Chauvin's lawyer seeks new trial, hearing to impeach verdict - ABC News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
MINNEAPOLIS -- The defense attorney for the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of killing George Floyd has requested a new trial, saying the court abused its discretion, and he wants a hearing to have the verdict impeached because of what he says is jury misconduct, according to a court document filed Tuesday.
Derek Chauvin, who is white, was convicted last month of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the May 25 death of Floyd. Evidence at trial showed Chauvin pressed his knee against Floyd's neck for 9 1/2 minutes as the Black man said he couldn't breathe and went motionless.
Defense attorney Eric Nelson said he is requesting a new trial in the interests of justice. He said there were abuses of discretion that deprived Chauvin of a fair trial, prosecutorial and jury misconduct and that the verdict was contrary to law.
A request for a new trial is routine following a guilty verdict and often mirrors issues that will be raised on appeal, said Mike Brandt, a Minneapolis defense attorney who has been closely following the case. If this request is denied, it can add another layer of decisions for Nelson to appeal. Brandt and others have said Chauvin's convictions are unlikely to be overturned.
Nelson cited many reasons in his request for a new trial. He said Judge Peter Cahill abused the discretion of the court and violated Chauvin's right to due process and a fair trial when he denied Nelson's request to move the trial to another county due to pretrial publicity.
He also said Cahill abused his discretion when he denied an earlier request for a new trial based on publicity during the proceedings, which Nelson said threatened the fairness of the trial. Nelson said that publicity included "intimidation" of the defense expert witness, which he said could have a "far-reaching chilling effect" on the ability of defendants to get expert witnesses in high-profile cases, including the upcoming cases of the three other former officers charged in Floyd's death.
"The publicity here was so pervasive and so prejudicial before and during this trial that it amounted to a structural defect in the proceedings," Nelson wrote.
Nelson also took issue with Cahill's refusal to sequester the jury for the trial or warn them to avoid all media, and with his refusal to allow a man who was with Floyd at the time of his arrest to testify.
Nelson said Cahill also abused his discretion when he submitted jury instructions that Nelson said failed to accurately reflect the law on the murder charges and use of force, permitted the state to present cumulative evidence on use of force, and ordered the state to lead witnesses on direct examination, among other things.
Nelson also asked the judge for a hearing to impeach the verdict on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct, felt race-based pressure, felt intimidated or threatened, and/or failed to adhere to jury instructions, though the filing did not include details about that assertion. To impeach a verdict is to question its validity.
The brief did not mention recent reports that one of the jurors participated in an Aug. 28 march in Washington, D.C., to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.
That juror, Brandon Mitchell, has defended his actions, saying the event was to commemorate the 1963 March on Washington and was not a protest over Floyd's death. Floyd's brother and sister, Philonise and Bridgett Floyd, and relatives of others who had been shot by police addressed the crowd at the march last summer.
Nelson did not immediately return a message seeking details about his allegation of juror misconduct.
Brandt said Nelson will likely file more detailed written arguments on these issues. The purpose of holding a hearing to impeach the verdict would be to develop a factual record and present evidence that could determine whether the verdict was compromised. If a hearing is granted, it's likely Mitchell would be called in to answer questions, Brandt said.
———
Tags
Who is online
457 visitors
Oh well, We told you what would happen.
And it will be rejected and the POS will continue to rot in prison where he belongs.
Regardless of how you feel the verdict should go, every defendant is supposed to be guaranteed a fair trial.
Why would those complaints be rejected?
You don't think that jury should have been sequestered?
You don't think that at least the one juror didn't belong on that jury?
Because there is no where on earth where a trial will meet his and his lawyers definition of “fair”. His trial was as fair as it was ever going to be and he is going to be convicted no matter where he goes.
The jurors were fine, and what good would sequestering them do? Like that would make them forget ALL the coverage of the thing for the year beforehand? The defense presented a weak ass case (not like they could have presented a strong one), times have changed it seems so weak ass defenses an t work any longer.
[removed]
He may be convicted no matter where he goes, but the trial being fair is debatable.
The jurors were fine, and what good would sequestering them do?
The jurors were not fine. One attended a march that was reportedly referred as the "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" March. Members of Floyd's family spoke to the crowd. That indicates the juror had a bias. Did he lie about attending a march/protest?
As for sequestering the jury - that would have kept the comments of Joe Biden and Maxine Waters out of the minds of the Jurors.
removed for context by charger
Oh, I see.
I doubt he'll be placed in with the general prison population if/when he gets there.
Death wishing of a public figure is prohibited.
He wasn't death wishing and this killer cop is not a 'public figure'.
For 400 years no white man was convicted of killing a black person. That has changed but now there are those who want time to go backwards on all of this.
So you want social justice. In other words let's just convict any white man involved in the death of a black man.
First of all that's an outright lie. Long ago there were many instances where whites got away with murdering blacks but that time has long past. I have a feeling most of those murderers got away with it because of racial bias in the juries. An unbiased impartial jury is the cornerstone of our legal system and there can be no justice without it. Everyone has the right to a fair trial no matter what crime they are charged with, a fair trial is an impossibility if even one member of the jury is biased. Just because we got the verdict we wanted doesn't mean it should stand, once we are aware that the trial was unfair we can't let it stand because that says we don't care about fairness, or impartiality in our justice system as long as we get the desired result. I don't like the fact that Chauvin deserves a new trial but I'm against letting the government take shortcuts because it just makes it easier to do it again and again and how many innocent citizens will that system send to jail ?
That time has long past? No.
The trial was tainted and the jury was intimidated.
No it wasn't and no they weren't.