The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

[AnOminous]

Afaik he never investigated the body but only watched the video and based his conclusions solely on that:
"George Floyd had a windpipe on the back of his neck and Derek Chauvin crushed it while saying: That's what you deserve, Nigger"

He actually did an autopsy review. He never examined the body. He just looked at the findings of the actual medical examiner and then made up some bullshit that helped the prosecution while contradicting actual reality. And now he will come into court and testify to this bullshit, and the real issue is he's a very convincing witness even when he is talking complete shit.

I miss it when @AnOminous was the only legal mind here, this new crop are angry spergs.

Even when I originally showed up we had the Saul Goodman guy. He was an actual practicing lawyer (and his wife had huge tits).

 

[Celebrate Nite]

and his wife had huge tits

go on...

 

[Kermit Jizz]

The cops are so eager to go LARP as seal team six they can't be bothered to validate the most basic elements of a case.

Oh fuck off. The number of videos I've seen where niggers go from 0 to attempting murder is unreal. You can't blame cops for taking extreme caution around them.

Not to say cops aren't assholes in their own right, but you know the mantra. Never relax.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Even when I originally showed up we had the Saul Goodman guy. He was an actual practicing lawyer (and his wife had huge tits).

Share evidence of this with the court.

 

[Probably An Autist]

snack time

 

[mindlessobserver]

Nelson and prosecutor guy seem to get along. I like to think that they’re secretly buddies

It's called being professional. Sad that it is so rare these days it requires being remarked on.

 

[Extreme Aneurysm]

He's a big guy.

View attachment 2067131

For you

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Oh my goodness look at the time!

 

[AnOminous]

Share evidence of this with the court.

She actually posted them at some point.

 

[Meat Target]

It all seems like circular logic going into it already convinced that Chauvin murdered Floyd in cold blood and then working back from that conclusion. Why would Chauvin slowly and deliberately murder a black man in front of a dozen cameras held by a hostile crowd? Because he's just that much of a racist white devil. How is he a racist white devil? Because he slowly murdered a black man in public...

In Brave New America, your presumption of innocence is not a right, but a privilege decided by the court of public opinion. It's doubleplusundemocratic to not let Our Democracy decide which rights you have.

 

[Pizza Munch]

Hi @AnOminous (big fan ) quick question on the break.

I know the judge has to follow some sort of sentencing guidelines and that part is out of his control, but how does he determine the rest of the sentence? Is it based on his opinion or does he have to cite reasoning?

I'm curious what Chauvin could be looking at and the media only cites the maximums he could get.

 

[brap_connoiseur_420]

Dr. Sneed

I'm PD

 

[Cr1ms0n_&_C10v3r]

He's a big guy.

View attachment 2067131

Mr Chauvin, I'm Thomas Lane.

 

[DiabeticSP]

Just give the fuckin drug dealer immunity and let the fireworks begin all these other witnesses are so boring.

I wanna hear some ghetto trash dealer on the stand (over zoom lol) saying "yeah I gave that dumb nigga meth and a fake 20"

 

[AnOminous]

Hi @AnOminous (big fan ) quick question on the break.

I know the judge has to follow some sort of sentencing guidelines and that part is out of his control, but how does he determine the rest of the sentence? Is it based on his opinion or does he have to cite reasoning?

I'm curious what Chauvin could be looking at and the media only cites the maximums he could get.

Guidelines sentences are generally not mandatory, although they were in the past. The only things that are actually mandatory is the statutory minimums and maximums. However, there's quite often a requirement that deviating from the guidelines sentences requires findings of fact, that may be required to be found by a jury, not just the judge. In such a case, the jury questionnaire would have a question specifically addressing that issue.

I can't honestly say how this would work in Minnesota. The laws about this were fairly recently handed down by the Supreme Court and the specific details hashed out in state courts. The specific case, United States v. Booker, essentially means that all findings of fact relating to sentencing have to have been found beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge can't just have the jury find guilt or innocence and then independently make his own factual findings to justify departing from the guidelines.

There's a federal manual for this: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2020_Primer_Departure_Variance.pdf

But the specifics would be up to Minnesota law and this specific case is very, very likely to have specific jury instructions and a complex jury questionnaire, unless both sides decide for some reason not to ask for such things.

tl;dr yes he has to cite his reasoning if he deviates or varies from the guidelines, but all sentence-enhancing facts have to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury.

 

[Lil Weed Lova]

Just give the fuckin drug dealer immunity and let the fireworks begin all these other witnesses are so boring.

I wanna hear some ghetto trash dealer on the stand (over zoom lol) saying "yeah I gave that dumb nigga meth and a fake 20"

I believe prosecution is the one who's supposed to be giving out that immunity and it's clear that the guy would severely hurt its own case.

 

[Kermit Jizz]

I believe prosecution is the one who's supposed to be giving out that immunity and it's clear that the guy would severely hurt its own case.

Hasn't stopped him so far.

 

[DiabeticSP]

I believe prosecution is the one who's supposed to be giving out that immunity and it's clear that the guy would severely hurt its own case.

Can the defense offer him immunity to give info as one of their witnesses?

Like I get that the prosecution isnt THAT retarded but I want to hear what the guy has to say just because I'm honestly curious what the fuck.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Just put that drug dealing nigger up there for the jury to look at while he cites the Fifth Amendment over and over.

Can the defense offer him immunity to give info as one of their witnesses?

No the defense has no power to give him immunity. Only the state can. The defense can call him and read his statements to put on the record, if he refuses to answer the jury can take that into account.

 

[Rekkington]

Wouldn't you be pretty pissed if the police pulled you over to tell you that your car is stolen and your car isn't stolen?

Yeah and I wouldn't just start screaming at the cops, because look where it got her. Arrested and apologizing. That's after accusing the cops of "making up numbers" and planting them in the system to frame her.
By the way in that story, it never mentions handcuffing a 6 year old. I don't think they make handcuffs for that. Was that wrong outrage part of why it sprang to mind?