(06-25-2021 08:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 05:40 PM)Niner National Wrote:  So many libs on social media now seem to be in favor of the death penalty ?

The penalty was appropriate for the crimes he was convicted of. Now convicting him of those crimes was total bs.

Its important for our freedom that he gets a fair appeal. Otherwise, we're back to mob justice.

I sort of expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal.. but i agree, IF you compare to sentence to the conviction it seems reasonable.
e

Newly Released Documents Suggest Coercion in the George Floyd Case

Quote:On July 29, District Court Judge Peter Cahill ordered that a key exhibit requested by the attorneys for former Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao be made publicly accessible. What the exhibit reveals would be headline news in any other case, but when politics overwhelms science, evidence of perfidy is routinely ignored or censored.

Although I have written about Thao’s case earlier, a quick summary might be in order. Thao was one of the four Minneapolis police officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. The state of Minnesota has charged Thao with two counts of aiding and abetting — one for second-degree murder, the other for second-degree manslaughter. His role in the arrest was to prevent an unruly crowd from attacking his fellow officers as they struggled to subdue George Floyd. For this “crime” he faces as many as 40 years in prison, plus federal charges for civil rights violations.

The exhibit in question is a three-page file memorandum that memorializes a November 5, 2020 conference between Dr. Roger Mitchell, former Washington D.C. chief medical examiner and deputy mayor of Washington, and several prosecutors from both Hennepin County and the state attorney general’s office.

According to Judge Cahill, the exhibit was “produced by the State during discovery in the George Floyd officer cases.” In reality, it was dumped at the last minute on the overwhelmed defense attorney representing Derek Chauvin, Eric Nelson.

The memorandum casually details what seems like an effort by Mitchell to coerce Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner, into including neck compression in his diagnosis of Floyd’s death. As Mitchell volunteered this information, one suspects that he presented his own involvement in the best possible light, but even that light is not flattering at all.

In the way of background, Baker conducted an autopsy on Floyd on May 26, 2020, the day after Floyd’s death. Baker reported that same day to prosecutors, “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation. Mr. Floyd did not exhibit signs of petechiae, damage to his airways or thyroid, brain bleeding, bone injuries, or internal bruising.”

Three days later — Friday, May 29 — the state filed its initial complaint against Derek Chauvin. According to the complaint, “The full report of the [medical examiner] is pending but the [medical examiner] has made the following preliminary findings. The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” Without a diagnosis of asphyxia, however, the state could not accuse Chauvin and the police officers of committing or abetting “Murder-2nd Degree.” This is where Mitchell came into play.

A well-connected black political activist, Mitchell boasted of his involvement in Baker’s diagnosis to the prosecuting attorneys. The memorandum of that meeting reads in part:

When the preliminary result came out via the criminal complaint, Mitchell found the statement was bizarre. Mitchell was reading and said this is not right. So Mitchell called Baker and said first of all Baker should fire his public information officer. Then Mitchell asked what happened, because Mitchell didn’t think it sounded like Baker’s words. Baker said that he didn’t think the neck compression played a part and that he didn’t find petechiae. Mitchell said but you know you can not have petechiae and still have asphyxia and can still have neck compression.

This initial contact with Baker appears to have taken place on Friday, May 29. The memorandum tell us that “Mitchell thought about it more that weekend,” and decided to send an op-ed criticizing Baker’s findings to the Washington Post. The memorandum continues:

Mitchell was expecting to send the op-ed to the Washington Post on Monday afternoon so Mitchell called Baker first to let him know that he was going to be critical of Baker’s findings. In this conversation, Mitchell said, you don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong.

Mitchell knew, of course, just how menacing the environment in which Baker worked was. “Over three nights, a five-mile stretch of Minneapolis sustained extraordinary damage,” the New York Times reported. “Not since the 1992 unrest in Los Angeles has an American city suffered such destructive riots.” By Sunday, May 31, cities across the nation were in flames.

