George Floyd

He going to appeal saying he was not given a fair trial with all that happened over the last year and all the reports and burning and rioting ...
 
Laughing said:
I haven't looked this up yet but I will be surprised if a congresswoman asking for a guilty verdict is not enough to appeal.
Click to expand...
In no legal expert but from what I understand of what I've heard and read a politician simply asking for a guilty verdict would not be sufficient grounds for appeal and that is not what the defence was saying when they brought the matter up in court.

My understanding is that the grounds for appeal (if any) would be an implied threat of violence which might have intimidated the jury. Rep. Waters has now said she was not calling for violence but I have to say calling for demonstrators to "stay on the street" and "get more confrontational" was at a minimum, intemperate and unhelpful.
 
Liamo said:
In no legal expert but from what I understand of what I've heard and read a politician simply asking for a guilty verdict would not be sufficient grounds for appeal and that is not what the defence was saying when they brought the matter up in court.

My understanding is that the grounds for appeal (if any) would be an implied threat of violence which might have intimidated the jury. Rep. Waters has now said she was not calling for violence but I have to say calling for demonstrators to "stay on the street" and "get more confrontational" was at a minimum, intemperate and unhelpful.
Click to expand...
That's not my understanding Liamo. Any attempt to influence the jury can be grounds for an appeal. A defence lawyer talking to a jury member or an ex=parte meeting are both enough to call a msitrial, and in the event that doesn't happen, an appeal.

If the influence comes from ouitside the courtroom, the same rules apply. The judge did discuss a possible mistrial and explained on the record, why he decided not to. He did this, I believe to cover himself in the event of an appeal.

Even if an appeal was successful, he wouldnt necessarily be released, but the supreme court may decide to declair a mistrial and re-hear the case. Chauvin still wouldn't neccessarily be released on bail at this point as the prosecution would argue against bail on the grounds the presumption of guilt is great.
 
Laughing said:
That's not my understanding Liamo. Any attempt to influence the jury can be grounds for an appeal. A defence lawyer talking to a jury member or an ex=parte meeting are both enough to call a msitrial, and in the event that doesn't happen, an appeal.

If the influence comes from ouitside the courtroom, the same rules apply. The judge did discuss a possible mistrial and explained on the record, why he decided not to. He did this, I believe to cover himself in the event of an appeal.

Even if an appeal was successful, he wouldnt necessarily be released, but the supreme court may decide to declair a mistrial and re-hear the case. Chauvin still wouldn't neccessarily be released on bail at this point as the prosecution would argue against bail on the grounds the presumption of guilt is great.
Click to expand...
Is there a point where jury members are incommunicado in the US? Hence, once the jury go out, no external influence is possible.
 
bear66 said:
Is there a point where jury members are incommunicado in the US? Hence, once the jury go out, no external influence is possible.
Click to expand...
Not usually bear, the jury were not sequestered, and that is very rare. The silly cow should have kept her mouth shut.

I am not sure how much weight would be given to the event, possibly none. I also think that Chauvin's defence team will wait until sentencing to decide whether they want to appeal. If Chauvin gets concurrent sentences in the lower end of the range he will shut up and do his time. If he gets consecutive sentences or sentenced at the higher end of the scale he will almost certainly appeal, he doesn't have a lot to loose at that point. If he gets 2*15 years + 5 consecutive sentences it puts him behind bars for 35 years.

I wonder if what the congress woman has done, inadvertantly, is force the judge to a lighter, concurrent sentencing, to avoid appeal.
 
just read that so far this year 274 poeple have been shot and killed by US police, that is absolutely shocking, they need reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top