One Attorney’s Opinion re the Chauvin Verdict
A mistrial occurs when 1) a jury is unable to reach a verdict and there must be a new trial with a new jury; 2) there is a serious procedural error or misconduct that would result in an unfair trial, and the judge adjourns the case without a decision on the merits and awards a new trial. See, e.g. Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994).
In this case, serious error included a failure to sequester jury, leaving the jurors open to influence and intimidation, including, apparently, mob agitation by a sitting federal Congresswoman.
Noteworthy is that jury deliberation covered three days of evidence in a day, without asking the judge for instructions. Unlikely that any adequate deliberation took place is such a hasty time frame.
The counts were second degree murder under the felony murder rule, which requires a finding of specific intent to commit felony assault, that is, an intent seriously to harm or kill; third degree murder, which requires a finding of a depraved heart, as when a man opens fire into a crowd with no specific intent to kill the victim, but a depraved and reckless disregard for human life; Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought or intent seriously to harm or kill, or depraved, reckless disregard for life.
Please note these are logically incompatible.
The evidence presented showed it likely the victim died of a drug overdose. This alone would prevent a finding beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. The defendant knelt on his upper back, not on his neck as was first reported. No evidence in autopsy of injury to trachea or neck as would be present in a choking death. The restraint was in keeping with the state issued police guidelines.
Under these facts, a finding of manslaughter is possible, but the specific intent for depraved heart murder or felony murder is not.
For the record, the legal definition of a Kangaroo Court is ” An unauthorized, mock court or legal proceeding, e.g, in which some or all of the accused’s due process rights are ignored and the outcome appears to be predetermined”
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
