Posted on 04/18/2021 6:46:39 AM PDT by Hojczyk
On Monday the attorneys will make their closing arguments and Judge Cahill will instruct the jury in the law. The jury will be sequestered during their deliberations. They will begin deliberations with the election of a foreman. I would guess that the jury will return with a verdict by Wednesday.
Chauvin rested his defense on Thursday with the invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. I am not a juror in the case and am free to draw my own inferences from Chauvin’s silence. I always infer guilt from silence.
I was surprised by how far the case departed from my previous understanding of it. I think that the State presented a strong case and that Chauvin’s defense was thin and weak.
If I were a member of the jury, I would be bound not to draw any adverse inferences from Chauvin’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Based on the evidence, however, subject to deliberations with fellow jurors, I would vote to convict him of second degree manslaughter. I would vote not guilty on the second and third degree murder charges.
The third degree murder charge is problematic as a matter of law. We won’t know whether it can survive in the Chauvin case even if Chauvin is convicted of it until later this year when the Minnesota Supreme Court decides the appeal of Mohamed Noor on his conviction of the charge in the case arising from the death of Justine Damond.
Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson tried the case by himself. He wore down visibly and audibly in the course of the trial. I can’t imagine the exhaustion he must have felt over the past few weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Never think that because a person does not testify that they are guilty. They do not testify because tie prosecution will fashion questions to make a person look guilty.
Remember what happened to Michael Flynn.
The timing of the trial is just what the agitators wanted. It will be warm enough for the street savages to get some new sneakers, some malt liquor, and a flat panel TV.
If convicted, the agitators will fire up the crowds by saying that the penalty wasn’t severe enough, unprotected Whites will be attacked, democrats will use it as an excuse for reparations and none of the rioters will be prosecuted.
If acquitted, the city will burn to the ground, unprotected Whites will be attacked, democrats will use it as an excuse for reparations and none of the rioters will be prosecuted.
Better link that won’t go stale:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/04/random-notes-on-the-chauvin-trial.php
“I think that the State presented a strong case and that Chauvin’s defense was thin and weak.”
The state’s own witnesses were it’s biggest problem (in addition to over-charging). Prosecution witnesses gave quite a bit of evidence that favored the defendant. They might get a conviction to stick on the last charge. A hung jury is a very strong possibility.
If there are any retail stores with any inventory left on the ground in Minneapolis, they need to be working twenty four/seven to get it out of town now!
The “Protesters” have laid claim to a certain area for destruction seemingly by agreement because they do not wander outside to decent neighborhoods. I did see armed private security guarding property in those areas, however.
“I did see armed private security guarding property in those areas, however.”
What exactly do you suppose “armed private security” will do when confronted by those intent on getting to the property they are guarding?
“I always infer guilt from silence.”
Then the author is an idiot. Testifying is NOT the same as simply talking about what happened. It is a chance for the attorney on the other side to ask for yes/no answers and twist everything you’ve ever thought, said or done.
If you are defending a pretty woman with a sweet personality, it may make sense. If you are a modern day cop with an antagonistic jury, it is the equivalent of slitting your wrists on the stand.
“If there are any retail stores with any inventory left on the ground in Minneapolis, they need to be working twenty four/seven to get it out of town now!”
I live in a small Virginia town, the WHITE BLM supporters were out in full force yesterday with their Black Lives Matter signs. Idiots all. The BLM upper echelon are thieves and crooks that do absolutely nothing for Blacks but agitate, there is no war on blacks. Comply with police orders and you won’t get shot.
“I always infer guilt from silence.”
You raped me.
No, I didn’t.
Defamation suit!
If you can possibly move out of a large urban area, I would highly recommend that you do so immediately.
The governance of big cities is only going to get progressively worse.
” I always infer guilt from silence.”
Only a FOOL would testify in their own defense in a murder case.
TOO RISKY! Why RISK it unless you already think your case is lost ANYWAY!
You don’t just tell your story and then get to go sit back down. The persecutors get to tear you apart! Twist your words to make you look guilty.
Remember, the persecutors are not after the truth, they are after a CONVICTION!
What would be the upside? Its all ON VIDEO!
REMEMBER, one word when dealing with the police... “LAWYER”.
And YES, you ALWAYS need a lawyer. DEMANDING a lawyer doesn’t make you look guilty, it makes you look SMART!
Not doing so makes you STUPID! (not “look” stupid, but just plain STUPID!)
Everything is not a conspiracy, but sometimes they ARE out to get you. You just can’t tell when that is until its too late.
LAWYER!
Ask Martha Stewart about the wisdom of keeping one’s jaws close together.
“move out of a large urban area”
Modest size towns are probably going to win out on safety.
There is an interesting interview, linked in the articel, with a juror in a previous comparable case. The gentleman said that he was mostly moved in his decision by the testimony of other police officers, as opposed to that of the ‘experts.’
I sure am wondering what the closing arguments will be ... a long weekend for all concerned.
> I always infer guilt from silence. <
The guy is just being honest here. And I suppose some jurors might feel the same way (although they’d never probably never admit it).
Ugh. Too many “nevers” in my last post. I meant to say: ”The guy is just being honest here. And I suppose some jurors might feel the same way (although they’d probably never admit it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.