by acquittals on murder. This was always a stronger manslaughter than a murder case. More importantly, adding the murder charges created a potential flashpoint for protests with any acquittal or later reversal on appeal. Moreover, while total acquittal seems unlikely, there is a possibility of a mix of acquittals and a hung jury that could ignite further rioting.

Prosecuting the Powerless?

If Waters was undermining any conviction of Chauvin, the prosecutors themselves seemed to be undermining any prosecution of the other officers. In one of the trial’s most surprising moment, prosecutor Steve Schleicher seemed to exonerate the other three officers in order to further incuplate Chauvin.  In his closing argument, Schleicher declared that Chauvin “had the power, and the other officers, the bystanders, were powerless.”

Prosecuting the powerless is not usually part of the oath of district attorneys. What was striking about Schleicher’s statement is that the cases against the other officers depend on a conviction in this case. As discussed previously, prosecutors structured the cases against all four officers like an inverted pyramid; Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao are charged as aiders and abettors to Chauvin’s alleged murder or manslaughter. If Chauvin is acquitted or the jury deadlocks on the charges, their prosecutions would then collapse.

Now, prosecutors have admitted that the three other officers were as powerless as bystanders on the street. The standard for aiding and abetting is itself not particularly demanding, since it covers anyone who “intentionally aids, advises, hires, counsels, or conspires with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.” However, proving such a crime can be more difficult, particularly given a chaotic crime scene.

Schleicher’s concession adds to an already difficult case because the other officers did take steps that can be cited by their defense attorneys as seeking to help Floyd. The officers repeatedly called for an ambulance, and Lane, a new officer on the force, attempted to deescalate the situation. When Floyd pleaded, “Please don’t shoot me, man,” Lane replied: “I’m not shooting you, man.” When Floyd struggled not to get into a police car and said he could not breathe, Lane offered to sit with him, roll down the windows and turn on the air conditioning. It also was Lane — who had only been on the force a couple of days — who urged Chauvin to move Floyd from the knee-restraint position.

Schleicher’s words can be cited in defense pretrial motions to dismiss the case. While it will be more difficult to introduce such concessions from the prosecution into the actual trial of the three remaining officers, it could make it more difficult for this prosecution team to appear in those other cases— particularly Schleicher, who would have to argue the exact opposite to another jury of what he argued before this jury. And that never sits particularly well with a trial court.

Neither Waters nor the prosecution seemed concerned over how their words would impact this or later cases in the killing of George Floyd. Whatever benefit these statements may have brought, their true costs could be prohibitive as Minnesota struggles with the resulting uncertainties and unrest.

109 thoughts on “The Chauvin Appeal: How The Comments Of The Court and The Prosecutors Could Raise Challenges Going Forward”

  1. Keith Ellison and George Soros didn’t get what they wanted. They sent Maxine out to shake up the troops and then the jury messed up the plans by finding him guilty as charged. The riots were supposed to be nationwide by now. They’ll find another way. How come we never hear anyone calling out the parent (s) of these kids who are out at 2 am, with guns? 13 YO no less. Where is Joe (we know where he is) and Kamala. They should be speaking out about these “kids of color” and their behavior. They aren’t real leaders, just power seekers.

    1. They don’t really want nationwide riots and unrest anymore. To foreign observers, the “protests” during Trump’s term looked like color revolutions used to
      depose elected leaders around the globe.

    2. @Big Dog,
      That’s a bit cynical. There may be some truth there. Or maybe Maxine Waters wanted to stir the pot on her own. Perhaps she sees greater aspirations?

      The judge should have declared a mistrial, and then charged Waters w juror tampering. Same with other protest leaders who had gone on TV saying give us a guilty verdict or we’ll burn the city down… That’s not protected speech.

      The problem is that the MSM would attack the courts, and praise Waters. Just as Pelsoi has done, in her calling Floyd a hero.

      Break the law, resist arrest, die in the process, you’re now a hero.

      That’s what our society has become.

    3. George Soros isn’t involved in this. How bizarre for you to bring his name up with Ellison’s.

      1. “George Soros isn’t involved in this.”

        How do you know? Or is this just one of those statements you pick out of thin air?

