Derek Chauvin Trial

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, T&C said:

 

 

It appears to me, as it should most... that he is reporting news on an ongoing court case. That's what this thread was intended for lol.

Ya, if you simply ignore his past

posts in the thread, sure 

[B-Man]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

You're still defending a murderer... how does that feel?

 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Does it keep you awake at night that a murderer might have to go to jail? 

 

You're still afraid of people receiving information that you don't want to hear.

 

Thank God I don't know how that feels.

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You're still afraid of people receiving information that you don't want to hear.

 

Thank God I don't know how that feels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not afraid of anything Bonnie - I'm just grossed out by seeing you champion and cheer a murderer.  That's REALLY what you are doing.  It's like a game for you...

[B-Man]

33 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm not afraid of anything Bonnie - I'm just grossed out by seeing you champion and cheer a murderer.  That's REALLY what you are doing.  It's like a game for you...

 

 

The worst part is, you have such limited intelligence, that you REALLY think you know what I, and others, are thinking,

 

but your posts show that is not the case...............Oh well,

 

Back to the thread.

 

 

 

[T&C]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

The worst part is, you have such limited intelligence, that you REALLY think you know what I, and others, are thinking,

 

but your posts show that is not the case...............Oh well,

 

Back to the thread.

 

 

 

You triggered me... "I might not give the answer that you want me to"... nice touch there. The real Mac:

 

 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

The more this idiot talks the more likely this gets declared a mistrial.  Overturning a conviction is difficult though and Chauvin's defense attorney did him no favors in the jury screening process.

[BillStime]

Bonnie is going to be pissed

 

 

[aristocrat]

20 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Ya, if you simply ignore his past

posts in the thread, sure 

 

i see you have not answered my question

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

 

i see you have not answered my question

Restate question please

[aristocrat]

your post

If I were I judge I'd just let it go, the evidence is just overwhelming. I have no problem sending a murderer to jail. 

 

 Trump obviously colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, how do you feel about the integrity of those that judged him? Talk about a biased jury! 

 

What do you think about the juries that judged an attack on our democratic process? 

 

 

my post

You understand it doesn’t work that way right? Are you just playing a game here or do you genuinely not understand our legal system?  Please answer that.  
 

yes there was plenty of evidence. But also the judge or even jury could have violated his chauvins rights(yes even he has rights).  

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

your post

If I were I judge I'd just let it go, the evidence is just overwhelming. I have no problem sending a murderer to jail. 

 

 Trump obviously colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, how do you feel about the integrity of those that judged him? Talk about a biased jury! 

 

What do you think about the juries that judged an attack on our democratic process? 

 

 

my post

You understand it doesn’t work that way right? Are you just playing a game here or do you genuinely not understand our legal system?  Please answer that.  
 

yes there was plenty of evidence. But also the judge or even jury could have violated his chauvins rights(yes even he has rights).  

Justice was served. He was given a fair trial, way more fair than Trump got which was packed with his supporters. 
 

You will never get a 100 percent perfect trial. Chauvin got justice. 

[T&C]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Justice was served. He was given a fair trial, way more fair than Trump got which was packed with his supporters. 
 

You will never get a 100 percent perfect trial. Chauvin got justice. 

What exactly does Trump have to do with this trial or the proceedings in the future regarding this case? I'm going to bet that you won't give a straight answer. 

[B-Man]

 

 

YEAH. THEY’RE TOTALLY NOT FASCISTS:  

 

Maryland A.G. To Appoint Panel To Audit Record of Chauvin Expert Witness Dr. David Fowler.

 

Totally.  Has anyone seen my shocked face? Looks appropriate here.

 

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/05/maryland-a-g-to-appoint-panel-to-audit-record-of-chauvin-expert-witness-dr-david-fowler/

 

 

[T&C]

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2021/05/12/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-aggravating-factors-sentence

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[T&C]

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2021/05/13/judge-postpones-trial-for-3-ex-cops-charged-in-george-floyd-s-death-until-march

[B-Man]

 

More on the above.

 

 

Next murder trial in George Floyd case postponed until March 2022, thanks to DoJ

 

Great news, if you don’t have to live in the Twin Cities, especially near the “autonomous zone” of George Floyd Square. Otherwise, the rescheduling of the next murder trial in the George Floyd case will extend the unrest and uncertainty in Minnesota’s cities, and perhaps other cities as well.

 

And we have the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland to thank for it, too:

 

The trial for three ex-Minneapolis police officers charged with aiding and abetting murder and manslaughter in the killing of George Floyd has been postponed to next year following their indictment on federal civil rights charges.

