By BILL JUNEAU
Despite the grimaces of the progressive and biased media and the liberal left wing shadow of Joe Biden hanging over Washington, the door is still ajar on Derek Chauvin and the case against him. Behind bars in a maximum level prison in Minnesota, the ex-policeman contends that he is not guilty of the murder and manslaughter of George Floyd, and that the jury erred in its findings.
With new defense counsel William Mohrman at his side, Chauvin, 45, is drafting his appeal and asks that it be assessed fairly by judges not captured and influenced by those who strap Floyd's arrest to racial animus; and who may feel a need to find the defendant guilty lest a different determination would ignite a new surge of anarchy, violence and street unrest.
In the minds of many lawyers, evidence supporting a favorable decision for the veteran policeman or, at the minimum, for a new trial, is strong. Respected as a skilled appellate lawyer, Mohrman is a partner with the Minneapolis firm, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson.
Appeal briefs containing the complete trial transcript are being filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and if unsuccessful, with the Minnesota Supreme court. If the state courts reject the appeal, it will very likely, because of many constitutional questions raised, go to the federal courts. Ultimately, Chauvin's appeal may be decided and put to rest by the U. S. Supreme court and its nine justices. The appellate process is arduous and costly, and could take years.
Floyd, 46, was a heroin addict and a hardened criminal with a long police record. He had served five years in a prison for a home invasion at which time he jammed the barrel of his loaded pistol into the swollen abdomen of a pregnant woman and demanded money--or else. His many other arrests and convictions for the most part involved some form of thievery.
Was the Chauvin trial fair as is promised to all criminal defendants under the U.S. Constitution? Consider that the Minneapolis courthouse where the trial was held was transformed into a fortress surrounded by coiled wire, and jurors and spectators entered via a single path leading to the front door. The surrounding neighborhood rang with racial tension triggered by violence, looting and the arson of autos, stores and even a police station. The Floyd protests caused many millions of dollars in damage to residences, businesses and other structures.
A "George Floyd Square" with signs and tributes to the alleged police victim, was set up at an intersection down the street from the courthouse, and jurors and spectators, eyed it daily as they came and left the courthouse.
As jurors were being selected, the city of Minneapolis announced that it was awarding $27 million to the Floyd family as damages for the death. As the trial moved forward, U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters made a public declaration that if the defendant is not found guilty of murder there will be retaliation, and "we will get confrontational." Did the jurors hear of that huge award, and the Maxine Waters threat, and the constant drum beat that all cops are racists and white supremacists out to kill blacks? Very likely, jurors became aware of the huge award, and what effect did that have on their decisions?
On at least three occasions, Chauvin's attorney at the trial, Eric Nelson, petitioned Judge Cahill to approve a change in venue from Hennepin to another county or to declare a mistrial for a variety of reasons, but Cahill remained consistent in his refusals.
After jury deliberations and a finding of guilt, it was revealed that one of the jurors, Brandon Mitchell, a 31-year-old high school basketball coach, had participated in a "justice" for Floyd rally in August of 2020. In photos, Mitchell was seen wearing a BLM (Black Lives Matter) hat, and a tee shirt inscribed with the words, "Get your knee off our necks."
During the voir dire of potential jurors, Mitchell answered "no" when asked if he had participated in protests on behalf of "justice" for George Floyd. Did Mitchell's dishonesty constitute jury misconduct? Was he impartial? The jury was tainted, asserts Defendant Chauvin, and a fair trial in Minneapolis was impossible.
In the days prior to the trial, Harvard Law School Emeritus Professor Alan Dershowitz, an expert in criminal law, said that in his judgment, there was no way that Officer Chauvin could ever receive a fair trial in Minneapolis where the adverse publicity was overwhelming. Was he right?
Last June 25, following the conviction for unintended murder and manslaughter, Circuit Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22.5 years in a penitentiary Pursuant to state guidelines, a sentence of 12.5 years is the recommended penalty for those crimes. Judge Cahill tacked on 10 additional years explaining that he determined that Chauvin had been "unnecessarily cruel" to Floyd. Although the judge has discretion in sentencing, was the enhanced sentence an emotional response to the screams that white policemen are racist killers
Chauvin's lawyers have said that the trial was punctuated with so many errors by Judge Cahill that the verdict cannot stand. Also key among them, was Cahill's refusal to allow defense attorneys to force testimony from uncooperative Morries Lester Hall, a friend and a companion who was with Floyd on the evening of the arrest. Reportedly, Hall's testimony under oath would reinforce the defense contention that the six-feet, five inch powerfully built Floyd was wildly out-of-control and that Chauvin acted professionally in controlling him.
On the evening of his arrest, Floyd was high on drugs. His body was pumped full of a fatal amount of fentanyl and methamphetamine. He gulped some pills, muttered incoherently about wanting "mama" and that "I can't breathe." He had a sick heart and his main arteries were severely blocked. This according to some physicians and his lawyers, was the most likely cause of his death, and it was not the knee on his neck by the defendant police officer who was doing what police are taught to do during training when taking down unruly addicts and out-of-control suspects.
Contentions that he died as a result of the police detainment are opinions highlighted with emotional emphasis that Floyd was black and Chauvin was a white police officer and that policemen are "systemically racist." One physician testified that Floyd had ingested an amount of fentanyl which would be fatal to virtually anyone.
In America, criminal defendants are accorded a presumption of innocence, and that presumption stays with the defendant during the trial by a judge or jury. President Biden said while the jury was deliberating that Chauvin was guilty and that the police departments are systemically racist, and police are killing black men all too often. With few exceptions, the media condemned Chauvin as a racist murderer long before the trial even began.
Chauvin's appeal is now in the hands of judges who have promised to be fair to their oath of office, and to make judgments based upon the law as applicable to the facts. There must be no pandering to the will of mobs which assert that Floyd was murdered by a "cruel" black-hating, white supremacist cop. Chauvin was a policeman for 18 years and had a good record. Examine the facts with an open mind, and recognize that the police officer is not a murderer, defense attorney Mohrman asserts.
XXX
No comments:
Post a Comment