  2. Broken families = Broken society

    Hunter Biden and his infamous crack pipe picture, dozens of drug relapses, failed marriages, fathering children he later discards, lack of employable skills and hence depending on the government (FBI, DOJ, Daddy) to rescue his sorry entitled ash, these are all a trend of failed offspring from failure parents. Joe Biden spent 47 years in politics pursuing wealth and power but produced moral cripples as children. Now Joe is a victim of elder abuse: demented, confused, pitiful propped up by power hungry assistants

    The collapse of the family unit guarantees the collapse of a society. Black, white, rich, poor, Asian, Latino, disabled or able, where familial nurturing love is absent, you get a broken child, a broken adult, a George Floyd, ANTIFA, BLM, Molotov cocktail thrower, ad nauseam.

    No government handout, program or legislation will replace the absolute importance of having responsible, loving grown up parents to care and raise their offspring into functioning, healthy, responsible adults

    1. You bring up a good point, that the break down in the atomic family has more influence on the future of the members of the household as they mature.
      You can blame the unintended consequences of the welfare system. Yes, the well intended liberals in the late 60’s and 70’s incentivized urban unwed mothers to keep the father out of the picture as a way to get more welfare money. The more kids, the more money… after all, cheaper by the dozen.

      Those who escape this cycle do so because of a strong atomic family unit.

      To be clear, its economics / culture and not race which are driving this .

      1. We hear that same contention repeated over and over but has anyone really stopped to think it through? The average welfare check in the United States is $450 per month (according to Google). Do you seriously believe that a woman would rather have a $450 welfare check than a responsible husband who works every day and assists with raising the children? It seems to me that a husband who isn’t worth $450 per month isn’t worth much! He’s either violent, someone who uses the family food money to buy drugs, or overall more trouble than he’s worth. Whites have some delusion that there’s some untapped inventory of black men out there willing to be responsible fathers, but black women would rather have a welfare check. Total hogwash! Blacks themselves know that these men are simply not marriage material. A female of any race will not forgo having a family because there are no men in her orbit who are willing or able to assume the role of husband and father. She’ll have children with Deonte or Jatarius and live off welfare, while he eeks out a living selling drugs and committing strong-armed robberies. And should they ever decide to get married, he’s not going to turn into a black “Father Knows Best” character. He’ll stay the same pants sagging thug; be a horrible example for his children, and eventually land in prison. Sorry white folks, you can’t project your life onto ghetto blacks. Like everyone else, they make choices based on the best available options. The failure of fatherhood is more about failed men than anything else.

        1. TIN attempts to knock down the fatherless argument without explaining why there are so many more worthless black men than white men. If welfare isn’t to blame, what is? Blacks were pretty successful BEFORE the “Great Society” handouts began and DESPITE real (not pretend, like now) Jim Crow.

          1. Ever been to California? Homelessness is primarily a white male problem. It’s virtually all white and black males. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an Asian homeless person, and a Hispanic would be very rare. These men can’t take care of themselves, much less a family. So why are white and black men failing in society? I believe it’s primarily the result of drugs and permissive, self-indulgent sub-cultures. American culture prior to the “Great Society” legislation, which was drafted in 1964, cannot be compared to now. Look at some old movies from the early 1960s, look at photos in newspapers and magazines. It was a very different world. Men have failed over the past half-century for cultural and economic reasons. The massive drug abuse, the exporting of jobs, the importing of cheap labor to take jobs that used to go to black and white males, the decline in church attendance, the mainstreaming of the lowest, trashiest cultural behaviors, etc. The file, profane, violent rap music that’s streaming on the airwaves now would not have been allowed in the early 60s. The fact is, American culture has degraded considerably in the past 50 years and we are reaping the results.

    2. On college campuses, any mention of “single parent families” is considered a discriminatory discourse.

  3. It’s been a long tome since law school, but that even as a 1L, II would have recognized that a change of venue and sequestration was necessary for the elements of a fair trial. The outcome would more than likely have remained the same; however, essential fairness in any trial is worth the effort.

    1. Change of venue?
      To where? Mars?

      No matter where they changed the venue… the riots would occur, the protests would occur, and Maxine Waters would have occurred.

