Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Get off my lawn!
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Derek Chauvin has a few issues he can pursue to appeal his conviction Tuesday on murder and manslaughter charges in the death of George Floyd, but the former Minneapolis Police Officer faces an uphill battle in trying to overturn the jury’s three guilty verdicts, legal experts said.

Testimony at the three-week-long trial, court rulings that preceded it, another nearby killing of an African American motorist by police and provocative comments by politicians are all expected to factor into Chauvin’s efforts to challenge the verdicts.

One potential vulnerability stems from the imposing number and stature of witnesses Judge Peter Cahill permitted prosecutors to call, including Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo.

While Arradondo’s testimony was expected to focus on the police force’s training and policies, the chief also twice told jurors that Chauvin’s actions violated the department’s “values.”

“It is certainly not part of our ethics or our values,” said Arradondo, who had previously offered in public that Chauvin’s actions amounted to murder.

“He gratuitously added that this doesn’t adhere to our standards or our values,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. “He probably shouldn’t have said that.”

While most witnesses are categorized as experts or fact witnesses, the police chief seemed to operate in both realms by discussing department policies, police techniques and the investigation into Floyd’s death.

“That’s something an expert witness isn’t supposed to do, but the fact [prosecutors] posted him as a fact witness kind of finessed that,” said Mark Osler, law professor at the University of St. Thomas, which is based in the Twin Cities. “There’s no doubt that he was a very good witness for the government.”

Osler said Arradondo’s hands-on role might seem odd in bigger cities but made sense in Minneapolis.

“In New York City, if something like this happened, there are so many levels in the police department and it’s a bigger operation,” Osler said. “We’re a small enough place here that the third or fourth person called when something big happens is the chief of police. … He was on the scene, he was involved in a lot of the decisions made.”

While testimony from a sitting police chief at an officer or former officer’s trial is highly unusual, Arradondo also testified two years ago at the trial of ex-Officer Mohamed Noor, who was convicted of murder for shooting Justine Damond, 40, while responding to her 911 call about a possible sexual assault.

Noor was convicted and sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison. The Minnesota Supreme Court announced last month that it would take up Noor’s appeal, but it is unclear whether the justices will delve into any issues that could affect Chauvin’s case.

The public uproar over Floyd’s death and the attention heaped on Chauvin’s trial by the media and prominent politicians could also provide fodder for an appeal, lawyers said.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and even President Joe Biden bolstered the expected appeal with comments that suggested convictions in the case were needed to keep the peace.

“We're looking for a guilty verdict,” Waters said during a rally near Minneapolis on Saturday night. She added that, if there was no such result, “we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational.”

Those remarks prompted a flash of anger from the normally mild-mannered judge, Cahill, who called her comments “abhorrent.”
“I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned,” Cahill declared. “This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.”

Despite his suggestions about an appeal, Cahill declined to declare a mistrial or to interview jurors about whether they’d heard Waters’ remarks.

Biden’s comments on Tuesday morning that he was praying for the “right verdict” were a bit more vague than those from Waters, but also seemed to signal a concern that an acquittal could lead to trouble. The president did add that he was sharing his thoughts only because the jury was sequestered after closing arguments on Monday.

Osler said defense lawyers were likely to argue that the high-profile statements created an atmosphere that put pressure on the jury.

“Their basis of appeal would be that jurors were influenced not by the evidence, but by fear of what happened if they didn’t convict,” the professor said, noting that the defense was denied a change of venue for the trial.

Another potential influence in the middle of Chauvin’s trial: the shooting and killing of an African-American suspect, Daunte Wright, by a police officer in the nearby suburb of Minneapolis.

Convictions have only rarely been overturned based on publicity prior to or during the trial, or perceptions of pressure on the jury. The most prominent such case recently involved Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death following a jury trial for the deadly bombing of the Boston Marathon finish line in 2013. Tsarnaev’s lawyers opposed the death sentence, but conceded his involvement in the bombing.

Last year, a federal appeals court overturned the death sentence, ruling that the 2015 trial appeared to have been tainted by “an avalanche of pretrial publicity” and that the judge overseeing the case did not adequately question jurors about whether they were exposed to the “reign of terror” in the Boston area during the manhunt for Tsarnaev and his brother, who died during a shootout with police.

The Supreme Court announced last month that it would take up the marathon bombing case, meaning the justices will likely issue a ruling on the publicity issue late this year or early next.

In a uniquely Minnesota twist to the case, Chauvin may even have a ground for appeal on the basis that prosecutors were too mean to his defense lawyer. After a prosecutor called the defense’s arguments “nonsense,” defense attorney Eric Nelson objected.

“We actually have a rule in Minnesota saying you can’t belittle the defense,” Osler said, explaining the rule as a product of the state’s reputation for courtesy.

