Derek Chauvin requests new trial after being convicted of George Floyd's murder

Derek Chauvin requests new trial after being convicted of George Floyd's murder
Joel Shannon
Tami Abdollah

The defense attorney for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on Tuesday requested a new trial after Chauvin was convicted in April of second-degree murder and other charges in the death of George Floyd.

Attorney Eric J. Nelson says in the motion that Chauvin was denied a fair trial for reasons including "prosecutorial and jury misconduct; errors of law at trial," and that the resulting jury's verdict was "contrary to law."

Chauvin, who is white, was convicted in April of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for pressing his knee against Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes as the Black man said he couldn’t breathe and went motionless.

Tuesday's motion, an expected development in the case, argues a number of reasons would justify a new trial. Among the most anticipated: that Judge Peter Cahill should not have denied the defense's request to change the venue of the trial.

April 28:Chauvin trial juror says he didn't feel pressure for a guilty verdict

During the trial’s jury selection, Cahill said he wouldn’t delay or move Chauvin’s trial over concerns that a $27 million settlement for Floyd’s family could taint the jury pool.

Nelson's Tuesday filing also asked the judge to impeach the verdict on the grounds that the jury committed misconduct, felt pressured, and/or failed to adhere to jury instructions, though the filing did not include details about that assertion. To impeach a verdict is to question its validity.

Mary Moriarty, the former chief public defender of Minnesota's Hennepin County, said the motion is common and that nearly all of the arguments raised were previously brought up during the trial. Attorneys frequently do so in order to preserve potential issues for an appeal.

Requesting a new trial can be an "intermediary step" for criminal defendants in addition to filing an appeal, according to BK Law Group.

In the filing, Nelson also requested a hearing to examine jury misconduct.

Tuesday's motion did not mention recent reports that juror Brandon Mitchell participated in an Aug. 28 march in Washington, D.C., to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., but Moriarty believes that may be one reason for the request. Mitchell was photographed wearing a t-shirt that framed a picture of Martin Luther King with the words "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" and "BLM."

Mitchell, like all jurors, filled out a questionnaire regarding his viewpoint on issues like BLM and was also asked about it during jury selection.

Nelson repeatedly asked Cahill during the course of the trial to sequester the jury due to the immense amount of public interest in the case, and he specifically brought up Congresswoman Maxine Waters' comment urging protesters to "get more confrontational" if Chauvin isn't convicted, which was made prior to the start of deliberations.

The motion says it resulted in "jury intimidation and potential fear of retribution among jurors."

"I think he (Nelson) wants a very broad inquiry (but) the judge is not going to do that. I can pretty much guarantee that," Moriarty said.

Moriarty said one reason for the request may also be to get potential issues of juror misconduct into the court record, because that is what an appeals court would solely reference in their review of potential issues that would demand a new case.

Chauvin is scheduled to be sentenced in June. Minnesota's attorney general last week filed paperwork asking that Chauvin be given a more severe prison sentence in the case, arguing that the former Minneapolis police officer inflicted torturous deadly methods as Floyd pleaded for his life.

“Mr. Floyd was treated with particular cruelty. ... Defendant continued to maintain his position atop Mr. Floyd even as Mr. Floyd cried out that he was in pain, even as Mr. Floyd exclaimed 27 times that he could not breathe, and even as Mr. Floyd said that Defendant’s actions were killing him,” Minnesota's Attorney General Keith Ellison said. He added that Chauvin stayed in position as Floyd cried out for his mother, stopped speaking and lost consciousness.

Prosecutors also wrote that Chauvin's actions "inflicted gratuitous pain" and psychological distress not just on Floyd but on the civilian bystanders who they argued will be haunted by the memory of what they saw.

Four of the people in the crowd watching Floyd die were minors, the court filing said.




Print Email Hits: 8

Professor says she limits 'interactions' with white people 'as much as possible'

An Iowa State University professor raised eyebrows after revealing that she limits "interactions" with white people "as much as possible."
She also complained that white men "with dirty hair and wrinkled clothes" will always be "liked and higher ranked."

The professor's tweets are protected at the time of this reporting.

What are the details?
According to a Tuesday report from Campus Reform, Professor Rita Mookerjee, who spoke on a student government "Diversity and Inclusion Panel in March," reportedly tweeted that she tries to "limit my interactions with yt people as much as possible."

"I can't with the self-importance and performance esp during Black History Month," she said in a since-deleted tweet.

