Whether Derek Chauvin received — or even could receive — a fair trial and an unbiased jury is by no means a settled question. Chauvin, for his part, believes he has reason to appeal.
When even elected officials have declared your personal guilt before the judge has ruled on the case is a direct affront to the presumption of innocence we are supposed to maintain in the face of even the most damning evidence.
The precedent for everyone to get a fair trial ClashDaily has held up as an example since day one was no less a case than John Adams’s defense of the accused after the Boston Massacre.
Long before Chauvin saw his day in court, the court of public opinion had already ruled against him in print media, on TV, and especially in globally-supported protests (many of which devolved into violence, and sometimes murder) in which George Floyd’s name or likeness became the central rallying cry.
An entire party — the one currently in power — wrapped themselves in this very issue during the 2020 campaign season. Remember when Pelosi & Co. got out those Kente Cloths for that photo op? LMAO: Nancy Pelosi Can’t Stand Up After Kneeling Stunt In Congress (VIDEO) They should have done more research before doing that particular stunt:LMAO: Fact-Checker Confirms Kente Cloths Worn By Pandering Dems Were Historically Worn By Slave Traders
You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who hadn’t taken sides or at least formed an initial opinion of what ‘really’ happened on that now-famous snippet of video. But the key point is, Democrats made a national issue about a case that was still before the courts.
They leveraged, for political gain, their preferred narrative that Derek Chauvin had committed an act of murder, when that was by no means the only explanation still on the table for the circumstances of Floyd’s death. Nor was ‘murder’ the only possible conclusion even if a jury were to find the accused culpable.
For anyone who watched the case with a willingness to have the verdict remain an open question until the final ruling, they will notice that lawyers on both sides presented some compelling evidence.
What Chauvin contends is that his side never had a chance for a fair hearing, and he deserves an opportunity to have his case heard again.
Of course, with his case having been turned into a political rallying cry, and his conviction having been upheld, he has become politically radioactive.
There is no crowdfunding movement in his defense and what lawyer would dare to take the case for fear of the repercussions on that lawyer’s own future career? Worse than that, he has been denied a public defender.
Chauvin is forced to represent himself, despite the current reading of the Sixth Amendment which provides the accused with an attorney. “Chauvin wrote in the court documents: ‘I have been informed that their obligation to pay for my representation terminated upon my conviction and sentencing.'”-DailyMail
He plans to appeal. Here’s why:
Derek Chauvin said he intends to appeal on 14 grounds. Among them, he claims Judge Peter Cahill abused his discretion when he denied Chauvin’s request to move the trial out of Hennepin County due to pretrial publicity.
He also claimed the judge abused his discretion when he denied a request to sequester the jury for the duration of the trial, and when he denied requests to postpone the trial or grant a new one.
…Chauvin had 90 days from his sentencing to file notice that he intends to appeal. In addition to his notice, he also filed a motion to put the appeals process on hold until the Supreme Court reviews an earlier decision to deny him a public defender to represent him in his appeal. —USAToday
For anyone following the trial, there were moments that were significant wins for the defense. For example: Audio Played Back In Courtroom… Lead Investigator Changes Mind On What Floyd Said (VIDEO)
Among the various objections raised included the political activism of one of his jurors.
Chauvin’s court filing also said the district court erred when it concluded that Morries Hall, the man who was with Floyd on the day of his arrest, would not be forced to testify on behalf of the defense. He also said the court erred when it permitted prosecutors to present cumulative evidence on use of force.
Chauvin said he also intends to argue that Cahill abused his discretion when he failed to allow Chauvin to strike “clearly biased” jurors for cause, when he allowed the state to add a charge of third-degree murder, when he limited the admissibility of evidence from a prior arrest of Floyd, and when he denied Nelson’s post-verdict request for a new trial and request for a hearing to question jurors to investigate alleged misconduct.
Nelson had accused juror Brandon Mitchell of not being candid during jury selection because he didn’t mention his participation in a march in 2020 to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Prosecutors countered that Mitchell had been open about his views in a jury questionnaire and during juror questioning. —NPR
We mentioned that activist juror — including a photo of him wearing a knee on our neck T-shirt — in this story: Has An Activist ‘Juror 52’ Deep-Sixed The Conviction Of Derek Chauvin, Or Nah?
Brandon Tatum gave his own list of reasons he thinks this conviction may have been a rush to judgment. Brandon Tatum Talks Chauvin Trial On BBC — It Doesn’t Go The Way They Expected…
When even a sitting President is ‘hoping’ that a jury (who have not been sequestered) make the ‘right’ decision, the accused has every reason to wonder if he was given a fair shot when his day in court finally came, or if it was a fait accompli.