Based on what I’ve seen watching dozens of jury selections in televised and streamed trials, it goes pretty far in both directions. If you can say the magic words to the judge “I can put that all aside and deliver a fair and impartial verdict” you will be passed by the judge for cause. Then it’s up to the attorney to use a preemptory strike.
Depends on the judge. But yes, challenges for cause are notoriously difficult, although they shouldn’t be. It’s a real skill getting jurors to admit to a bias, but I’ve seen some lawyers who are real masters at it.
As for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, not a chance. Chauvin’s lawyers were way above the line, and probably well above average (I didn’t watch enough of the trial to say how good they might have been, but I did see enough to be confident they weren’t incompetent.) Decisions made during jury selection are classic strategic decisions that an appellate court won’t second guess.
In Strickland v.Washington, the Supreme Court set a two‐prong test to determine ineffectiveness ‐ the counsel’s representation must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there must be reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Second,in evaluating the performance of counsel, the Supreme Court stated that courts “must be highly deferential…A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance."
The judge in the Derek Chauvin murder trial has found there are “beyond a reasonable doubt” aggravating factors in the killing of George Floyd last year that clear the way to sentence the fired Minneapolis police officer to a term above state guidelines… Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill cited four aggravating factors that will be considered when he sentences Chauvin on June 25.
Those factors are that Chauvin “abused a position of trust and authority” as a police officer, that he “treated George Floyd with particular cruelty,” that children were present…, and that he committed the crime with “active participation” of others, namely three fellow officers.
Here is the ruling:
That is not encouraging for those three officers as they approach their trials.
I have a friend who thinks the upcoming trials are more important than Chauvin’s, at least in regard to police reform. Most cops can probably tell themselves that they’d never act like Chauvin but now they’re put on notice that they can be charged if they don’t stop it.
Cahill has found Chauvin guilty of count 1. Counts two and three will “remain adjudicated” as they are lesser offenses.
Chauvin is sentenced based on the count to 270 months in prison.
Along those lines, one of the aggravating factors the trial Judge found in sentencing was that Chauvin killed Floyd with the participation of three or more people.
That sends a message. The court treated this as a gang killing. The gang was composed entirely of police officers.
He spoke briefly before the sentence was announced.
“At this time due to some additional legal matters at hand, I’m not able to give a full, formal statement,” Chauvin said. “I do want to give my condolences to the Floyd family. There’s going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest and I hope things will give you some, some peace of mind.”
What an asshole. What could he possibly have to say to the family?
If I had to bet money, it would be on the likelihood that Chauvin believes (or is trying to sell the idea) that “evidence” that “exonerates” him is forthcoming, and that it will have to do with some allegedly incriminating information about George Floyd. As in “HE WAS ON DRUGS!!!1!!!” or such.
In other words, as you said: Chauvin was being an asshole.
And to those upset that he got only 22 1/2 years: yes, longer would have been more satisfying, but don’t forget that federal charges may still be added to those years.
And only a couple of years ago he wouldn’t have been charged, let alone convicted and sentenced. As one of the more moderate talking heads put it, while it’s understandable to be angry or disappointed that he didn’t get the max, it’s important to recognize what a step forward this process has been.
Does anyone have an estimate of how much actual time he will serve (early parole, time off for good behavior…)?
One article I read said perhaps 15 years, with good behaviour.
Pending federal charges might also factor into his reluctance to accept guilt and give a full and open expression of remorse, apart from mere delusion.
22 years is a long time. I know he won’t serve all of it, but he’ll be in prison around 15 years and conditional release after that. He’ll never be a cop again, so that’s good too. I think the sentence is fine. (but I’m not generally in favor of super-long imprisonments, unless absolutely necessary to protect the public)
22 years makes a statement. I’m not sure 30 years would have made a different one.
We won’t know how much progress has been made until there’s a case without an extremely brave teenage girl around.
I’ll be surprised if he lasts six months in jail.
The prison’s job is to make sure he serves his time. He’ll probably get protection. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him to get roughed up a time or two but they’ll transfer him where it’s less likely to happen.
I think the sentence was appropriate. He didn’t commit premeditated murder, but his behavior was so callous and indifferent to Floyd’s safety that it goes far beyond ‘oops.’ He’ll be in the penal system the rest of his life, one way or another, which is what he deserves.
I wonder how the Aryan Nation guys in the prison will look at him. On the one hand he’s a cop, on the other hand he slowly killed a black man on the equivalent of live international news.
I’m going to give a shout to @Little_Nemo to see if he will give us his take on this.
I knew a few prisoners who were former cops. Most of them tried to lay low. That’s obviously not going to be an option for Chauvin. He’s going in with three problems; he’s famous, he’s a former cop, and he was involved in a racial crime.
I don’t know the details about how the Minnesota prison system handles this. In New York, he’d get placed in a special unit for high profile prisoners. It’s general population but with extra security. If that didn’t work, the next step is administrative segregation, which is isolating him from other prisoners. The downside of that, if you’re a prisoner, is that it means you are much more restricted in your activities.