Two seated jurors dismissed in Derek Chauvin murder trial; $27M settlement early focus today

[question everything]

Source: StarTribune

The influence of extensive publicity again took center stage at the murder trial of fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on Wednesday, with two seated jurors dismissed amid an announcement that the city has agreed to pay George Floyd's survivors $27 million.

The total number of jurors is down to seven after Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill removed two after they said they had heard about a federal lawsuit settlement reached last week. They admitted it would impact their ability to assure Chauvin of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent during the course of the trial.

(snip)

One of the dismissed jurors was a Hispanic man in his 20s who said news of the settlement "kind of confirms opinions that I already have." The second dismissed juror, a white man in his 30s, said he was shocked by the size of the settlement.


Read more: https://www.startribune.com/two-seated-jurors-dismissed-in-derek-chauvin-murder-trial-27m-settlement-early-focus-today-total-dow/600035303/

[Ocelot II]

1. This case is going to be messy, I'm afraid.

[The Magistrate]

2. It Will Be One Helluva Jury, Ma'am

By the time the two sides are through slicing and dicing, what emerges will likely be less impartial than could be got by just taking the first dozen through the door.

No one doesn't know what happened.

Put bluntly, there really isn't much need of a trial to determine the facts of the crime, or that a crime was committed. That is known already, and undeniable by any fair-minded person. The police murdered Mr. Floyd, and in circumstances analogous to a mugger killing a man over a five dollar robbery. The whole affair will come down to the defense seeking to mobilize prejudice against black men and in favor of police. The question is, will the judge and/or the prosecution give aid and comfort to this attempt by their own conduct of the case.

[question everything]

3. Not necessarily

I did not follow that closely the details, but it was reported that Floyd had some drugs in his system so that supposedly "a harmless method" was aggravated. At least, I think that this will be the defense line..

Meaning, I think, manslaughter and not murder.

I think.

[oldsoftie]

8. I think so too. Especially considering the mix found.

And also agree on the outcome; much more likely to be found guilty of manslaughter.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Would people please stop calling for murderers in uniform

On this board? Damn.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/verify/verify-floyd-died-to-police-not-drugs/507-fd16de9f-fc34-4cb8-a292-457390bd9e14

[Ocelot II]

4. i'm pretty sure he'll be found guilty of something -

whether it's 2nd or 3rd degree murder or 2nd degree manslaughter remains to be seen, but the known facts would support conviction on at least one of those charges. I'm more concerned about the legal issues that will come up on the inevitable appeal, not the least of which is the effect of the settlement. I doubt the judge will grant a change of venue, but the defense's argument for that just got a little stronger on account of the settlement, which will cost the city (my city, btw) a ton of money. Although the jury pool is the entire county, not just the city, will potential jurors who reside in the city be more inclined to convict on account of the settlement - which is a big hit on the city's pocketbook as well as an effective admission of the city's responsibility for its rogue employee. And will the defense appeal the reinstatement of the 3rd degree murder charge if he's convicted on that count (which could be futile, since that issue has already been appealed and determined in the prosecution's favor)?

Cahill has a reputation as a competent, fair judge, so I'm not worried about bias one way or another on his part. I disagreed with his initial decision to throw out the 3rd degree murder charge, but I think he was trying to be fair and to avoid a situation that would throw an appellate monkey wrench in the works. But that ship has sailed, so we'll just have to see where this goes.

[The Magistrate]

6. I Appreciate Your Analysis, Ma'am

On this one, you may count me in the 'we'll give ya a fair trial afore we hang ya' camp....

[aikoaiko]

14. I'm not a lawyer, but I thought with police is was the issue of use of force justification.

that was the bigger issue compared to whether the legal benchmarks of manslaughter or murder were met.

[Ocelot II]

16. The use of force justification seems pretty iffy in this case.

A lot of cases involve cops shooting somebody because they claim that person had a weapon so the cop feared for his life. Juries tend to favor cops (especially vs. black men), so that defense usually succeeds, even in cases where there's video, and especially where the incident occurs very quickly. But where you've got a guy pinned down by several cops with one of them kneeling on his neck for nine minutes, IMO that will be a tougher sell. Using some degree of force to restrain him might have been justifiable if he was resisting arrest, but the prosecution's argument will be that the cops, specifically Chauvin, used force that was so excessive that it constituted some degree of homicide.

[marble falls]

5. Am I hearing an undercurrent of "they got blood money, so the the cop walks"? ...

... somebody paid his "fine".

[Ocelot II]

9. I don't think so. It was inevitable that there would be a wrongful death claim

against the city, and that the city would end up settling. Since the burden of proof is much lower in a civil case, the city had no chance of winning if it went to trial. I think the timing of the announcement of the settlement is problematic, though, since it gives the defense a basis for arguing that the jurors were prejudiced by it. Crump should have waited and made the announcement after the trial, IMO, but he might have been worried that a not guilty verdict (which I don't think will happen) would have deflated the civil case.

[oldsoftie]

7. Totally stupid move to settle the civil suit before the criminal case.

It will probably taint the entire case

[Ocelot II]

10. I agree.

It gives the defense an argument that jurors were prejudiced by the settlement, and a basis for appeal if the judge doesn't grant a change of venue (which he probably won't do). But Crump might have been worried that a not guilty verdict, or a conviction on one of the lower charges, would reduce the value of the civil case.

[marble falls]

11. Shocked and surprised. Obviously the city thought they were on the hook for a lot more ...

... if there was a conviction. I am very surprised the family's legal council pushed this.

[HotRod Deluxe]

13. Gee....

What makes some people think that any amount of money is worth the loss of an innocent life?

[Ocelot II]

17. There is no way to compensate a family for the loss of a member's life,

but wrongful death cases like this one have a couple of useful effects: The money will compensate the family for losses of support and companionship (the usual measure of wrongful death damages), and will whack the defendant's wallet hard enough to motivate them to stop doing whatever they did to cause the person's death.

[jaxexpat]

15. Conviction, in this case, is inexpressibly important to the whole nation.

At some point and on a very plainly spoken level it must be clear to juries that murder recorded on cell phone cameras is against the law as much as if it had been determined by eye-witness accounts. If you don't get that then you need to get out of the jury pool. (Tell the judge you're pretty sure you know the prosecutor's parents, works every time.) Guilty characters sometimes avoid conviction despite any overwhelming evidence of their crimes.

I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it. Are you STILL sure you saw me do it on somebody's phone camera? Because I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it.

[bluestarone]

18. OK so they settled. MY PROBLEM?

Why announce this settlement BEFORE the trial??? Plus WHO DID? seems fishy to me. (almost like someone wanted to interfere with the trial)