      I agree with you, but I don’t know if it would have mattered. At least now you have a ground for appeal on that issue.

      1. There’s no perfect venue, but I have relatives in Northern Minnesota. In those small communities in the north, only miles from the Canadian border, they obviously wouldn’t be as concerned with rioting in Minneapolis as the people who actually live there. There are reasonably large cities in central Minn, as well as on the western border of the state which are closer to North Dakota than Minneapolis. Bottom line, there were a host of alternatives. It is manifestly unreasonable to think that jurors who go home every night in Minneapolis, smelling the burning buildings and concerned about the safety of their families, could render an unbiased verdict.

        1. If the former home of one of the defense witnesses who lived in California can be found and vandalized with a pig’s head and pig’s blood, the home of jurors in rural northern Minnesota can be found as well. Additionally, would the people in those towns wish to deliver a verdict that would set afire cities not only in Minnesota, but all over the US and cause unrest all over the world? That would be a heavy burden for anyone.

          After the nearly year long media barrage, there was nowhere in the world where Chauvin could get a fair trial, really. I’m hesitant to type this, but the only fair outcome for him would be to just drop the charges entirely with a long statement from the bench as to why. That may be the only message that the media and activists might hear as to why to turn down the volume from 11 to 1 if they actually want a trial to convict those they wish to send to prison.

          1. Chauvin offered to plead guilty to 3d degree murder prior to the trial, but the prosecution refused. They wanted a show trial for political purposes. So any subsequent rioting was a risk that the State of Minnesota was willing to subject their citizens to.

            1. “…Attorney General William Barr personally blocked the plea deal last year, officials said.”

              https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-third-degree-2deefbc803665f808676fbbb8a131390

              https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-third-degree-2deefbc803665f808676fbbb8a131390

              MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was prepared to plead guilty to third-degree murder in George Floyd’s death before then-Attorney General William Barr personally blocked the plea deal last year, officials said.

              The deal would have averted any potential federal charges, including a civil rights offense, as part of an effort to quickly resolve the case to avoid more protests after protests and riots damaged a swath of south Minneapolis, according to two law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the talks. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the talks.

              Barr rejected the deal in part because he felt it was too soon as the investigation into Floyd’s death was still in its relative infancy, the officials said. — AP

  4. The underlying issues are what concern me: if this is the acceptable response every time leftist children do not get what mommy and daddy promised them, or alternately when they DO, at some point the people affected will be forced to defend themselves and a legitimate conflict will have been born through no fault of their own. What a spectacular failure of parenting, education, and societal responsibility.

    Our modern Democratic leaders and their helpers are an absolute disgrace.

    1. Talk about “aiders and abettors.” MSM, Dem politicos, corporate CEOs, DAs, AGs…they are all aiding and abetting the erosion of the rule of law and our treasured Constitution.

  5. Obviously written before conviction, and actual events have since proven your speculation to be just a wee bit off base, JT. So let’s recap, shall we? Venue and jury sequestration didn’t, and couldn’t have, gotten around the facts of what drove this case. Let’s wrap it up in a nut shell…, the tactics Amnesty International have used to give voice on foreign soil to protect persecuted political prisoners and murder victims have been unleashed in the States. Watching someone be murdered by a police officer over the course of ten minutes of footage, complete with off screen voices of people interacting with police giving a blow by blow description of a) what was wrong with police behavior in the given situation, and b) the step by step physical deterioration of the victim were just too much to overcome for the defanse. Add to that the visual evidence was so great it crumbled the blue wall of silence so standard in cases like this without such stunning evidence available.

    True, one can make a case that a cop who probably began with decent intentions at the beginning of his career has become a victim of policing tactics, but just from a different angle. But there are a lot of cops that get burned out that don’t kill people slowly and excruciatingly on the job. So Chauvin is an extreme example for sure…

    Bottom line, though. What did the work of conviction in this case was overwhelming visual evidence of a murder, replayed repeatedly during the trial. Venue and sequestration really couldn’t overcome that for the defense. What’s interesting to me, in kind of a forensic aftermath sort of way, is the number or people (well represented in this blog comment section) who are unable to see the truth right in front of them, visually represented in a way that is unmistakable. It shows the power of prejudgement and cognitive dissonance. And your devil’s advocate whataboutism? I’m afraid it says a lot about you, Jon.