“It’s a very Minnesota issue,” he said. “In Texas, if as a prosecutor you weren’t belittling the defense, you probably wouldn’t be doing your job.”
 

·
Get off my lawn!
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Dershowitz: Maxine Waters’ Tactics Similar to Those Used by Ku Klux Klan

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was clearly trying to influence the jury in the Derek Chauvin trial when she traveled to Minnesota and said Chauvin should be found guilty, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz charged on Tuesday.

“Her message was clearly intended to get to the jury—‘If you will acquit or if you find the charge less than murder, we will burn down your buildings. We will burn down your businesses. We will attack you. We will do what happened to the witness—blood on their door,’” he said during an appearance on Newsmax, referring to how the former home of defense expert Barry Brodd was recently vandalized.

“This was an attempt to intimidate the jury. It’s borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan of the 1930s and 1920s when the Klan would march outside of courthouses and threatened all kinds of reprisals if the jury ever dared convict a white person or acquit a black person. And so, efforts to intimidate a jury should result in a mistrial with the judge, of course, wouldn’t grant a mistrial because then he’d be responsible for the riots that would ensue, even though it was Waters who was responsible,” Dershowitz added.

Waters told a crowd in Brooklyn Center, just outside of Minneapolis, over the weekend that they should “get more confrontational” if a guilty verdict isn’t handed down.

“We’re looking for a guilty verdict and we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd,” she also said. “If nothing does not happen [sic], then we know that we got to not only stay in the street but we have got to fight for justice.”

Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill, the judge overseeing the trial of Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing Floyd, told the court on Monday he was aware of Waters’ statements.

Cahill rejected a motion from Chauvin’s lawyer for a mistrial. However, he told the lawyer that he could submit articles about the remarks for an “appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

Eric Nelson, the lawyer, had argued that Waters was making “threats against the sanctity of the jury process” and “threatening and intimidating the jury” into delivering a guilty verdict against his client.

Waters’ office has not responded to requests for comment.

The longtime congresswoman told TheGrio this week that she did not agree with the characterizations of her remarks.

“I am nonviolent,” she said. “Republicans will jump on any word, any line and try to make it fit their message and their cause for denouncing us and denying us, basically calling us violent.”
 

·
Here comes the Wee-Woo man
Joined
·
88 Posts
I think that the appeal actually has some merit here. Regardless of your view on Chauvin's actions, the jury intimidation was quite high, and the threats of mass violence if the "wrong" verdict was reached has potential to make this a mistrial. In addition, the fact that the president endorsed a verdict before the trial was over seems to be an issue as well. This was conducted quite poorly by the "woke mob" and there is potential for Chauvin to be back on the streets in a few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
This guy fucked up pretty goddamn bad, I think we can all admit, but second degree murder is strong. Did he kill George Floyd? Yeah probably, did he MEAN to kill George Floyd? I’m not sure about that.. I think manslaughter on its own would have been more fitting, but then half of Minneapolis would have been burned to the ground so..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
This guy fucked up pretty goddamn bad, I think we can all admit, but second degree murder is strong. Did he kill George Floyd? Yeah probably, did he MEAN to kill George Floyd? I’m not sure about that.. I think manslaughter on its own would have been more fitting, but then half of Minneapolis would have been burned to the ground so..
He died of a drug overdose and poor life choices.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
He died of a drug overdose and poor life choices.
Everybody has to be good at somethings. At least we erected memorials and named city squares for him. Meanwhile nobody talks up a memorial to this lady;

 

