LAL #023 — The Chauvin Appeal and the Federal Prosecution: The Fair Trial Entitlement
LAL #023 — The Chauvin Appeal and the Federal Prosecution: The Fair Trial Entitlement

LAL #023 — The Chauvin Appeal and the Federal Prosecution: The Fair Trial Entitlement

Sketchy Bongo

24 min
Comedy & Entertainment
چلائیں

تفصیل

<p>The law is a clear: a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. </p> <p>In the case of <em>Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin</em>, there are good reasons to doubt whether Chauvin received a fair trial. Even the federal government seems to acknowledge that; why else would federal prosecutors bring federal charges before sentence is even imposed?<br /> <br /> Chauvin’s lawyer filed a motion to set aside the verdict this week, asking for more time to fully brief the issues. Among the issues he raises is a significant claim of juror misconduct. </p> <p>It turns out one juror, Brandon Mitchell, was observed at a rally, smiling, and wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words: “Get Your Knee Off My Neck,” long before the trial.<br /> <br /> Mitchell never disclosed this to the court during jury selection. Neither did he disclose his podcasts on the topic. He claimed little knowledge about, or interest in, the case.<br /> <br /> Maybe he was truthful, in a niggling sort of way; the sort of way Bill Clinton denied having had sex with Monica Lewinsky — fellatio isn’t the missionary position after all.<br /> <br /> Mitchell should never have been seated on the jury. He did tell the court that he would “love” to be part of the case because it was the “most historic” case of his lifetime.<br /> <br /> Jury Selection 101:  Never sit a juror who wants to be there — they have a mission. </p> <p>Jurors ought to be reluctant to take on the responsibility, much like a draftee. Beware the juror who wants to serve, they are like enlistees after 9-11; they want to go out and start shooting.<br /> <br /> There are other issues regarding this trial, including one that should result in reversal on appeal: The trial court refused to record sidebar discussions where evidentiary rulings were debated. This failure results in an incomplete record for appeal. Appellate Courts have reversed simply on the grounds that the trial court failed to make such a record.<br /> <br /> So why are the feds prosecuting now? </p> <p>They can’t

اپ لوڈر

kerryPark

kerryPark

LAL #023 — The Chauvin Appeal and the Federal Prosecution: The Fair Trial Entitlement - Listen Free | WowFM