Although he had not seen Floyd’s body or read the complete autopsy report, Mitchell knew what he wanted the report to say. In this second call to Baker, Mitchell offered Baker a way to save his neck:

[Mitchell] Said there was a way to articulate the cause and manner of death that ensures you are telling the truth about what you are observing on the body and via all of the investigation. Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.

Mitchell’s second call to Baker likely took place on Sunday, May 31. The memorandum reads, “Talked to Dr. Baker before his diagnosis were [sic] final.” The diagnosis was finalized on Monday, June 1. Late that afternoon, Baker’s office sent out a press release that began, “Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.”

“Mitchell said neck compression has to be in the diagnosis,” the memorandum reported, and sure enough, there it was. Likely trying to preserve a shred of integrity, Baker failed to cite “asphyxia” as the cause of death — pulmonologist Martin Tobin would volunteer that dubious diagnosis during the trial — but he gave prosecutors just enough rope to hang the four officers.

In its response to Thao’s attorneys’ motion alleging Mitchell coerced Baker into changing his findings, the state of Minnesota took offense at the very idea that Mitchell might have influenced Baker. The acid-tongued state prosecutor Matthew Frank wrote: “Dr. Baker testified under oath that no one involved in this case pressured him or influenced him to say anything other than the truth,” adding, “Baker’s owns [sic] sworn testimony makes clear that he was not coerced. He did not change his findings in this case, and there is no factual basis to claim otherwise.”

Yes, there is a factual basis — the state’s memorandum documenting its meeting with Dr. Mitchell. No dispassionate observer could read this account without concluding Mitchell threatened to put a huge bull’s eye on Baker’s back unless he amended his preliminary report. “Neck compression has to be in the diagnosis,” said Mitchell, and it ultimately was.

What a movie this is gonna be…

Justice Devolves Into Vengeance in the Derek Chauvin Case as the Minnesota Supreme Court Denies Him Legal Counsel for His Appeal

Quote:Now Chauvin is appealing his 22 ½ year sentence. While experts say that he has very little chance of prevailing on any of his issues, the Minnesota Supreme Court is taking zero chances with a random act of justice occurring.

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday denied Derek Chauvin’s request for a public defender as the former Minneapolis police officer prepares to appeal his murder conviction in the death of George Floyd.

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea signed an order that said Chauvin failed to prove that he qualifies for representation from a public defender.

The court determined that Chauvin did not illustrate that he did not have the means to pay for a private attorney. Gildea did not, however, reveal further details regarding his assets or debts.

The chief justice wrote in the order, citing state law, that a defendant is considered too poor to provide their own lawyer if they, “through any combination of liquid assets and current income,” are not able to finance their own attorney.

The former police officer claimed in an affidavit that he has no earnings other than nominal prison wages he has received, according to The Associated Press. He contended that his debts are larger than his assets.

Chauvin also said he does not currently have legal representation for his appeal.

The notion that Chauvin, whose wife divorced him and took their two houses in the process, has the ability to hire an attorney of his appeal is ludicrous. Even if he retained possession of his real estate, that would not constitute “liquid assets and current income.” Without the assistance of even a moderately incompetent public defender, Chauvin will be unlikely to jump through all the correct hoops necessary to give him a fighting chance. I would contend that is exactly what the Minnesota Supreme Court is trying to do.

Should Chauvin be allowed competent legal counsel for appeal, the court will be forced to either neutrally evaluate his claims of prejudice…and from my point of view, if there was ever a case that demanded a sequestered jury and a change of venue, this was that case…or develop a whole new jurisprudence based on “cases where an angry mob demands vengeance and we’re scared sh**less.”

What the Minnesota Supreme Court is doing in this case is ensuring that it never has to address Chauvin’s claims and it doesn’t run the risk of bringing this case back to the front of the news cycle. Chauvin is in prison, where he will be forgotten, and the Minnesota Supreme Court will do nothing that risks changing that.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
– John Adams, Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, Dec. 4, 1770.

I have to admit, this one caught me off-guard.

The idea that the Minn. Supreme Court would tell him to pay for his own lawyer from prison… holyshit that is just incredible.