Wednesday, August 30, 2023

SUPREME COURT ASKED TO CONSIDER THE GEORGE FLOYD CASE.

 for fb.jpg                 

                                       BY BILL JUNEAU

                              I am just one retired lawyer, and I get my information from home research and the reading of newspapers and magazines, and by listening to TV talking analysts. Others may not agree with me. But one thing that I am sure of is that Policeman Derek Chauvin, 47, did not receive a fair trial on the charges of murder and manslaughter of George Floyd, a hardened criminal, high on heroin and fentanyl. 

                               Floyd succumbed  on May 25, 2020 while being detained as a suspect by police on a Minneapolis street.  Officer Chauvin was convicted by a twin-city jury in April, 2021 of unintentional murder and manslaughter and sentenced by Judge Peter Cahill to 22.5 years in prison.  The recommended prison time in Minnesota for the specific offenses is 12.5 years.  However, Judge Cahill added 10 years onto the  sentence  because of the officer's alleged unnecessary "cruelty" in making the arrest.

                               Chauvin used his knee on the suspect's throat to detain him and settle him down.  It is a technique taught policemen in Minnesota and in police departments across the country, and Chauvin made use of it. The fact that Floyd was an African American had nothing to do with his method of detainment, nor was it an exercise in "cruelty." 

                       Floyd's death created a firestorm of rage in  black communities across America. That rage was exacerbated and transmitted by a media which thundered the calls for punishment for the white, racist cop and three rookies who assisted him in subduing  Floyd and in exercising crowd control.    

                             The unintended death of George Floyd, whose lengthy police record was known to Minneapolis officers, and whose precise cause of death was never scientifically determined, triggered riots, arsons, deaths and billions of dollars in destruction of property in major  cities across America.  Demands for the punishing of the Minneapolis policemen were overwhelming. It was all about race and police denigration of blacks.   Conviction for murder by the policeman was an absolute given and a foregone conclusion. 

                            Alan M. Dershowitz, retired Harvard university professor of criminal law, and a nationally recognized legal scholar, stated prior to commencement of the trial, that there is "no way" that Derek Chauvin could ever receive a fair trial in Minneapolis

                             

                                         George Floyd 

                             The Chauvin conviction and the enhanced sentencing for an unintentional and accidental crime was appealed, and in April of this year, was affirmed by the Minnesota Appellate court.  In July, just last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the appeal  in a one-page order without comment, effectively exhausting the defendant's state remedies. 

                            Attorneys for the 19-year-veteran police officer, who is serving his enhanced prison sentence designed by the trial judge to assuage the BLW organization lest it continue its  warlike activities,  said that the case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the necessary petition to the court for certiorari is being prepared for filing, according to available information.  

                           There is confidence in some areas that SCOTUS, the nation's highest court, whose courage to follow the law became evident when it overruled Roe v. Wade in June of 2022, will accept the Chauvin appeal and will ultimately make a final determination.  

                           Let the court, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts,  examine the Floyd case with fresh, unstained glasses and it is my opinion that it will see that Chauvin was denied a fair trial and was made to suffer at the hands of a judge who erred in countless rulings and who declined several petitions for a change of venue where a "fair trial" could be provided in accord with the U.S. Constitution. 

                           The high court needs to consider the lawlessness which was  sweeping Minneapolis and other urban centers as the trial went forward.  As a jury was being finalized, the city of Minneapolis announced that it was awarding $27 million to the Floyd family in view of the death of George Floyd. The jury that had not been sequestered, very likely became aware of the award and may have considered the dire consequences if it failed to find Officer Chauvin guilty of murdering the black man.  

                          One juror selected, an African American high school coach, lied during a voir dire examination by asserting that he had no prejudice or opinion favoring Floyd; or negative assessments of policemen. He was promptly approved  as one of the 12 jurors.   Later, it became known that the juror had participated in a rally on behalf of George Floyd and had worn a tee shirt inscribed with the comment, "get your knee off of my neck." The jury was tainted from day one.  

