Lol, no. There is zero percent chance of an acquittal. He’s drawing semi-live to a hung jury.
The longer this goes on, the more distant the memory and less emotion we attach to it. That’s when a conviction is less likely.
It only takes one juror to receive a little something to say not guilty and get Chauvin off the hook.
For fuck’s sake the damn thing is on video and he still went to trial. That’s confidence that the system will get you off.
huh? can he ask for a new trial later cause his lawyer is incompetent?
But God forbid that we do anything to ferret out such people when it comes to voting on candidates who will effect our lives even though their votes will be not random but rather skewed toward the wrong side. The arguments not to ferret made sense when candidates were similar. Now even tomdemaine agrees with me that things have changed.
He wanted to plead guilty to a lesser charge I believe.
A hung jury will result in a retrial. That doesn’t get him off the hook.
Im shocked she was allowed on the jury
1 Like
Now may not be the time to be championing any type of voter suppression, assuming you’re talking about IQ minimums for voting.
We tried voter IQ tests already, it didn’t work.
Is there a cap on the number of retrials?
No
You do know that a mistrial is not an acquittal, right?
There’s not going to be an infinite appetite for retrials. One more very likely. More than that, I’m not so sure.
This is really academic because the odds of a mistrial are really really low. The odds of two mistrials are even lower. I can’t wait to see what this thread is like during jury deliberations.
2 Likes
I mean, ffs there was a magachud on the manafort jury, and that dude ran trump’s campaign! And he was still convicted even though the president was tweeting in favor of him! You think Chauvin is getting off? Hung juries are really rare. The pressure on a holdout juror who is forced to contninue deliberating with 11 others is immense.
1 Like
And finally, this defense attorney sucks. That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of every talking head legal analyst I’ve seen talk about him. And that matters. There is a reason why rich people get off and poor people don’t. Rich people can afford the good lawyers.
Not disagreeing, but it seems like in high-profile cases the defendant usually can get a good lawyer. Didn’t Scott Peterson get Mark Geragos? I guess no one decent wants to be associated with Chauvin, which is understandable.
Yeah, Zimmerman’s was good too (O’Mara). I don’t know much about Chauvin’s lawyer, other than he sucks.
Can you elaborate some more on why you think he’s so bad? Pretend you’re judging his moot.
As an aside I wonder if the lone lawyer and legal assistant vs. the state’s 6+30 lawyers working on this file makes him come across as pathetic or significantly/unfairly disadvantaged by the endless resources of the state (which is normal but not something most juries would have ever been exposed to, first hand).
I whole heartedly agree with this general position. But isn’t the police union paying for his defense? Seems like money wouldn’t be an issue in this situation.