Iowa State's Young Americans for Freedom tweeted about Mookerjee's remarks and wrote, "ISUStuGov, do you still plan on hosting this professor for Women's Week after she has made repeated racist claims against women of a different race?"
The outlet also reported that in 2020, she complained about how "whyte men with dirty hair and wrinkled clothes will always be liked and higher ranked."
She also reportedly complained that a person mistook her for a white person on social media, so she was forced to change her profile picture.
"Someone called me white the other day so #NewProfilePic because I think the f*** not," she tweeted, according to the outlet.

In a statement, the university's student government group said that while Mookerjee's remarks did not "reflect the views of the student government," it would not remove her from the upcoming Women's Week panel.

A portion of the statement said, "Student government does not agree with the content of the comments that were made — no one should be reduced to the color of their skin."

It later added, "The tweets from the panelist do not reflect the views of Student Government: we believe that prejudice based on race or the color of someone's skin is wrong in all accounts. We have decided that the professor will still be invited to participate in the panel; it is important to allow ideas to be shared, even if the find the comments to be wrong. In order to have a true free marketplace of ideas, we must not rescind an offer to speak based on our objection to someone's personal speech."
Charles Klapatauskas, president of Young Americans for Freedom at the school, told the outlet, "YAF was not supportive of the decision to not remove Dr. Mookerjee from the women's panel."

"YAF might disagree with the content of the tweets, [but] we firmly stand behind her ability to tweet out such things," Klapatauskas added.

PS In my opion separatism will be the future..

Print Email Hits: 13

Biden's first 100 days: Approval one of lowest in modern history, economy marks bad for new president

President Joe Biden earned one of the lowest approval ratings among presidents in the modern era during his first 100 days in office, according to a new poll.
What are the details?
The ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted April 18 to April 21, found that Biden's approval rating stands at a paltry 52%, far below expectations that Democrats had for the new president they predicted would be a mostly unifying figure.

In fact, Biden's approval rating is "lower than any president at 100 days in office since 1945," according to ABC News. Only Gerald Ford, who was publicly damaged by his decision to pardon Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump had lower approval ratings for their first 100 days in the White House. Still, Biden's 52% is 10 points higher than Trump's 42%.

Overall, the average approval rating for the 14 presidents from Harry Truman to Biden for their first 100 days in office is 66%, meaning Biden is 14% below the average.
The survey found that a majority of Americans — 64% and 65%, respectively — approve of Biden's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and supported his pandemic-related economic relief package. A majority, 58%, also support Biden's proposal to raise corporate taxes.

However, Americans are split on Biden's handling of the economy — just 52% approve — and his multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package, which also earned just 52% approval.

Biden is mostly hampered by his refusal to directly address the border crisis; just 37% of respondents said they approve of Biden's handling of immigration and the intensifying migrant crisis at the southern U.S. border.

According to ABC News, respondents also dislike Biden's trend toward enlarging the government, and a significant portion said they view him as "too liberal."

More broadly, 53 percent express concern that Biden will do too much to increase the size and role of government in U.S. society. Relatedly, 40 percent see him as "too liberal," more than said so about either of his most recent Democratic predecessors at 100 days – Barack Obama, 33 percent, and Bill Clinton, 26 percent. (This rose for Obama later in his presidency.)
What does this mean for Biden?
Although ABC News attributed the lower-than-expected approval marks to partisanship, the poll actually revealed that just 42% of Americans rate the economy positively under Biden, while 58% rate it negatively.

The data show that Biden did not experience a boost in that very important metric, which could spell disaster for his hopes of re-election if he is not able to reverse that perception.

"Biden's rating for handling the economy is essentially the same as Trump's in January, marking this as a clear challenge," ABC News reported. "Presidential fortunes often are closely linked to economic conditions."

Print Email Hits: 39

Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal

Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal

Remember when the Left used to go ballistic over President Trump’s propensity to lob rhetorical bombs into pending investigations and prosecutions?

Good times, good times.

Well, Trump is gone and, mirabile dictu, and we’re beginning to notice that the Left’s provocateurs are . . . lobbing rhetorical bombs into the most consequential prosecution in the nation — the murder trial of Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd case.

Indeed, it is worse than that. For all the downsides of his unhinged commentary, Trump never took matters to the point of jury intimidation, as the preternaturally unhinged Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters did over the weekend.

The jury may have returned a verdict Tuesday, finding him guilty of all charges. But as the judge noted Monday, Waters’ inflammatory language offered Chauvin grounds for appeal. Because of her, this isn’t over.

Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin listening to the verdict announcement.
Court TV via AP, Pool
Waters checked every box. As a federal representative from a California district, she traveled to another sovereign state, Minnesota, to interfere in its judicial system. Her rabble-rousing was done in violation of a curfew that the elected mayor had imposed to suppress the rioting that followed the tragic accidental killing of Daunte Wright by a police officer. And her remarks can only be interpreted as an incitement to violence — one less ambiguously provocative than the one over which she and other House Democrats impeached Trump.
Rep. Maxine Waters, whose controversial statements might help Chauvin’s appeal.
Waters’ standing as a member of Congress gives her no immunity against Minnesota’s criminal laws against obstruction of justice. She ought to be under investigation.

Remarkably, rather than distance themselves from such egregious conduct, the nation’s leading Democrats are piling on. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists that her fellow California congresswoman has nothing to apologize for. For his part, President Biden waited until the jury was deliberating to make the stunning public statement that he is “praying” for Chauvin to be convicted.

The fact that the jury is was sequestered when Biden spouted off is no excuse. He is a lawyer and former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who well knows that sequestration does not make jurors impervious to prejudicial publicity. And if he’s been following the case as he claims to have been, he knows trial judge Peter Cahill has pleaded that public officials stop commenting on the trial — under circumstances where, even before the Bidens and Waters piped up, there was already substantial reason to doubt that Chauvin could get a fair trial in Minneapolis.
It does not matter how you hoped Chauvin’s trial would end. Our viability as a free, prosperous, rule-of-law society is dependent on the viability of courts as the protection every one of us, equally, can rely on against overbearing government and politicized mobs. In fact, due process is essential if we are to hold the guilty accountable — including police officers who abuse their power. Chauvin’s case is more complicated than much of the coverage suggests on key issues of intent and causation. But his conviction now has a real chance of having the result overturned because public officials, who know better, have recklessly undermined the integrity of the trial.

How is it that the Left grasps the fundamental need for due process and the presumption of innocence when a foreign terrorist is on trial for mass-murdering Americans, but not when an American police officer is in the dock?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and contributing editor at National Review.OPINION
Derek Chauvin may be guilty, but Waters and Biden made sure this will drag on in appeal


Print Email Hits: 47

Connecticut school shows cartoon to second graders of man with erection standing over 'sad' girl

'Lesson on social and emotional learning' angers parents. Superintendent admits it was 'not appropriate'

Second graders in Greenwich, Connecticut, were shown an animated video that displays the silhouette of a man with a graphic, full erection standing over what has been described as a "sad" girl during a "lesson on social and emotional learning."

The New York Post reported that the kids were shown a cartoon titled, "Alfred Jr. & Shadow: A Short Story About Being Scared," during a virtual class that the Greenwich Free Press said was "a lesson on social and emotional learning."

The Free Press reported:

The description of the video says, "All children are normalscared, but what do children who are embarrassedscared or painfulscared need?"

It explains that The Alfred Jr. & Shadow – A Short Story about Being Scared was an educational film for children aged 6-14 years. The children learn about different ways of being scared, what they need when they are scared, and suggestions for actions. Adults also get some tips on how to meet a child who is scared.
At one point in the video, the narrator says, "Some children are afraid that their mom and dad will beat them, or that their parents will fight. Other children have experienced an adult touching or putting their penis in the child's private parts or mouth."
As the voiceover speaks, the image displayed for several seconds on the screen is what The Washington Examiner called "a dejected-looking child" next to "a sexually aroused silhouetted man."
What did one parent say?
Greenwich parent and Newsmax host Carl Higbie tweeted, "In my hometown, in my daughters age group class of second grade, they showed an animated video today of a man with an ERECTION standing over a child!!!!! this is not OK!!!!"

Higbie told the Free Press that he was "relieved" that his own second grader did not see the film, but that several other "disgusted" parents had reached out to him to express their outrage.

"That somebody thought this video was acceptable for second graders was abhorrent," he told the outlet.
Greenwich Schools Superintendent Dr. Toni Jones addressed the controversial video in an email to second-grade families, acknowledging, "Around the midway point in the video there is reference to situations in which children may become afraid, including being afraid of abuse, both physical and sexual. The content at this point in the video was not appropriate for our GPS second grade classrooms."

According to the Free Press, she added "that the content was instead likely meant for a private therapy session for children who have experienced trauma."

The Greenwich School District did not immediately respond to requests from The Examiner or The Post.

Print Email Hits: 74

More Articles ...