    1. And let’s ignore the fact that as a juror you’ll probably get doxed and end up fleeing for your life without a guilty verdict. If I were on that jury it would come down to justice vs self-preservation and I’d take the latter.

    2. @Anon,
      The interesting thing is that what you saw was only a piece of the evidence. The prosecution asked the jury to ignore the forensic evidence which helps to paint a different picture.

      You’re probably not old enough to remember the Eddie Adams photograph of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a man dressed in civilian clothes.
      If you just saw the picture, you would see the brutality of war and surmise that the South Vietnamese Army are shooting civilians,

      What you didn’t know is that the man being shot was a Viet Kong assassin who was responsible for murdering fellow officers family members during the Tet Offensive. (From the same vantage point, a CBS film crew shot film of the same event.)

      There’s a web site where Adams tells his story and the truth.

      Yet the American people jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts due to a single picture. (Fake news, no? Even if unintended.)

      Now flash forward to the Chauvin trial.
      If you consider that Floyd had ingested a fatal dose of Fentanyl. (11-13ng/mL is fatal) His underlying health condition, And the initial stressor of being placed in the Police SUV… you now open the doubt if Chauvin’s pinning him down was the stressor that triggered the cardiac event.

      There’s your reasonable doubt.
      Contributing factor? Maybe.

      Lets consider the Eric Gardner case in NYC.
      Gardner is stopped for illegally selling cigarettes.
      He’s resisting. The much smaller officer reached across the upper chest and throat in order to take him down. (No choke no injury to throat).
      This action, along with the underlying health conditions of Gardner cause him to have a fatal heat attack / cardiac arrest. Yet the prosecution focused on the ‘choke hold’ that really wasn’t a choke hold.

      Two different situations where one focuses on a portion of the data in an effort to fit their preconceived viewpoint of what happened.

      1. Depressingly, I am old enough to remember both the photograph in Viet Nam and the triangle choke thrown on Eric Garner. I may even be older than you.

        The obvious gap(s) in what you’re saying here is that you’re comparing one solitary photo in the Vietnamese instance versus ten minutes of footage in the Floyd case (on top of testimony from police themselves saying what Chauvin did was off the reservation, on top of testimony from top notch pulmonology and cardiac witnesses that made the medical examiner defer from his abstract cause of death speculation, on top of multiple eyewitnesses heard on tape basically narrating all the areas where Chauvin was going wrong step by step). Big difference from just one photo that can be taken out of context (unless your pre judgement of the situation can’t be overcome with overwhelming physical proof).

        Garner? How the actual f&*k does sellng cigarettes illegally go directly to a triangle choke without serious escalation on the part of Garner (which there is visual proof there wasn’t)??? Both the Garner and Floyd cases, as well as many others, prove that the fundamental weakness of policing as it exists now and before in the States is hugely flawed in its reliance upon a demand for forcible submission and compliance immediately no matter the context of the incident it’s called in to mitigate. IOW it takes situations that have no business going def con 5 directly into def con 5. The escalation it produces is non sustainable as a policing method. It’s a wildly ineffeicient method that is subject to the inherent prejudices of its practitioners going rogue.

        Yes, there are situations to come in blazing. Active shooter situations being one. But as the prosecutor in the Floyd case said repeatedly, and rightfully, yes, you can believe your eyes on this one. For the Garner case as well.

        1. “no business going def con 5 directly into def con 5. The escalation it produces is non sustainable as a policing method. It’s a wildly ineffeicient ”

          Your solution?

          The police officer can be better trained. How do you train the perp?

          1. It’s up to the police to train to match situations on the ground. Part of the job, and actually something they already do.

            Look, police train OODA just as the military does. Obviously, on the ground practice in the ranks has discounted all the steps involved therein. They’ve been able to do so in the pre and early cell phone age, and truthfully the Chauvin case needed beyond overwhelming physical evidence to overcome the standard blue wall denials. The absurd speculations on what a fentanyl OD entails, etc.

