Derek Chauvin's defense attorney files motions to throw out guilty verdict, seeks new trial Attorney

[SheltieLover]

https://www.localmemphis.com/mobile/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-defense-seeks-new-trial/89-ada3b281-ab4f-40be-a000-da46bf5a90be

Attorney Eric Nelson is claiming prosecutorial and jury misconduct in the former MPD officer's trial in the death of George Floyd.

A jury found Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter last month in Floyd's May 2020 death.

More at link. This racist murderer alleging misconduct?

[dchill]

1. What "jury misconduct?"

Finding Chauvin guilty. Just a guess.

[perfessor]

3. One of the jurors is on film

At a BLM rally at which George Floyd,s family spoke. Had he revealed this during jury selection, he would never have been seated. Infuriating that the verdict is now in jeopardy.

[Effete Snob]

6. That is not true

The juror attended a memorial gathering commemorating Martin Luther King.

I realize that when African Americans congregate in groups, there is a certain element which will call it a "BLM rally" regardless of whatever the purpose of the gathering may be, but your statement is simply not true.

[gratuitous]

7. My understanding is that the juror also disclosed it in voir dire

The defense attorney obviously regrets seating the juror (or he accepted the juror, planning to do exactly what he's doing now if his client was convicted).

[perfessor]

10. Ok, if it was revealed during selection

then I withdraw my earlier comment. And I called it a "BLM" rally to save keystrokes, which was lazy. I apologize.

[Hoyt]

11. "Expert" on CNN said it is an issue, but a judge will consider evidence, the

damning video, whether another juror would have voted differently, etc.

His conclusion was that it wouldn’t make much difference even if that juror is shown to be somewhat biased. In a questionable case, that juror could be an issue, but probably not here.

[Ocelot II]

2. Meh. Clutching at straws, trying to find a basis for a new trial,

which a lawyer has to do in order to preserve certain legal issues for appeal. The problem here is that it was a well-conducted trial, and the usual standard of review on appeal for denial of a new trial motion is that the trial judge abused his discretion. Initially, though, the trial judge hears the motion and he'd have to decide that he made some kind of reversible error. There is nothing unusual about this sort of motion, though. It would be a surprise if the motion hadn't been made.

[dflprincess]

9. Perhaps he should have tossed in ineffective counsel (or whatever it's called in MiN)

not that counsel had much to work with.

[Ocelot II]

13. He actually was pretty good; he just had an unwinnable case.

He didn't screw up any procedures or miss objections, or do (or not do) anything a truly incompetent lawyer would have done (or not done). In order to get a conviction overturned or even get a new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, the lawyer has to be startlingly incompetent or drunk or asleep during the trial. Nelson did about as good a job as anyone could have done, considering what he had to work with.

[Srkdqltr]

4. Of course. Are we surprised?

[Ocelot II]

8. This is normal post-verdict procedure.

It would be malpractice not to do it because this is how certain issues are preserved for appeal. It will not succeed but it's routine.

[Srkdqltr]

12. Yes, that's what I said.

[onecaliberal]

5. The entire world agrees with the verdict.

Fucking lies are all the people have.