# Minnesota trial of Derek Chauvin (killer of George Floyd) reactions **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 30, 2021, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024 "2021-03-30T13:14:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/943 "2021-05-08T03:44:44Z")
> [@StraightTalk](#): > > Even with all of this, it doesn’t mean that the juror wasn’t impartial. Although it does seem to imply a leaning. But that leaning doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t be impartial and serve as a juror. I completely agree. In fact, AFAICT, this is a black guy who feels that black lives do, in fact, matter. Which is an entirely reasonable position. If this belief is disqualifying, then the only jury you’ll ever get is a bunch of white bigots. Of course he should also have been disqualified if he lied, either on the questionnaire or in the vetting process, but this does not appear to have been the case. That said, it’s disappointing that this guy is going around blabbing like this and allegedly trying to get a book deal. It’s not a good look for the justice system in general, to put it mildly. > [@Leaper](#): > > Since this juror was very open about his beliefs during jury selection, Chauvin is more likely to get an appeal if he argues ineffective counsel Is that really grounds for appeal? It seems tantamount to saying, “I prefer lawyers who don’t lose. I wanna get me one of them, and have another trial”. I would think the only basis for an appeal on those grounds should have to be a lawyer that is either recklessly incompetent or actively malignant. But this isn’t an example of either. Chauvin’s counsel may not have come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that appeared to be largely because he didn’t have much to work with. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/944 "2021-05-08T07:41:58Z")
Based on the analyses I’ve seen, Chauvin may have an outside shot at arguing that because his lawyer wrote a crappy questionnaire that didn’t fully vet the jury and then accepted the jury and allowed it to be seated with challenges remaining, this behavior amounts to professional incompetence and ineffective counsel, and — this is the important part — these failures brought about the trial result, in contrast to better representation, which would have led to a different outcome. It’s that last part which will be difficult to argue successfully, because as we all saw the prosecution’s case was very strong. For this approach to succeed, Chauvin will need to luck into a sympathetic judge. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/945 "2021-05-08T14:44:14Z")
So a question that comes to mind: if the above jurist triggers a retrial what would prevent lawyers from letting a potentially biased jurist slip into the pool so they can use them as an excuse to get the verdict thrown out? The downside is that the jury is more likely to convict but Chauvin was so likely to be convicted that I doubt it mattered. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/946 "2021-05-08T15:03:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Is that really grounds for appeal? It seems tantamount to saying, “I prefer lawyers who don’t lose. I wanna get me one of them, and have another trial”. I would think the only basis for an appeal on those grounds should have to be a lawyer that is either recklessly incompetent or actively malignant. But this isn’t an example of either. Chauvin’s counsel may not have come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that appeared to be largely because he didn’t have much to work with. Wikipedia has a good summary at [Ineffective assistance of counsel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel): > [@](#): > > To constitute ineffective counsel, a defendant’s attorney’s performance must have fallen below “an objective standard of reasonableness.”[[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-5) Courts are “highly deferential,” indulging a “strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.”[[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-6) _Strickland_ permits attorneys to make strategic decisions to emphasize one line of defense over another, so long as they are made “after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options.”[[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-7) Even incomplete investigations are reasonable to the extent that “reasonable professional judgements support the limitations on investigation.”[[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-8) > > The performance prong emphasizes that the attorney’s performance must have been deficient at the time it was rendered, avoiding “the distorting effects of hindsight.”[[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-9) Attorneys therefore cannot be ineffective for failing to anticipate future developments in evidence reliability[[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-10) or future changes in law.[[11]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-11) > > Criminal convictions have been affirmed on appeal even where the defense attorney fell asleep during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant,[[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-12) was heavily intoxicated on alcohol throughout the trial,[[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-13) was in extremely poor health and senile,[[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-14) was mentally ill (and even discussed his delusions in opening argument),[[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-15) or was himself a convicted felon whose sentence included community service in the form of defending accused murderers (despite his lack of experience in such cases).[[16]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel#cite_note-16) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/947 "2021-05-08T15:12:47Z")
Thanks for the backgrounder. That last paragraph is mind-boggling! So, yeah, claiming “ineffective counsel” sounds like a pretty high bar to clear. And I doubt any other avenue for appeal will succeed. I suspect appealing is something they’re doing just because they can. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/948 "2021-05-08T16:04:43Z")
No the real downside is that his attornies would be sacrificing their careers in the process. Messing up a trial so badly that it gets thrown out is going to be a massive black mark on your record and may catch the notice of the bar. And even the most devoted lawyer is unlikely to sacrifice their own personal livelihood to get a retrial for their client. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/949 "2021-05-08T17:30:10Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Messing up a trial so badly that it gets thrown out is going to be a massive black mark on your record and may catch the notice of the bar. And even the most devoted lawyer is unlikely to sacrifice their own personal livelihood to get a retrial for their client. Yeah, pretty sure that only works for [Jack McCoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_McCoy) – who would be stalling to allow more evidence to come in. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/950 "2021-05-08T17:36:21Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > No the real downside is that his attornies would be sacrificing their careers in the process. It would be different counsel on appeal, finger pointing at trial counsel as much as they can. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/951 "2021-05-08T17:43:57Z")