                            The courthouse where the trial took place was converted into a fortress and was rimmed with coiled wire as the unsequestered jurors passed in and out during the six weeks of trial.  Down the street were areas where buildings and shops were torn apart and had suffered damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  The nearby intersection where Floyd died, was transformed into "George Floyd Square," and it contained pictures of Floyd and other momentos calling attention to the racial killing by police.  

                             Congresswoman Maxine Waters of Texas, an African American, announced that there would be trouble if the jury failed to deliver a verdict of murder. If the defendant is not found guilty of murder, she said, there will be retaliation, and "we will get confrontational."                        

                              President Biden was always in the corner of the prosecutors and while not singling out defendant Chauvin for misconduct, commented publicly that police departments were  "systemically racist," and that the nation's problem was caused by white supremacists. 

                             Judge Cahill declined to allow as a defense witness at trial the companion of Floyd whose testimony would have contradicted much of the testimony on which the prosecution had built its case for  murder or manslaughter by a police officer prejudiced against blacks.  

                             On several occasions during the trial, defense lawyers petitioned Cahill to grant a change of venue and allow the trial to be held in a less stormy area; and which would help in guaranteeing that the defendant received a fair trial, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Cahill denied the petitions commenting that the anti-police sentiment would be the same in every other jurisdiction.  

                             The enhanced penalty of 22.5 years with the last 10 tacked on for "cruelty," was among rulings of Judge Cahill in his biased attempt to please the enraged black community which was tearing up the streets of cities across the country, with calls for the defunding of police departments. 

                             If it grants the Writ of Certiorari as anticipated, the  Supreme Court with its nine justices will examine all aspects of the case and determine if the defendant was treated fairly.  The court can affirm the conviction; or it can reverse findings, or it can order that a new trial be held in a different venue before a sequestered jury.  

                            Was Prof. Dershowitz wrong when he said that there was "no way" that Derek Chauvin could receive a fair trial in Minneapolis?                             

                                                 xxx


                   

Saturday, August 12, 2023

TRUMP AND THE STACKED DECK

 

for fb.jpg       

                                     BY BILL JUNEAU  

                                     Without a doubt, the terrain is rocky and rough for Donald Trump as he pursues the Presidency in 2024.  Democratic  cannons are aimed at him and the deck has been carefully and conspiratorially stacked against him.  But the former President who has been accused of misdeeds in three pending legal cases, does not scare easily.  He is running again for the office which he once held as  President, and says he will win  and will restore common sense, honesty, civility and patriotism to the United States. "Yes, we will Make America Great Again," he asserts. 

                            His latest legal encounter was in Washington, D.C. where a grand jury has returned indictments alleging that he was the catalyst and conspirator who promoted the mob action in the capitol on January 6, 2021. The political charges are rooted in his unsuccessful effort to demonstrate that the election which put dim Joe Biden in the White House was dishonest, and in fact, "stolen." If you are a Democrat and a liar and a progressive loon, D.C. is ground zero, and the place to go to take down Republican Donald Trump. 

                            GOP-hating Democrats dominate the District of Columbia, the nation's capital, like no other spot in the country.  In the 2020 election, Joe Biden received 92.1 per cent of the total votes cast to Trump's 5.4 per cent.  In numbers, it was about 317,000 votes for Biden and 18,000 for the incumbent President. Since D.C. became a special territory in 1961, able to cast three electoral votes, democratic candidates for president have always drawn majorities,  but the Biden victory there in 2020 set records. 

                            So it was not difficult for the Party of the Jackass inside the District of Columbia to assemble a Grand Jury of  23 local residents to return indictments accusing the former President of criminally attempting to turn around the alleged results of the 2020 election. In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents only evidence of guilt and jurors will, with rare exceptions, acquiesce and return a true bill. 

