WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

ARRGH!

 We understand that everyone wants former officer Chauvin to be convicted, tarred, feathered, dragged through every street in the United States and be incarcerated until the sun implodes into a white dwarf. 

But where is the defense attorney??

Does Minnesota have a rule of criminal procedure that says "the rule against leading questions is suspended when prosecutors conduct redirect questioning in cases where a white police officer killed an African American Man that are televised nationwide?"

If we had a dollar for every leading question asked on redirect in this case we could buy that beach front property in Maine we have our eye on. 

And how about this exchange- as an older man is testifying and breaks down crying after seeing the video of George Floyd being arrested and killed, the prosecutor asks "what are you feeling right now?" as the witness sobs uncontrollably and then testifies that his mother recently died, as if that has anything on earth to do with this case. 

And the defense? 

Nary a peep. No objection to the "how are you feeling right now" question as the man was uncontrollably sobbing. 



10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Agreed. The sadistic fuck does deserve a much better defense.

Anonymous said...

You know the other rule.

"did not timely object"
"not preserved for appeal"

Maybe Chauvin's lawyer is laying the groundwork for ineffective assistance of counsel as backup?

Anonymous said...

Chauvin and his lawyer knew this was coming. If they were so worried about the jury being easily manipulated and swayed emotionally, there were some remedies under Minnesota law.

Rule 26. Trial

Rule 26.01 Trial by Jury or by the Court

Subd. 1. Trial by Jury.

(1) Right to Jury Trial.

(a) Offenses Punishable by Incarceration. A defendant has a right to a jury trial for any offense punishable by incarceration. All trials must be in the district court.

(b) Misdemeanors Not Punishable by Incarceration. In any prosecution for the violation of a misdemeanor not punishable by incarceration, trial must be to the court.

(2) Waiver of Trial by Jury.

(a) Waiver on the Issue of Guilt. The defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the issue of guilt provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(b) Waiver on the Issue of an Aggravated Sentence. Where the prosecutor seeks an aggravated sentence, the defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the facts in support of an aggravated sentence provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to a trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(c) Waiver Necessitated by Prejudicial Publicity. The defendant must be permitted to waive a jury trial whenever the court determines:

(i) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that right; and

(ii) reason exists to believe that, because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, the waiver must be granted to assure a fair trial.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cr/id/26/

Paul Petruzzi said...

So true.

Rumpole said...

Nobody wins a ineffective assistance of counsel argument on these grounds. You have to show it was below competent standards to not object AND THEN ( the second prong of Strickland- the prejudice prong) that if you did object, AND it was sustained, that the result would have been different. No way this is that set up.

The video today was just awful for Chauvin. George Floyd crying for his mother, begging for his life, saying he cannot breathe... just awful. Chauvin clearly lost it in those 10-20 minutes for whatever reason. Its a murder case. Maybe not first, but under Florida law as I understand it- 2nd Heat of passion. There is some defense with how Floyd was acting, but not a whole lot. Of course the police argument is what are you supposed to do when someone refuses to be arrested? Just let him walk away because if you subdue him you may kill him? And the answer is yes- if its a BS misdemeanor/felony arrest-and the police will never ever agree to that because they have a training and mindset not to deescalate a situation, but to incarcerate someone. The whole case could have been avoided, which is usually the case in tragedies like these.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody wins a ineffective assistance of counsel argument on these grounds."

Not saying he would actually win the argument or that it was a good plan. If he could actually plan winning strategies, he would not be ineffective counsel.

Anonymous said...

"The whole case could have been avoided, which is usually the case in tragedies like these."

Certainly. But Chauvin and company didn't care about avoiding that. They thought Floyd was just another drug-using vagabond committing some petty crime like the hundreds of others they've probably arrested in the course of their careers. They figured he was just whining and malingering and that he'd be dragged to the jail and then sent to detox in the drunk tank and that would have been the end of it.

Chauvin and company have done this to poor defendants countless times and have gotten away with it, because most of those defendants didn't die, let alone die on video. Had George Floyd survived, claims of police brutality would have been laughed off and he would have been dismissed as just another complaining bumbling transient.

Anonymous said...

It's a horrible case. However if the victims' tox report at autopsy show high lethal levels of narcotics on board and a major preexisting cardiac/lung condition knowing forensic pathologists there could be a cause of death question.

E a said...

I see you didnt print my comment i stand by it like the man said the video alone convicts him the defendant was under control and defenseless this was and is excessive use of force

Anonymous said...

I am not familiar with Minn law, but hearsay has been everywhere in the trial. And the State has asked pretty much every witness on the scene how that event "made them feel".