|
Post by stalybridgehatter on Apr 23, 2021 15:49:14 GMT
suppose at the end of the day getting him banged up for what in reality is for life is the best outcome. doubt he would have gone free though on any technicality as it would have caused nearly a civil war overthere. He absolutely could still go free. They’re going to appeal and his defence team are going to lean hard into the media surrounding it. The judge himself said that the case was under threat from the circus going on and the trial could have collapsed several times. I wouldn't in the least bit be surprised if he is eventually acquitted. I can also Chauvin winding up dead, sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Apr 23, 2021 17:09:04 GMT
If it was in England, the idea that the press coverage / political significance of the trial has prevented Chauvin from getting a fair trial would be a bit of a grey area for the lawyers to exploit I’d think.
I think the laws on that sort of thing are very different in the US though, but admit that’s only something I imply from tv programmes / OJ Simpson car chase etc. rather than any actual knowledge. Any of our US posters able to fill in the blanks?
|
|
Fez
Frequenter
Posts: 472
|
Post by Fez on Apr 23, 2021 20:40:33 GMT
If it was in England, the idea that the press coverage / political significance of the trial has prevented Chauvin from getting a fair trial would be a bit of a grey area for the lawyers to exploit I’d think. I think the laws on that sort of thing are very different in the US though, but admit that’s only something I imply from tv programmes / OJ Simpson car chase etc. rather than any actual knowledge. Any of our US posters able to fill in the blanks? Jurors are generally (and certainly in this trial) instructed by the judge to not view TV or press coverage. But this is always a danger in high-profile cases; the trial nevertheless still needs to proceed. As one former defense attorney puts it: "A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial"... and "given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, appellate courts will conclude that adverse publicity didn’t affect the result." Specifically in this case he was speaking of remarks made by Rep. Maxine Walters, who I like but whose words could have been harmful to the trial and useful to an appeal. Daft to speak up during the last days of the trial and not keep quiet at least until the jury is sequestered and deliberating, and preferably after the verdict. For context: www.politifact.com/article/2021/apr/21/what-rep-maxine-waters-said-about-chauvin-trial-an/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:59:27 GMT
There was a high profile murder case a few years back, Lacey Peterson. Her husband went away for life without any physical evidence. The jury admitted afterwards to all thinking he was guilty before it started due to the media storm. There’s a good documentary on it on various platforms. I’m not convinced he did it but the public minds were made up because he acted weird in the days afterwards, a la Amanda Knox.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Apr 24, 2021 7:44:17 GMT
There was a high profile murder case a few years back, Lacey Peterson. Her husband went away for life without any physical evidence. The jury admitted afterwards to all thinking he was guilty before it started due to the media storm. thats obvious what would happen in any high profile cases. jury members who are really amateurs doing a job would have made their minds up before the case started. just imagine any of us being called up on a trial of another crewe nonce. we,d need to hear really strong arguments to change our pre trial minds.
|
|