                            A bitter Trump hater, Jack Smith was tabbed as  special investigative counsel by the owly and disingenuous Attorney General, Merrick Garland. Smith, who Trump has labeled as "deranged," presented flimsy, one-sided and fabricated  evidence that Trump and his attorneys committed criminal offenses when they argued without basis that the election was dishonest. The indictments were returned in shotgun fashion by the cooperating D.C. grand jury. 

                            While the Biden victory was manipulated in a variety of ways, the Trump team demanded to know how the clumsy and befuddled Biden who rarely campaigned for the Presidency, relying on scripts written for him and read by him via television from the basement of his Delaware home, could have earned several million more votes from the African American community than Barack Obama had ever received in his successful races in 2008 and 2012. Trump has contended that the ballots, many blank except for a single mark for Biden, had to have been faked to provide such a count, yet judges declined to recognize the obvious incongruity, and order an investigation. 

                             On August 3, former President Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges against him concerning alleged criminal efforts to change election results.  He appeared before the 35-year-old Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, who nastily referred to the ex President as "Mr. Trump," while warning him that any further criminal activities by him will trigger additional legal actions against him. Upadhyaya was appointed a magistrate judge in September of last year.  

                                      Magistrate Upadhyaya was born in Gujarat, India in 1988 and, according to her biography, which raises many questions, is a prodigy who graduated from law school when she was 15. The law degree followed undergraduate studies at the University of Missouri where she obtained bachelor degrees in journalism and in Latin arts. 

                                    She received her J.D., cum laude, from Washington College of Law at American University in 2003. making her about 10 when she began her studies there.  Correspondingly, it appears that she was 6 or 7,  barely out of kindergarten,  when she began her undergraduate studies at the University of Missouri and subsequently earned two bachelor degrees.   After law school, she was said to have clerked for judges and for a period was a partner at a law firm, doing pro bono work for which she won awards.  

                    After Upadhyaya dealt with the arraignment of the defendant, all subsequent matters and motions, will be given to Jamaican-born District Judge Tanya Chutkan, for pretrial motions and the jury trial. An appointee of President Obama, Chutkan, a former public defender, has been outspoken about the harm caused by the capitol melee, and in other rulings and writings she has not concealed her negative assessment of former President Trump who has described Judge Chutkan as the democrats' "number one draft pick."    

                                    Mark Levin, a respected lawyer who hosts "Life, Liberty & Levin" on Fox News, has described Chutkan as the most "radical, partisan activist judge in the entire federal judiciary.  Gee, I wonder how she got chosen.”    

                                      Trump, President from 2016 to 2020, made his first appearance before Judge Chutkan on August 11, and Chotkan raised her concerns that the ex-president must be limited in what he can say about the pending case and the charges against him even though he is a candidate for President in 2024, and is campaigning for the nomination of his party.  Well, he cannot say what he wants to say in a political speech; "that is just how it’s going to have to be.” said Chutkan. Trump lawyers are arguing that the judge is stepping upon freedom of speech rights provided all Americans, including  those facing federal charges. 

                            Chutkan scheduled another hearing for November 4 at which the court will determine the extent of records which the Trump administration must release to the prosecutors. 

                                         Trump is the defendant in two other lawsuits accusing him of felonious conduct. One deals with his possession of classified documents kept in his Florida home under the protection of secret service agents.  The other, brought by a New York district attorney,  accuses the ex president  of a  hush money scheme involving adult film star Stormy Daniels. Both are deemed political fabrication by Republicans and fair minded Americans who expect that the charges will be dismissed via motions, or after a trial.

                                          So for the ex-President, seeking his second term in the White House, the obstacles thrown into his path are vicious, but Trump says that they are surmountable. His followers will never desert him, and lawsuits aimed at him by an authoritarian group which has abandoned all objectivity, honesty and honor, and  according to polls, seem to be making him stronger.  

                                           Democrats and the top level in the politicized FBI and the Department of Justice should be worried if Donald Trump again becomes president. He does not take kindly to liars and corrupt officials; and he is not projected to be a forgiving person. 

                                                xxx