National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)
- Thread starter Ooh-Rah
- Start date
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,579
Last edited:
R.Caerbannog
Verified Military
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,579
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Last edited:
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,026
Yeah, but the judge basically said the AG's comments weren't material and subsequently removed the gag order.
So I was reading up on the "gag order" issue, and had three thoughts/questions--
1) the judge dropped his gag order in part because "it wasn't working." So why have gag orders at all?
2) Why allow the body cam video to only be viewed in person? If you're going to allow the public to view it, why not make it publicly available? You HAD to know that it was going to get leaked...
3) Hiring local (civilian) attorneys to prosecute the case... isn't prosecution kind of, you know, an "inherently governmental function?" I assume that this is not uncommon, or at least not unprecedented, but it doesn't sit right with me. My last tour in Iraq, in ~2009, we were directed to switch over all of our contract interrogators to GS, because interrogation (of foreign enemy combatants) was an "inherently governmental function." OK fine. But if that's the case, shouldn't it be even more true of prosecutions of American citizens inside the US? related reading
1) the judge dropped his gag order in part because "it wasn't working." So why have gag orders at all?
2) Why allow the body cam video to only be viewed in person? If you're going to allow the public to view it, why not make it publicly available? You HAD to know that it was going to get leaked...
3) Hiring local (civilian) attorneys to prosecute the case... isn't prosecution kind of, you know, an "inherently governmental function?" I assume that this is not uncommon, or at least not unprecedented, but it doesn't sit right with me. My last tour in Iraq, in ~2009, we were directed to switch over all of our contract interrogators to GS, because interrogation (of foreign enemy combatants) was an "inherently governmental function." OK fine. But if that's the case, shouldn't it be even more true of prosecutions of American citizens inside the US? related reading
Can a non DA prosecute a case?
I thought Ellis was doing it himself?
Judge is a political hack, should have tossed Ellis in jail over a weekend to make a point.
Kraut783
SOF Support
Appointments of special prosecutors is not uncommon, but not sure why they would in this case....sounds more political than anything else.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Ok, so I spoke to the boss since she's home.
Term here is "Of Counsel". The case still has to be prosecuted by the government. So if these folks that were hired Pro Bono more than likely will be a part of the research and advice team. They will be a part of prep. But they will not sit at the desk in the court room. This apparently "happens all the time".
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,235
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,949
I would think for most businesses, "leave" would be the default option (to be refuted by costs or logistical hurdles). Why would you stay?
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,026
FWIW, here's my somewhat rudimentary understanding and breakdown of things:
Mike Freeman - Hennepin County Attorney (Hennepin County is where Minneapolis is located): Very experienced. Filed initial charges against Chauvin only. Has jurisdiction and would normally prosecute this case, however, was basically told by the governor of MN to step aside and let MN Attorney General take lead. Supposedly his office is still assisting the AG but it's unclear what that really means.
Keith Ellison - Minnesota Attorney General: Lead prosecutor in the case against 4 officers at request of governor. Brought elevated murder charges against Chauvin and the other 3 officers. Of note, and it's been stated here previously, Ellison is first and foremost, a politician; he's a former MN State Rep to Congress for MN's 5th District (Ilhan Omar's district - her predecessor). He's not a prosecutor nor is he a courtroom attorney. At one time he held a license to practice law as some sort of civil rights attorney, but last report I saw it was not active and hadn't been for quite some time; this is not a requirement for AG's in Minnesota but speaks to his experience or lack thereof.
Judge Peter Cahill: Presiding judge over the case. Been a judge since 2007. Has prior experience both as defense attorney and prosecutor
Prosecution Team:
- Headed by MN AG Ellison
- The criminal division of the AG's office will handle the case under his direction; this is pretty rare - they typically aren't involved in these cases
- Supposedly, Hennepin County Attorney's Office is providing assistance, although it's unclear what that means exactly
- Ellison brought on 4 "experienced" pro-bono attorneys to assist, unclear exactly what their role is; no additional comment on their involvement was made at the time of the announcement "out of respect for the gag order"
- Chauvin: 2nd degree murder (MN Statute 609.19.2(1)), 3rd degree murder (609.195(a)), and 2nd degree manslaughter (609.205(1))
- 3 other officers: Aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder (609.19.2(1) with reference to 609.05.1), aiding and abetting 2nd degree manslaughter (609.205(1) with reference to 609.05.1)
- Minnesota Criminal Statutes: Ch. 609 MN Statutes
Pretrial Hearing Status:
- Judge initially issued gag order. Defense attorneys alleged AG violated gag order almost immediately. Judge subsequently removed gag order within about a week or so with no penalty to AG
- Judge warned attorneys on both sides about speaking publicly about the trial under threat of changing the venue; appears to be empty threat
- Defense attorneys for a couple of the officers have requested the case against their clients be dismissed; so far, no go
- As part of the motion for dismissal, body cam transcripts and video were filed into evidence - this made them public; defense attorneys for at least two of the officers want the video made public; as a result, court ordered video be made available to media and public by appointment only - no recordings, thus the issue with leaked video
- Decision as to whether cameras will be allowed in courtroom remains open; prosecution opposes cameras, defense supports them
- 3 officers are out on bail, Chauvin has bail set at $1.25M but don't believe he posted and remains in custody
- No pleas entered at this time
Next Hearing Date: 11 Sep 20
Trial: Scheduled for 8 Mar 21; judge and prosecution assumed all 4 will stand trial together, although defense attorneys are requesting separate trials - TBD
Last edited:
Exactly how does it work that he's getting 2 murder charges and a manslaughter charge for one single death?
I had the same question. My best guess is that if they charge him with all three, it allows a jury to pick which one to say he's guilty of. It's not double jeopardy unless they were to find him guilty of more than one of them. If they were to only charge him with the second degree and the jury found that the evidence didn't rise to the standard, then he's acquitted and they are unable to bring another round of charges.
Personally I would say it's BS. The charge should match what they think they can get a conviction for.
Putting on the tinfoil hat here so take this with as much salt as you'd like, but MN AG is a known supporter of Antifa, correct? What would be the easiest way to sow discourse and further increase the divide we see right now, other than to inflate the charges beyond the point where you could feasibly convict Chauvin? The vast majority of society has already made its mind up and are convinced that Chauvin is guilty, we all know what happens when Chauvin is acquitted because the chosen charges can't stick.
Based on the courts martial and jury panels I've served on, it is not uncommon for serious offenses to have lesser included charges in the event that the more serious charge(s) result in acquittal, but there was still an offense committed...I was on a rape court martial when I was a lieutenant and the lesser included charge was indecent conduct...since the act began consensually, it was difficult to convict the SM of rape, but his conduct fit the specifications for the lesser included charge...
That's too tinfoil... Unless the AG is deeply entrenched in/with Antifa, who is going to be the very first target of any anger if Chauvin is acquitted because the charges didn't stick?
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Happens pretty often. Burdens of proof for each charge is separate. As said below, he can still be convicted of lesser charges. It's not double jeopardy to have all those charges. It would be double jeopardy to have to trials under the same exact charges.
Blizzard
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,026
Agree it may be a little too tinfoil but the AG is a politican first and foremost. As a result, I believe there is a narrative he can and will push in the case of acquittal. That is: "The system" (legal) is inherently broken and/or tipped such that the black community cannot receive justice against those that do them wrong, like the police, citing case in point. Sadly, that message would probably resonate well with it's intended audience.
Last edited:
Similar threads
