GUILTY MN - George Floyd, 46, died in custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #19 - Chauvin Jury Deliberations #2

[kittythehare]

Anyone should be outraged when a seasoned qualified judge who was a past prosecutor clearly said on the record MWs statements could overturn the conviction if found guilty.

Yes, I'm outraged she made such volatile statements, and needlessly interjected herself, and compounded what will already be used by the defense on appeal.

I have followed many cases that have wound up being overturned on appeal, and I know EN has a good case for this one to be overturned.

Imo, eveyone should care when a case has very valid reasons to be overturned if they are truly not wanting it to be overturned.

MW has unnecessarily, and senselessly given the defense even more than they already have, and MWs timing couldn't be worse.

How that can't be highly upsetting for all who want's justice for George is mind boggling to me.

Jmho

Mary Moriarty has been a public defender for 31 years.
She was asked to weigh in on the Judge's comments regarding MW.
This is her response

The Chauvin trial is only one step in reforming the criminal legal system. The verdict will be significant, but we should only think of it as the beginning. I interpreted her comments as encouraging people to continue to protest, but also to be more assertive in urging policy
change. She flew here from California to talk to protesters and encouraged one young Black woman to run for office. She is an icon to many, especially in the Black community. I am disappointed the judge would call her out by name, essentially.


The judge didn’t call out policy makers by name who participated in the press conference announcing the settlement during jury selection. Calling her comments “abhorrent,” and suggesting her words might make a difference on appeal after everything that’s happened in this case?

Once again, community members see the double standard. Comments like this further erode the trust of the community in the criminal legal system.
https://twitter.com/MaryMoriarty/status/1384490654823223296?s=20

 

[kkdj]

Let's say the jury does discuss Maxine Waters statement and the possible repercussions of a not guilty verdict. Would we necessarily know they did that? JMO

I would think jurors would decide to convict or acquit on the merits of the case. But this has so much social pressure added to it. I'm not positive all the jurors can keep that out of their decisions. I hope so, but not sure. It does sound like a strong educated bunch of hopefully mature thinkers tho.
Imo, they are more than likely aware of Maxine Water's statement from Saturday. How could they not be? One wouldn't need to listen to the news.
moo

 

[RANCH]

House Democrats have problem with Waters after judge calls her out

Fox is told that rank-and-file Democrats found what Waters said revolting. But that disgust among Democrats further metastasized after Hennepin, Minn., County Judge Peter Cahill-- who is overseeing the Derek Chauvin murder trial-- criticized Waters from the bench, describing her remarks as "disrespectful to the rule of law."

House Democrats have problem with Waters after judge calls her out

 

[Inthedetails]

Agree. I do wish politicians would refrain from calling for any particular verdict while a trial is ongoing. It's not good for justice or for politics.

And it's just not good for the system. Her job in the government is a lawmaker. She is not part of the judicial system. She can make a difference with legislation. Leave the judicial system to do its duty.

jmo

ETA: I don't think her words had a particularly big impact, except to give social media and msm something to talk about.

 

[Rocky1]

"Beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this case, a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot," Cahill said.

Judge Denies Mistrial Request Over Rep. Waters' 'Confrontational' Comment

I ask myself... if what this Judge says is true, and he really believes this, then why did he get so upset when comments from public officials were made at the beginning of the trial?

 

[Rocky1]

Chauvin jurors facing 'through the roof' stress as deliberations begin

I found this part of the article interesting.


I agree with this and it's one of the reasons I feel this jury will vote guilty on all charges. JMO

Chauvin jurors facing 'through the roof' stress as deliberations begin

You may be right, but I'd think that would all depend on where the count stands at the time they cave. (if they cave)

 

[kkdj]

"Beyond the articles that we're talking specifically about the facts of this case, a congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot," Cahill said.

Judge Denies Mistrial Request Over Rep. Waters' 'Confrontational' Comment

It's not her opinion as much as her influence imo. And imo, that was her objective.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wonder how the jury room is configured in covid times? No table in the middle? Do they separate to eat meals since that involves removing masks?

jmo

Hmm now that is a great question.

Could they perhaps have plexiglass dividing each juror in the deliberations?

Jmho

 

[tara83]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I respect the police officers who put their lives on the line and who choose to do the right thing.I don't support men like Derek Chauvin who chose to be a bully and kill a man.My brother is a police officer who wants Chauvin convicted and thinks he give police a bad name.

 

[Inthedetails]

I ask myself... if what this Judge says is true, and he really believes this, then why did he get so upset when comments from public officials were made at the beginning of the trial?

I interpreted as he doesn't like one branch commenting on another branch in general, not that her words had a particular impact on the case. I think he was looking at a bigger picture, which is why he specifically mentioned the two co-equal branches of government.

