Derek Chauvin: Guilty.

[dendawg]

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/der...-21/index.html

[Guys, PLEASE just talk about the verdict. All other personal opinions about this case should be posted on the other board, pretty please? ]

[Kit-Ginevra]

One thing that puzzled me is on one site it says he was found guilty of 'second-degree unintentional murder'.
I thought the whole point of murder was that it was premeditated and therefore intentional, and that if you had killed someone unintentionally that it wouldn't be murder but manslaughter?

[rvdammit]

AP seems explain it well here https://apnews.com/article/derek-cha...e4993110d959df

TLDR; Involuntary murder is using excessive or unreasonable force being a contibuting factor in the death.

[EricKei]

1 - What dendawg said. Please honor that request.
2 - Do I even have to say that we're watching this one, just in case? ~_~


kit - First degree is premeditated and with "Actual malice." The other degrees differ. rvd's link has a better explanation.

[catcul]

I've crossposted this to Fratching in case this thread gets closed.

[Ghel]

Everything I have to say belongs on Fratching, so I went over a posted a bit (only a small bit) of my thoughts.

[mjr]

I watched a good bit of the trial while I was working.

I wasn't convinced that the state had proved beyond reasonable doubt the 2nd or 3rd degree murder charge, but I thought the jury might be able to convict on the manslaughter charge.

That said, after Judge Cahill read the jury instructions (and I read them myself after the fact), those two charges could very well be "in play" with the jury.

[Kit-Ginevra]

Apparently on the appeal the defence might be going for a mistrial because the jury hadn't been sequestered properly?

[EricKei]

Yes, that does seem to be an option, and one which the defense will probably pursue.
Just to be nit-picky -- A mistrial is kinda a weird version of an appeal; it vacates the original verdicts as if they never happened, and everything starts all over again at the same court/level. A standard appeal would mean moving to a higher court to try and convince the new judge that the prior judge/jury was wrong. The other weird thing is that mistrials normally indicate that a trial was never actually completed (e.g., due to a hung jury), and declared before the verdict has come down. It can, presumably, still be done. In murder cases, it's generally assumed that the defense will appeal anyway after a conviction; I believe it's automatic in capital murder cases such as 1st-degree Murder.

[dalesys]

Tom Paxton in 1985 nailed one contributor to the plethora of charges and legal maneuvers: One Million Lawyers

[Kit-Ginevra]

Is there a limit on the number of trials you can have? Presumably you get to the point where you can't keep having mistrials or hung juries?
And how would that affect future juries-surely in that scenario you'd be thinking 'If the accused was clearly guilty, they'd have been found guilty straightaway. If three or four juries can't decide for themselves if he was guilty or not, then the evidence can't be overwhelmingly conclusive against him?'

[csquared]

Is there a limit on the number of trials you can have?

It is only limited by what the tax payers can bare. Sooner or later, someone up the chain of command will tell the District Attorney, "Enough is enough", and it usually comes after someone loses an election.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the witnesses will get tired of testifying, making the prosecution's job more difficult. While I don't have any stats, I believe that third trials are very rare.

[EricKei]

Sounds about right to me. ^_^

[mjr]

Sounds about right to me. ^_^

Wouldn't "double jeopardy" apply, though? Constitutionally you can't be tried twice for the same crime. So I would think in an instance like that, the "double jeopardy" clause would apply.

[EricKei]

Good question. Normally, yes. However, a mistrial usually explicitly vacates the original trial in its entirety; if the defendant calls for a mistrial -- which is very likely in this case -- it looks like he voluntarily gives up the right to claim double jeopardy in most, but not all, situations unless there is an instance of governmental misconduct.


Info from elsewhere