            This basically comes down to policing in general having a federal bar to clear enforced state by state. A one size fits all aggression for aggression’s sake policy is unsustainable and will continue to a) kill people who don’t deserve to be killed, and b) will drain coffers through lawsuits and convictions.

            Like it or not, the damn has broken with the Chauvin case on several fronts; In some ways this is the logical fallout occuring that is what the intelligence agencies experienced from the Bush era torture policies. They were forced to reckon with the fact torture didn’t get them better intelligence (in fact it was susceptible to people saying whatever they thought interrogators wanted to hear in order to get them to stop, in addition to the value of said intelligence timing out quickly), and also the damage to U.S. reputation suffered horribly as a result, affecting the quality of intelligence it was possible to get.

            Let’s take a step back into Iraq and Afghanistan, Viet Nam, for that matter, into the dividing lines that inevitably occur when policy has to shift into counter insurgency…, the occupiers have to realize they get more, and better, results with honey rather than vinegar. Put your politics aside for a moment and realize this is just natural phenomenon — it happens no matter your ideology.

            1. “It’s up to the police to train to match situations on the ground.”

              In other words you have no idea of what to do.

              1. Quite fascinating you come up with such a clueless observation that couldn’t even withstand the most basic of questions. It would involve the specific situation. We’ve actually been talking about a specific situation haven’t we…, the Floyd murder. And it’s what I’ve been basing my comments on.

                Wow, I was actually hoping you had the potential to come up with a bright question but instead you’ve regressed all the way into the partisan nonsense so ever present on this blog.

        2. Some of us who are natural cynics thought much less of the prosecution’s witnesses because they either seemed to have political axes to grind or to have a pet theory that they wished to push. Moreover, it seemed as though the prosecutors pushed the “blood choke and shimmy” theory of the cause of death first, and when that didn’t hold up, went to the “collapsed trachea” theory, and when that didn’t hold up under cross, went to the “positional asphyxia” theory. It seemed as though they were throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what would stick. In the end, their closing was “just look at the video and that’s all the evidence you need.” It wasn’t enough for me. Your mileage varied.

      2. Anonymous, “ The interesting thing is that what you saw was only a piece of the evidence. ”

        It was the primary piece of evidence. The video itself said it all. That’s why it triggered nationwide protests. Even chiefs of police, current detectives, officers who train cops, all pointed out that chauvin’s actions were not reasonable or policy.

        The forensic evidence presented by the defense was compromised by the fact that the medical examiner they used had questionable credibility. Especially when it mentioned carbon monoxide as a factor. It begged incredulity.

        What mattered was what was directly in front of jurors eyes. The fact that chauvin was indifferent to Taylor’s pleas, the fact that he was still on his neck when he stopped resisting and two minutes after he died.

        Just as Turley stated nothing changes the facts of the case and an appeal is not going to be successful.

  6. This Case is way far from over….the Judge may have very well known exactly what he was doing….and will be the undoing of the Convictions and aided and abetted (unknowingly by Big Mouth Waters and the Media).

    There is plenty of grist for the mill in this case….and sadly it shall take years for it to all play out but in time….I can see the Convictions be overturned and the prosecution shall move on to some other poor police officer who finds himself in a bad situation.

    Such as the Officer that just shot the Sixteen Year old Black Girl who was attacking other Black Girls with a Knife….talk about a no win situation for a Police Officer….but watch….the media and BLM crowd encouraged by Leftists and Race Baiters will demand “justice’ for that sweet loving child.

  7. The interesting aspect of prosecutor Schliecher’s statement that the other three officers were “powerless” to stop Chavin, i.e. keep him from killing Floyd, is that it was argument. It was not a legal position that the State took, either in pleadings or orally before the court. So it doesn’t keep (to use the legal term, it doesn’t “estop”) the government from prosecuting the other three. But it sure is troubling.

  8. Turley is making hay out of nothing. Maxine Waters comments are not inciting words. Turley leaves out the fact that people were already protesting. She didn’t add anything to the situation. To “be confrontational” is not a call to be violent. Turley knows this, he’s a big fan of splitting hairs in anything. In fact this very blog is rife with confrontational behavior all the time.