My impressions only, may not match what others think.

jmo

 

[In vino veritas]

I agree that there's no question Judge Cahill has received threats. I doubt it's his first time, however, not at this level.
I also believe imo that those threats have influenced his decision not to call a mistrial, and more reason to kick the can down the road to take the heat off of him by telling Nelson that his concerns may be a reason for an appeal.
I also think he was out of line by telling Nelson that Waters comments will not affect the decision of the jury. IMO, her comments were prejudicial.
I think Nelson was right when he claimed the jury was not admonished properly on a daily basis.
I also agree with Nelson when he claimed the jury should have been sequestered. The judges rule "Do not talk to anyone" the last few days of trial was vague at best, and not watching the news does nothing when the jury drives home every day and sees the National Guard, Military Trucks, and double fences every step of the way.

Was the jury specifically advised to avoid social media? I don’t recall.

 

[Rocky1]

Was the jury specifically advised to avoid social media? I don’t recall.

I may be wrong, but what I think he said was "don't watch the news on tv, and don't talk to anyone."
I don't remember him mentioning anything about social media.
Even "don't talk to anyone" imo is rather vague. Does this mean don't talk to your family? Don't talk to the cashier at the grocery store?

 

[Rhozwen]

I wonder how the jury room is configured in covid times? No table in the middle? Do they separate to eat meals since that involves removing masks?

jmo

I haven't been able to find how this specific jury deliberation room is configured, but I have read through other state's guidelines. If the jury deliberation room is big enough, tables will be placed in a square and seats placed around to maintain distance. If the jury room is not big enough, then deliberations will be in a jury lounge if large enough or in the gallery of another court room.

I imagine their tables will be similar to the defense and prosecution tables with plexiglass dividers, but this is just my guess.

What I did find was as follows:

The Minnesota Judicial Branch COVID-19 Preparedness Plan states:

1. Social distancing must be maintained at all times between all court personnel, jurors and parties in attendance in the courtroom. With that in mind, consider installing partitions if feasible where social distancing would be encroached upon during a brief interaction of 15 minutes or less (e.g., the bench for a quick consultation, an attorney conferring with their client, etc.). However, partitions/barriers are an added exposure control measure and are not to be used in lieu of the required 6 feet of social distancing requirement, or the wearing of face coverings.

2. Refer to jury trial recommendations for further information.


Jury Trial Recommendations state:

"A. Space: Ensure that the space for jury deliberations is measured and obviously marked for social distancing. If deliberations will take place in the courtroom, be mindful of additional tasks to include: turn off audio and recording, put away legal reference materials, remove clocks, etc.

B. Provide a plan to the jury for maintaining social distancing and how to respond if they need assistance doing so.

C. Juror Amenities: Provide single serve beverages and individually packaged meals and snacks. Communal beverages and food should not be used.

D. Exhibits: Plan for a safe method of handling exhibits during deliberations, being mindful of electronic exhibits."

Links:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/COVID-19/MJB-COVID-19-Preparedness-Plan.pdf


https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/CIOMediaLibrary/COVID-19/Statewide-JMRT-Recommendations-for-Jury-Trials.pdf

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It's not her opinion as much as her influence imo. And imo, that was her objective.

Imo, it was really both. Like throwing more gas on the already simmering fire.

I still don't even understand why she came when she represents another state, and not this one.

I did read she asked for police security when she was there. So did this city, and state she doesn't even represent have to pick up the tab while she was there I wonder?

She has so many serious issues happening in her own city, and state that she could have addressed. I'm sure her own citizens would have liked hearing her address them.

Jmho

 

[Tom_Servo]

This case might be a slam dunk for some, maybe even this jury, but almost every poll out there indicates it's not.

 

[Rocky1]

It's not her opinion as much as her influence imo. And imo, that was her objective.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

On another board I follow 1/3rd voted not guilty out of almost 500 votes. They aren't as savvy and knowledgeable as posters here but it's garnered tremendous attention on a forum that has nothing to do with crime. I've never seen anything like it in the 20 years I've been involved there.

And what floors me when I speak to others, they say guilty or not guilty (as I did with someone this am) and they had NO IDEA of which charge, nor did they even know 3 charges.

SMDH. And these perhaps may be similar to the most vocal. The have NO idea of the charges, the have NO idea of the elements, they have NO idea of the 5 aggravating motions by the State.

Reminds me of COVID thread.. *spins head around 5 times*

 

[tara83]

This case might be a slam dunk for some, maybe even this jury, but almost every poll out there indicates it's not.

That tells me a lot about the world we live in.

 

[JerseyGirl]

A plurality of voters said they believe former Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, should be found guilty in the murder of George Floyd, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds.

Forty-seven percent of registered voters in the April 16-19 survey said Chauvin should be found guilty while 20 percent said he should be found innocent.

Thirty-three percent of respondents said they are not sure.

Poll: Plurality say Chauvin should be found guilty

 

[Rocky1]

Imo, it was really both. Like throwing more gas on the already simmering fire.

I still don't even understand why she came when she represents another state, and not this one.

I did read she asked for police security when she was there. So did this city, and state she doesn't even represent have to pick up the tab while she was there I wonder?

She has so many serious issues happening in her own city, and state that she could have addressed. I'm sure her own citizens would have liked hearing her address them.

Jmho

IMO she came because there were cameras and she wanted the most coverage as possible. All for votes.
If she actually believes these are "peaceful protests" like she always claims, then why the need for security?