Reasons for a successful Chauvin appeal…

The first thing to come to my mind after the Chauvin verdict is this:

Put yourself in the position of the jurors who live and work in Minneapolis and vicinity.  Even if you thought there was “reasonable doubt” about Chauvin’s guilt, what would your thoughts be if you were to render verdicts other than conviction on all three counts?  Would you experience fear?  Fear for your home, your work, your family, fear for yourself? The jury voted as they did out of FEAR.

The jury was not sequestered during the trial.  While they were instructed to not watch the news, I cannot imagine that they did not hear the news from any number of sources: Friends, family, co-workers.  Consider the news of the pigs head on the doorstep of one of the defense witnesses two days before jury sequestration.  Consider the mob rule and violence in Minneapolis for weeks after the death of George Floyd. Consider the words of prominent Democrats who, in so many words, promoted violence if the verdict was not as it was.  Consider the words of the President and Vice President urging conviction.

What were some of the points in favor of the defense that should have elicited “reasonable doubt?”

• The criminal record of Floyd
• The drug use of Floyd
• The current amount of drugs in Floyd’s body
• The typical strength and aggressive, unpredictable behavior of drug-imbued individuals
• The weight differential between Chauvin and Floyd
• The resistance to arrest shown by Floyd
• The police accommodating Floyd’s request to be laid on the ground instead of into the back of the police vehicle
• The typical actions of those resisting arrest saying they “can’t breath” or any other handy excuse.

Were these points clearly and forcibly enough explained by the defense?  If they were, was the jury intimidated into reaching their guilty verdict on all three counts?

Were the police officials, including the Chief, who testified against Chauvin that he violated department policy just protecting their own domains?  Could the defense have brought in many other witnesses from other policing agencies to testify that the restraint used, as well as its duration, was reasonable under the circumstances?

The case was lost as soon as the judge denied the requested change of venue.

There was no change of venue from a city whose leadership and much of the population demonstrated before, during and after the riots that they were anti-police and handcuffed law-enforcement.

The Chauvin trial was a textbook example of a Kangaroo Court assuring that the jury was intimidated into their verdict by fear from a hostile, anti-police community.

An appeal is justified in a jurisdiction outside of Hennepin County for all the above reasons.

And one more thought: