George floyd verdict is in

SmallTown

Well-known member
Some pretty unsavoury comments on the Evening Gazette article - par for the course I guess.
Ex-police officer Derek Chauvin found guilty of murder of George Floyd
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/former-police-officer-derek-chauvin-20430907
Some of those gazette comments : good lord. Is it exclusively read by members of come on Boro?

And not that I suggest a link between like of education and bigotry but how come the bigots on there exclusively don't know how to use the phrase "should HAVE..."

I hate things that reflect badly on our region and make it look backwards.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
The reasons for appeal are generally groundless in my humble opinion. The one thing that does stand out are these stories of the juror - it’s stupidity at best for him to attend such marches be identified and then admit to it. I reckon they may well get a second trial on that basis.
 
Last edited:

Laughing

Well-known member
The reasons for appeal are generally groundless in my humble opinion. The one thing that does stand out are these rooms of the juror - it’s stupidity at best for him to attend such marches be identified and then admit to it. I reckon they may well get a second trial on that basis.
I will be very surprised if Chauvin doesn't get granted a new trial. It may not happen at the first appeal but it probably has to happen once the appeal, if refused, gets to the supreme court.

The problem isn't that Brendan Mitchell attended a BLM rally. It is that he lied about it during voire dire. Had he told the truth he would have been excused without cause. His explanation that it was a march to commemorate MLK doesn't really hold much water, and even if it is the case, the judge should have been made aware of it, and in the interest of justice, he would have excused Mitchell.

The other items in the appeal will be easily overturned. There is one point in the written fillings which is interesting and that is that the judge refused to subpoena Morries Hall, the drug dealer that was in the car with Floyd at the time of his arrest. It's interesting because firstly, Chauvin was not allowed to face his accuser, which doesn't add up to me, Hall was never really material, other than being able to give evidence of George Floyd taking drugs. However, other than Hall's right to not implicate himself in the supply of controlled drugs, I can't see a reason why the subpoena was refused.

Bare in mind that, if the evidence is strong enough, justice will be served by a new trial, untainted by Mitchell's behaviour. I would assume that is the argument Nelson will use.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
I will be very surprised if Chauvin doesn't get granted a new trial. It may not happen at the first appeal but it probably has to happen once the appeal, if refused, gets to the supreme court.

The problem isn't that Brendan Mitchell attended a BLM rally. It is that he lied about it during voire dire. Had he told the truth he would have been excused without cause. His explanation that it was a march to commemorate MLK doesn't really hold much water, and even if it is the case, the judge should have been made aware of it, and in the interest of justice, he would have excused Mitchell.

The other items in the appeal will be easily overturned. There is one point in the written fillings which is interesting and that is that the judge refused to subpoena Morries Hall, the drug dealer that was in the car with Floyd at the time of his arrest. It's interesting because firstly, Chauvin was not allowed to face his accuser, which doesn't add up to me, Hall was never really material, other than being able to give evidence of George Floyd taking drugs. However, other than Hall's right to not implicate himself in the supply of controlled drugs, I can't see a reason why the subpoena was refused.

Bare in mind that, if the evidence is strong enough, justice will be served by a new trial, untainted by Mitchell's behaviour. I would assume that is the argument Nelson will use.
Agreed, I think there will be a new trial- however I think it will be the same result as the first one.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Agreed, I think there will be a new trial- however I think it will be the same result as the first one.
Yup FC I can't see anything other than another conviction. I think the original judge will get to rule on the apeal in the first instance. I suspect he will refuse the appeal, and it will rumble on to the supreme court.
 
Top
X