 

Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane will now stand trial on March 7, 2022. They were originally scheduled to stand trial this August. The rescheduling follows a motion hearing Thursday morning in Hennepin County District court, where Judge Peter Cahill said the federal case should proceed first. Defense attorneys for the officers did not object to changing the date. Prosecutor Matthew Frank said he disagreed with the new date.

 

Judge Peter Cahill put the blame where it belonged:

 

 

In other words, the DoJ just pre-empted the actual murder trial with its bigfooting on civil-rights prosecution. Why that takes precedence over the state trial is beyond me. Wouldn’t it be easier for federal prosecutors to pursue the civil-rights case after a conviction on state and local charges against the four officers? That’s the order it will take in regard to Derek Chauvin, who got convicted of second-degree murder and could get a 40-year sentence for it, and federal prosecutors at least have that information on record first.

 

Mostly, though, it just points out again how duplicative and intrusive the DoJ has acted on this indictment. The proper priority here is the murder case; the DoJ should have held off on indictments, let alone a trial, until the state and county finished its own prosecution. That has been the traditional priority in overlapping jurisdictions, so much so that it’s tough to recall a federal civil-rights prosecution in a case where the state/local authorities were actively and credibly prosecuting the underlying crime.

 

I hope the DoJ and Garland enjoy their limelight. The Twin Cities will be paying the bill for it.

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/05/13/great-news-next-murder-trial-in-george-floyd-case-postponed-until-march-2022-thanks-to-doj-n389825

[B-Man]

https://www.startribune.com/federal-judge-investigates-leak-of-grand-jury-proceedings-into-george-floyd-s-death/600059913/

 

The Star Tribune reports:

U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Minnesota attorney general to provide a list of every person to whom they disclosed grand jury activity.

 

He also ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to explain why he shouldn’t appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and file criminal contempt of court charges for the disclosures. Schiltz wants the responses filed under seal no later than June 4.

 

At issue are stories published by the Star Tribune and the New York Times detailing the possibility of federal charges against the former police officers in Floyd’s murder.

 

On April 29, the Star Tribune published a story with the headline, “Feds plan to indict Chauvin, three other ex-officers on civil rights charges.” On Feb. 23, the New York Times published a story about the grand jury with the headline, “With New Grand Jury, Justice Department Revives Investigation Into Death of George Floyd.”

The New York Times story came out days before the beginning of jury selection in the state trial of Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck and was convicted in April of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

 

Former officers J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao face charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter. The three are scheduled to stand trial in state court next March.

 

Days after Chauvin’s conviction, the Star Tribune story revealed that the Justice Department had been working to indict him on federal charges, and if he had been acquitted in state court, the feds planned to arrest him at the courthouse, the story said, citing an unidentified source.

 

But Chauvin was convicted in state court and on May 8, the four former officers were indicted by the federal grand jury.

 

In his five-page order signed May 5, Schiltz cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasons for protecting the secrecy of grand jury proceedings: preventing the escape of those indicted, influence on deliberations, perjury or jury tampering.

 

“In order to safeguard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, federal prosecutors are generally prohibited from disclosing matters occurring before a grand jury,” Schiltz wrote.

 

In this case, federal prosecutors were given permission to provide information to Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office, which is handling the prosecution of the four former officers. Ellison’s office then was prohibited from disclosing the information for anything other than investigative or prosecutorial reasons, Schiltz noted.

 

Jane Kirtley, professor and director of the Silha Center for Media Ethics and Law, said Schiltz appears to be conducting an investigation to find the source of the leaks without compelling journalists to divulge their sources.

 

“There’s always a risk they’ll conclude they have no recourse other than to go to the journalists,” she said. “Let’s hope that doesn’t become necessary.”

Star Tribune Managing Editor Suki Dardarian said, “I have no comment on the court’s actions, but I will say that the Star Tribune stands resolutely behind its pledge not to reveal the identities of anonymous sources.”

 

A spokeswoman for the New York Times declined to comment.

 

The newspapers are not immune from legal process. They nevertheless believe they are above the law as they ply their trade and have not the slightest compunction about compromising the constitutional fair trial rights of these particular defendants.

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[SoCal Deek]

32 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Is your entire existence based on copying and pasting tweets from other useless fools? I can understand the occasional political cartoon, as at least there’s some artistic talent, but just pasting tweets is really pathetic. If I want to read that stuff I can go on Twitter? No?