·
Get off my lawn!
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS ON THE VERDICTS IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF POLICE OFFICER DEREK CHAUVIN Despite all the claims to the contrary, the criminal justice system in the United States works (Nope that's a bold face lie, we all have had solid cases go before a court just to get dismissed for either basic technicalities or political influence), even when the person accused of a crime is a police officer. The trial and unanimous conviction on all counts of former police officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota conclusively demonstrates that officers can be, and in fact are, held to the same standards of justice as all other citizens in our nation, as they should be. (no they are not, if Chauvin was black and Floyd was white we would not be reading this, in fact if Chauvin was not a officer at the time of the incident the max he would get is manslaughter, murder is a huge stretch) The facts of the case surrounding the murder (no, he overdosed) of George Floyd present a horrific tragedy on so many different levels. At the most basic, a man lost his life needlessly at the hands of an officer (again you are wrong, if he didn't commit a crime while fucked up on Fentanyl and Meth he might have been alive today. Instead he tried to chew a fist full of pills and fight the cops). At the same time, the assertions by so many who wish to demonize all police officers because of the actions of one officer ("actions" that were taught to him by the Minneapolis police department and had been a approved technique by the PD them self's) have been shown to be hollow. Due process rights do not prevent the investigation, charging, trial, and conviction of a police officer. Neither does qualified immunity (Ok I'll give you the part of "cannot prevent an investigation, charging, trial" but as long as the officer is not violating someone's civil rights we can legally use force in applications a civilian could not and possibly face criminal charges if they did, hence qualified immunity.) Neither do police unions, associations, or legal defense plans (maybe... but they help a lot). Police departments, unions, associations, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all have their proper role to play, and all citizens, including officers who accused of a crime, are entitled to their day in court and to have an impartial judge and jury weigh the evidence against them (there was no due process or impartial judge and jury in this case at all, he had been found guilty the second the video hit youtube and people wanted blood). They are entitled to have their side of the issue heard and considered.(*and ignored, you can have a mountain of exculpatory evidence that could exonerate the officer only to have it thrown out) And all of us must respect the decisions of the court system when these fundamental rules of due process are applied. (will you be singing that same tune when the verdict gets over turned in the appellate court, will you help him try to get his job back or will you cast him away like a used Kleenex? ...I'm thinking the latter.) We, the men and women of this Association, serve the American criminal justice system, sometimes at the cost of our very lives. (Ok, so that last sentence there reinforced the point and the overall foundation of why having qualified immunity is a necessity we cannot loose, but I digress.) We respect the verdict of the justice system in this case,(speak for yourself I watched the trial and will never respect the jury's findings. There are a lot of people that think this way, both sworn and civilian) and we continue to stand for the proposition that respecting the fundamental Constitutional rights of all persons accused of committing an offense, even when that person is a police officer, is no obstacle to the attaining of justice. In fact, it is the very foundation upon which justice can be obtained. (Fucking no!, it was clear from the start the goal of the Chauvin trial was for successful prosecution only and to assign guilt to appease the masses. What we ALL want from due process is the whole TRUTH we didn't get that, we got mob justice, and for that I'm ashamed) The National Association of Police Organizations, founded in 1978, represents more than 241,000 sworn, rank-and-file law enforcement officers across the United States.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
You guys appear bitter and sarcastic................... try this you'll feel better
10513
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
That Chief Cardoza after eating all those dicks..?
🤐🤐🤐
Nowadays a private conversation can cause your job loss...

7 Lynn Police Officers On Leave Pending Internal Investigation

“During the investigation, we found that two of the officers, in what were private text communications at that time, used racially insensitive language.”
There are more serious things though (drugs).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,302 Posts
They’ll end up with no cops...

Hope shitbag Cardoza reads my posts. I’ll tell it to his face.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
🤐🤐🤐
Nowadays a private conversation can cause your job loss...

in what were private text communications at that time, used racially insensitive language.”
There are more serious things though (drugs).
Exactly, remember decades ago when we where always told "be careful what you write in your pocket notebook, it can be subpoenaed." I guess if you're a cop, and one of your buddies is going down for something like a domestic charge, they'll be coming for YOUR phone, Hard drive, SSD, bank statements, and social media accounts in the name of "professional standards". Remember we're NOT even talking anything criminal here. Just a great place to start with the "decertification' process. So right now everybody deactivate your MASSCOPS accounts, and then.......Oh damn! forget it, too late
10515
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,130 Posts
Exactly, remember decades ago when we where always told "be careful what you write in your pocket notebook, it can be subpoenaed." I guess if you're a cop, and one of your buddies is going down for something like a domestic charge, they'll be coming for YOUR phone, Hard drive, SSD, bank statements, and social media accounts in the name of "professional standards". Remember we're NOT even talking anything criminal here. Just a great place to start with the "decertification' process. So right now everybody deactivate your MASSCOPS accounts, and then.......Oh damn! forget it, too late
So interestingly enough, right after reading about the Lynn guys I saw a story in Yahoo News about SCOTUS taking up the case of a girl who was punished in school for something she posted off school grounds. Yes I know not exactly the same and police higher standard yada yada yada, but it got me thinking that their ruling could be applied in that case. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cheerleaders-snapchat-profanity-gets-u-101817372.html
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,582 Posts
Never write when you can speak, never speak when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink. The next thing you know cops will get fired for blinking.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goose and mpd61

·
Get off my lawn!
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Nashville, TN – A statement released by the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in the wake of former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin’s murder conviction is being criticized among many in the organization’s membership.

A jury on Tuesday found Chauvin, 45, guilty of second-degree manslaughter, third-degree murder, and second-degree murder in the May 25, 2020 death of 46-year-old George Floyd.
Chauvin’s attorneys are expected to appeal the verdict quickly and argue, among other things, that the environment surrounding the trial made it impossible to have a fair, impartial, unprejudiced jury in Hennepin County because they had not been sequestered during the very public trial.

But according to FOP President Patrick Yoes, the justice system “worked as it should,” with regards to Chauvin’s case.

