Derek Chauvin’s legal team could face a tough battle if they try to appeal his conviction on murder charges in the death of George Floyd, legal experts say.
However, Chauvin’s defense team probably sees the charged atmosphere around the trial and Rep’s public comments. Maxine Waters
Max Jordan Moore and Val Demings enter a party of screams about police during the hearing of Chauvin found guilty as the nation exhales Waters on Chauvin’s guilty verdict: “I’m not celebrating, I’m relieved” MORE (D-California) i President Biden
Joe BidenBiden overturned Blinken, top officials of the initial decision on the refugee limit: reported that a suicide attack affected Afghan security forces Jim Jordan, and Val Demings called a party on police while listening to MORE as a ground for a future appeal. Judge Peter Cahill even highlighted Waters’ statements as possible fodder.
On Tuesday, a jury convicted Chauvin of the three counts of murder and manslaughter filed by state prosecutors in the widespread trial.
Chauvin will soon be sentenced for the charges and his lawyers will have 90 days to file a notice of appeal.
His defense attorney had filed several motions to protect the jury from the public protest surrounding the case with little success. The question of location and publicity around the case could be raised again in the planned appeal.
Jordan Gross, a law professor at the University of Montana, said that while the case had caught the attention of the entire nation, the defense could argue that some of these factors could have been avoided if the trial would have been held elsewhere.
“[The trial] he was very worthy. It was incredibly well done, and it was solemn, and all that, “Gross said.” But if I were discussing this, I would start thinking about what’s going on outside the courtroom, things that Judge Cahill can’t control. Jurors had to conduct protests every day. “
Also, toward the end of the trial, Waters provoked criticism by saying that if the jury found Chauvin innocent, “he would fight with all those who stand for justice.”
“We need to stay on the street and we need to be more active. We need to be more confrontational. We need to make sure they know we mean business,” he told protesters on Saturday.
And on Tuesday, while the jury was kidnapped in deliberations, Biden suggested he “prayed” for a guilty verdict.
The comments provoked criticism from many on the right, who said Waters was trying to incite violence, and Chauvin’s lawyer responded by asking the judge to declare a court case. Cahill refused, but criticized Waters for considering the case.
“I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have filed something on appeal that could result in the revocation of this entire trial,” Cahill told defense attorney Eric Nelson on Monday. Some, including the Sen. Ted Cruz
Rafael (Ted) Edward Cruz On The Money: Republican Senate Party Faces Post-Trump Spending Fight | The Senate confirms the head of the SEC, Gensler, to a full five-year term A group of leftists is concerned about the repeal of the SALT limit, Biden, seeing the verdict of Derek Chauvin of West Wing Cruz against the proposal of the state legislator to replace Wright in Congress MORE (R-Texas), which tweeted on the subject, also suggested that Biden’s comments amounted to “possible grounds of appeal for challenging any conviction.”
“I would like elected officials to stop talking about this case, especially in a way that does not respect the rule of law and the judiciary and our function,” the judge said of Waters.
The White House noted that the jurors were kidnapped and could not be influenced by Biden’s comment. And legal experts say Waters’ comments are unlikely to have as much of an impact on any potential appeal.
“There will simply be no reversal of convictions based on outside influences like this,” said Joseph Friedberg, a veteran criminal defense attorney in Minneapolis.
Some legal observers believe Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely ask an appeals court to scrutinize Cahill’s decision to reject his request to relocate because of intense attention to the case by the local community.
Cahill rejected his motion last month and said, “I don’t think there is any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been the subject of extreme publicity about this case.”
Jeffrey Abramson, a law professor at the University of Texas, says that while he doesn’t expect the jury’s verdict to be reversed, he expects Chauvin’s lawyers to argue on appeal that the trial should not be held in Minneapolis, has been shaken by protests after Floyd’s death.
“However, there is a precedent in favor of Chauvin,” Abramson told The Hill. “In 1964, a Dallas jury convicted Jack Ruby. The shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, the notorious assassin of John F. Kennedy, was captured live on television. In 1966, a Texas appellate court he dismissed Ruby’s conviction, finding in part that the change of location should have been granted outside of Dallas. “
“Moving the case to Dallas would not solve the problem that virtually everyone had seen the incriminating television footage,” he added, “but Dallas jurors, according to the court, could be prejudiced in wanting to undo the damage to the image of their city that events had created. The same could be said of why a relocation should have been granted outside Minneapolis. “
Abramson, who has written extensively on the role of jurors in the judiciary, said he did not believe the appeal would be successful as the trial was “very clean,” but that several factors, including Waters’ comments, they will give the ammunition defense to argue that the prejudices in Minneapolis were stacked against Chauvin.
While some legal experts say there are legal issues in which Chauvin’s lawyers could find strength, Friedberg, Minneapolis’ defense attorney, said Minnesota’s higher courts have made it increasingly difficult for criminal defendants to challenge his convictions for these reasons.
He believes any judge hearing a potential appeal from Chauvin will have to ask himself whether to overturn the sentence and grant him a new trial would solve any problem with the original.
“There is no remedy, because the publicity around the second trial will be even greater and the public outrage in one way or another would be even greater,” Friedberg said. “So we have a problem that exists, for which we have no choice.”