    Turley’s hair splitting on the issue is laid bare at the end of his column when he acknowledges that an appeal won’t be successful due to the high difficulty in overturning the conviction over the issues brought up by Turley. Maxine waters did nothing wrong, what she said is certainly controversial, not definitively not a call for violence. Republicans want to make it that way because they want to use the phrase “be confrontational” to mean be violent. That’s just wishful thinking.

    1. Svelaz,

      I suggest you go back watch videos and listen to all of her rhetoric.

      To be clear, Maxine Waters made the trip from DC to MN in order to make her speech. She also demanded police protection.
      It was an overt act. This goes to show intent.

      To your point… they were already rioting.
      So to be more confrontational? How do you be more confrontational than a riot?

      Unlike Trump where he calls for ‘peaceful protest’ which is protected, Maxine Waters issued an ultimatum calling for more violence if they don’t convict on Murder 1. (IIRC he wasn’t charged w murder 1) . However what she did was to threaten violence if the jury didn’t do what she wanted.

      That’s jury tampering.

      Maxine Waters should not only be censured, but also charged with a crime.

      1. Looks like Maxine knows how to crawl up someone’s butt and cause quite a ruckus. Go Maxine!!!

        1. “Looks like Maxine knows how to crawl up someone’s butt and cause quite a ruckus. Go Maxine!!!”
          ************************
          That is her likely and appropriate repository – you know, like a suppository.

      2. Anonymous, “ Unlike Trump where he calls for ‘peaceful protest’ which is protected, Maxine Waters issued an ultimatum calling for more violence if they don’t convict on Murder 1.”

        It’s funny how only that phrase is used out of context to excuse what trump did. Trump called for a peaceful protest. Here’s the actual part,

        “ I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,”

        He didn’t call for a peaceful protest. He only says everyone will soon be marching over to the Capitol to peacefully protest..”. After that he rachetted up his rhetoric to an already riled up crowd. He didn’t tweet out to stop the violence as it was occurring. He had to to be forced to issue a tweet.

        Maxine waters didn’t issue an ultimatum. She issued a statement to be more confrontational. That is not a call to violence. The term confrontational is not an act of violence. It’s an act of defiance, which is perfectly fine in a protest. There’s always going to be confrontational situations at any protest.

        Your need to conflate “confrontational” with violence is just a desire to put words in Maxine Water’s mouth.

  9. what we are witnessing now is what someday will be referred to by historians scholars and political scientists as:

    “the end stage of the blue city/blue state governance model”

  10. Appeal has excellent merit. As Jonathan pointed out the Judge, Nutty Radical Maxine, Biden’ comments, & etc. Mob Rule? Fair Trial is what Chauvin should have received vs a corrupt pressure 3 ring circus trial

  11. How can you be convicted and sentenced on three charges pertaining to the same event where each charge has to do with means of death. It’s not like count two was for yellow ng at bystanders. Three times he will get time in jail topped on the other time. If they have convicted him of manslaughter then they reputiated the other two charges

    1. thats the way they do it in minnesota
      the da basically throws a bunch of crap up against the wall to see what sticks
      if something sticks
      then everything below it is included automatically as a lesser included charge
      doesnt seem right

    2. Yeah it seems it would have been worthwhile to have gotten rid of a couple lowlifes the same time, to match the three charges.

  12. If you are a cop in that state quit now and forever hold your piece. And by piece I mean firearm.

    1. cops everywhere in america last night:

      “do i really want to do this anymore”

      -and/or-

      “whats the minimum amount of policing i can do going forward and still stay employed”

      its not a recipe for better and more effective policing and crime reduction and safer neighborhoods

      it wont take long for this to be born out

  13. If the mob outside was made up of klansmen yelling about a black defendant the media would be barking in a different direction.

    1. The interesting aspect of prosecutor Schliecher’s statement that the other three officers were “powerless” to stop Chavin, i.e. keep him from killing Floyd, is that it was argument. It was not a legal position that the State took, either in pleadings or orally before the court. So it doesn’t keep (to use the legal term, it doesn’t “estop”) the government from prosecuting the other three. But it sure is troubling.

Leave a Reply