Yes, but as I understand it, the scenario proposed by Deeg, was that the trial counsel would be purposefully negligent so as to create grounds for appeal (presumably by a different attorney). That would land the first counsel in hot water. So, purely out of self interest, it is unlikely that they would try such a thing, even if it could work to get their client off. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/952 "2021-05-08T20:18:08Z")
That would only be true if it was blatantly obvious, right? Let’s pretend that Chauvin’s conviction gets thrown out; would anyone say the lawyers obviously threw the case? Assuming the lawyers got away with it I don’t see it negatively affecting their career. If one has such a losing case as Chauvin’s I would think any legal options would be on the table. If they were able to keep Chauvin out of prison by manipulating the jury I think many would find that admirable. (On a side note I would not want to be that jurist if the verdict got thrown out. There would be a lot of people unhappy with him.) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/953 "2021-05-08T21:33:08Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Assuming the lawyers got away with it I don’t see it negatively affecting their career. If one has such a losing case as Chauvin’s I would think any legal options would be on the table. Perpetuating a fraud on the court is not a “legal option”. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/954 "2021-05-08T21:40:52Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Perpetuating a fraud on the court is not a “legal option” Game, set, match. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2021, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/955 "2021-05-08T22:18:07Z")
Well as I see it there is the following flow chart. 1. At the time of the jury selection process is there a strong reason to believe that the Juror might be biased against the client to the point of possible mistrial? If NO then the defendant’s lawyer doesn’t know enough about the juror to make this scam work. If YES then go to step 2. 2. Is it clear to people that the defendent’s lawyer chose the juror specifically to get their mistrial If NO then the lawyer looks incompetent for letting such a biased juror get through If YES then the lawyer looks dishonest and scummy for trying to cheat the court If its UNCERTAIN then the large arguments appear over the interwebs as to whether the lawyer is incompetent or scummy but either way his reputation trashed in a very public way. In no scenario does this have better than even likelihood working to the lawyer’s favor. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/956 "2021-05-09T00:20:17Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Yes, but as I understand it, the scenario proposed by Deeg, was that the trial counsel would be purposefully negligent so as to create grounds for appeal (presumably by a different attorney). That would land the first counsel in hot water. So, purely out of self interest, it is unlikely that they would try such a thing, even if it could work to get their client off. It should, but apparently lawyers are really reluctant to disbar other lawyers. LeagleEagle has said it in several of his videos. Like he thinks that it would hard for Powell or Giuliani to be disbarred, even. (Note, the comment about Giuliani was made before the raid on his files.) ---
**Author:** ![lum\_s\_husband](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lum_s_husband/32/3698_2.png) [@lum\_s\_husband](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lum_s_husband)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/957 "2021-05-09T02:28:53Z")
Orly? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/958 "2021-05-09T03:01:49Z")
I’m not sure how it’s fraud. In the Chauvin case would it be fraud if the defending lawyers knew the jurist had been to the MLK gathering? Is a lawyer allowed to knowingly push a false narrative to get their client off? I dunno; what do the lawyers in the house say? Another question is how much bias do the courts allow on a jury? In the Chauvin trial it’s hard to believe that you’d find many black people who weren’t at least a little biased against Chauvin but you can’t just throw out all black people. Their experiences are an important part of the jury pool. Just to be clear, I was satisfied by the guilty verdicts and don’t see any problem with the jurist going to DC. I’m hoping we don’t end up with another trial. I’m just exploring some of the side issues. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/959 "2021-05-09T03:18:08Z")
> [@lum\_s\_husband](#): > > Orly? ??? ---
**Author:** ![lum\_s\_husband](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lum_s_husband/32/3698_2.png) [@lum\_s\_husband](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lum_s_husband)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/960 "2021-05-09T03:40:56Z")
Orly Taitz is the reference. Lawyers are not disbarred except for stealing money from important people. Any sort of bugfuckery is acceptable. In the defense of heroes, there may be no bottom. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2021, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/961 "2021-05-09T13:28:03Z")
Our State Rep was caught embezzling from his clients accounts. The level of euphemisms the Bar used to describe what he did made it sound like it was some kind of bookkeeping error. He was suspended for 9 months (nominally longer, but somehow he was reinstated early with some “conditions” that basically amount to him agreeing to do exactly the minimum required under the law again. A few years later he did it again. To a much bigger extent. Just got two years, though I expect he will be reinstated early again, with a promise not to break the law again. Unsurprisingly, he’s a big law-and-order guy, big friend of the police. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2021, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024/962 "2021-05-10T11:18:23Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Another question is how much bias do the courts allow on a jury? In the Chauvin trial it’s hard to believe that you’d find many black people who weren’t at least a little biased against Chauvin but you can’t just throw out all black people. Their experiences are an important part of the jury pool. My one experience with jury duty was not in a criminal trial but in a grand jury whose duty it was to decide if criminal indictments should be issued. During voir dire we were asked if we were more inclined to believe someone was guilty just because they’d been accused of a crime and a woman said she was, she literally said that if someone wasn’t guilty then the police wouldn’t have arrested them. They probed a little further and essentially coached her to a response that despite her belief that being arrested was evidence of guilt she could set aside her prejudice and vote only according to the evidence and the law, so in response to the question how much bias is allowed on a jury, if it’s in favor of the prosecution, I’d say a lot. I don’t know how much is allowed in the other direction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-trial-of-derek-chauvin-killer-of-george-floyd-reactions/939024.md?page=49)