363

Supreme Court declines appeal from Derek Chauvin in murder of George Floyd (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, leaving in place his conviction for the killing of George Floyd in May 2020.

Lawyers for Chauvin had asked the Supreme Court in October to take up his legal battle, which centered around a Minnesota trial court's denial of his requests for a change of venue and to sequester the jury. Chauvin argued that the decision to keep the proceedings in Minneapolis deprived him of his right to a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the threat of violence and riots in the event he was acquitted.

"Mr. Chauvin's case shows the profound difficulties trial courts have to ensure a criminal defendant's right to an impartial jury consistently when extreme cases arise," his lawyers told the court in a filing, adding that the jurors who heard the case "had a vested interest in finding Mr. Chauvin guilty in order to avoid further rioting in the community in which they lived and the possible threat of physical harm to them or their families."

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Chauvin's conviction and rejected his request for a new trial in April after his lawyer challenged the decision by Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill not to move the trial from Minneapolis, among other issues. The state supreme court declined to review that decision in July, leaving in place Chauvin's conviction and 22 ½-year sentence.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 77 points 7 months ago

Bullshit, anyone who watched that video including the people in it knew exactly what was happening. He smothered George Floyd to death while his cop buddies set up a perimeter and prevented anyone from doing anything about it. I get that it's the defense's job to try to find these arguments, but that's a complete mischaracterization of why the jury found him guilty.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 31 points 7 months ago

Trying to establish a precedent that if your crime is outrageous enough, you can't get a fair trial and therefore can't be convicted.

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 5 points 7 months ago

Maybe he just wants some good old fashioned mob justice.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

“Mr. Chauvin’s case shows the profound difficulties trial courts have to ensure a criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury consistently when extreme cases arise,” his lawyers told the court in a filing, adding that the jurors who heard the case “had a vested interest in finding Mr. Chauvin guilty in order to avoid further rioting in the community in which they lived and the possible threat of physical harm to them or their families.”

I don't disagree with that statement. Not that I think it changes anything about the end result, with him being obviously guilty.

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 1 points 7 months ago

I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion than guilty, even if there were hypothetical threats to the jury. Reasonable people don't call that anything other than a homicide.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

For sure

[-] burntbutterbiscuits@sh.itjust.works 54 points 7 months ago

nelson from the simpsons pointing and saying ha ha!

load more comments (29 replies)

[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 43 points 7 months ago

Good. Now STFU and do your time, you piece of shit.

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 39 points 7 months ago

Maybe a change of venue could be warranted in a case that wasn't fully documented on video in excruciating detail, but as it is, we know whose neck that was, and whose knee.

Commence rotting, Derek.

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 18 points 7 months ago

The entire world knew. Protests as far as Tokyo. I don't know where he thought he would get some jurors who didn't know that it was his knee on Mr. Floyd's neck.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I get the feeling that he isn't aware that he's far safer in prison, than released into the general population....

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Thoughts and prayers

[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Where's he getting the cash for all these appeals?

[-] ExfilBravo@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

Big hate groups probably. Same ones that funded the Kenosha murderers defense.

[-] dantheclamman@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Seems like his attorney runs a practice trying to grab attention on all sorts of wedge issues like overturning the 2020 election, against covid vaccine requirements, etc. So the attorney might be doing it for the exposure. Chauvin had previously unsuccessfully tried to be assigned a public defender for his appeals. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/18/derek-chauvin-hires-lawyer-to-represent-him-on-appeal

[-] MDKAOD@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

Or he could have just not killed a man because he needed to prove he was in control of the scene.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

Doctrine of "If people know what happened they'll find me guilty and I don't like that"

[-] GenesisJones@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

They don't want that smoke

[-] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

Bargain bin Woody Harrelson.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

363 points (97.4% liked)

News

21721 readers

3586 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world