“The verdict in the trial of Derek Chauvin has been reached,” Yoes wrote in a statement released on behalf of the FOP on Tuesday night. “Our system of justice has worked as it should, with the prosecutors and defense presenting their evidence to the jury, which then deliberated and delivered a verdict.”

“The trial was fair and due process was served,” he added.
Yoes’ stance on the matter was met with significant pushback from many of the FOP’s 356,000-plus members.

“Nothing screams ‘fair trial’ like the President publicly pushing for a conviction,” one person commented, likely referring to President Joe Biden’s announcement on Tuesday that he had contacted Floyd’s family the day prior to offer his support.

President Biden made the comments from the White House during a meeting with the Hispanic Caucus on Tuesday as the jury in Minneapolis entered its second day of deliberations.

“I can only imagine the pressure and anxiety they are feeling, and so I waited until the jury is sequestered and I called,” the President said.
He claimed he wasn’t going to mention it publicly because it was a private conversation with “a good family” who was “calling for peace and tranquility no matter what that verdict is.”

“I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think it’s overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn’t say that unless the jury is sequestered,” President Biden added.
Yoes’ statement was countered by a staggering number of people who scoffed at the assertion that the trial had been fair.

“There was absolutely nothing fair about this trail. Nothing! I’m stunned by this statement,” one person wrote.
“Wow, FOP… Did you not listen to the Judge go off on Maxine [Waters]? How on earth did he have a fair trial?” another commenter asked.

“Since when has jury intimidation equaled a fair trial?” yet another post read.

Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill said after the jury left the courtroom on April 19 that calls for a “guilty, guilty, guilty” verdict by lawmakers could result in “the whole trial being overturned.”

Cahill was referring to remarks made by U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-California) over the weekend.

“But I’m very hopeful,” Waters told the assembled crowd of protesters. “And I hope that we’re going to get a verdict that will say guilty guilty guilty. And if we don’t, we cannot go away.”

She told reporters that a manslaughter verdict from the jury wouldn’t be sufficient.

“Oh no, not manslaughter,” Waters insisted. “This is guilty for murder. I don’t know whether it’s in the first degree but as far as I’m concerned, it’s first-degree murder.”

“We gotta stay on the streets and we’ve gotta get more active,” Waters urged the protesters. “We’ve gotta get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”
The congresswoman has been accused of inciting a riot with her remarks but numerous Republican lawmakers, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) defended her colleague and said she owed no apology, according to The Hill.

A video of Waters’ call to action the night before closing arguments began in Chauvin’s trial for the murder of Floyd quickly went viral.

After the jury left the courtroom to begin deliberations on April 19, Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson, argued that Waters’ comments could have prejudiced the jury and therefore merited a mistrial.

“We have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case. It’s mind-boggling to me judge,” Nelson told the judge.
Cahill agreed.

“Well, I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned,” the judge said.

But then he denied the defense attorney’s motion for a mistrial and said “a congresswoman’s opinion doesn’t really matter a whole lot.”

“This goes back to what I’ve been saying since the beginning,” Cahill told the attorneys. “I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.”

“I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so… in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution and to respect a co-equal branch of government. Their failure to do so is abhorrent,” the judge ranted, showing the most emotion he has ever displayed during the trial.

But Cahill said he didn’t feel the jury had been prejudiced by Waters’ remarks because he had instructed them not to read or watch the news.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey appeared to jump on Waters’ bandwagon just moments after the judge made his remarks about politicians keeping their opinions to themselves.

“Regardless of the outcome of this trial, regardless of the decision made by the jury, there is one true reality – which is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of police,” Frey told reporters at a press conference on Monday evening.

Many comments on Yoes’ statement on Tuesday were from FOP members who said they intend to withdraw their support from the organization.

“Yup, just lost a member. Time to defund them and find an organization that supports its members,” one post read.

“Not sure how you can say this was a fair trial,” another person added. “Not sure I want the FOP representing me anymore…”
Others declared the outcome of the trial was the end result of political ploys and leftist threats.

“This was put up on the National stage as a movement for racial equality and reform and with the support of the politicians, press and activists,” another person said. “Officer Chauvin ended up as their sacrificial lamb.”
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
The FOP is the always the first National police organization to scurry up the steps of the Capitol, or White House for photo-ops with Anti-gunners and other liberal politicians. I used to go to Mass Executive Board meetings in Attleboro many years ago, but realized quickly they couldn't figure out how to be successful like the FOP next door in Rhode Island. Plus the National Officers never did much except work with OTHER national organizations on LEOSA, but that's about it. Dues support everyone getting on busses and getting hammered in D.C. for police week. Everybody should line up and pee on the shoes of FOP President Patrick Yoes.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top