[Izzatso]

"Can a lawyer or expert explain how one person who killed one other person be charged and convicted for three counts of manslaughter?"

Been reading this a lot. If it was a violation of law to bring three separate charges against Chauvin, you'd think Chauvin's lawyers would have brains enough to argue that during the trial. Or at least be claiming that now. They didn't, and they aren't.

So either the multiple charges were IAW the law (and one may certainly disagree with the law), or Chauvin's lawyers are criminally stupid, or Chauvin's lawyers are in on this vast conspiracy against him. The first choice is probably the easiest and most correct.

[monkeyshine]

Well I may disagree with the law, but the way I understood it was that when the prosecutor presents “multiple choice” the jury is supposed to pick one, not all three. Even that I have trouble with because it seems designed to ‘trick’ the jury into a ‘compromise’ to get some kind of conviction. IMO they should charge the crime they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can only stab at a guess here, that the jury can convict on all three charges but that only the most severe will be applied at sentencing.

But convicted of all three, seems to me it just becomes even more difficult to appeal. If my stab at a guess is right and for some reason is overturned on appeal, then it goes back and the next strongest charge is applied to sentencing. I mean whatever one thinks about this case, in theory this hardly seems like justice.

[MinuteGal]

"Pirro says Chauvin guilty verdict 'supported by the facts' "

Chauvin's defense team.....if there really was one......stank, stunk, stinked.

I sensed that right from the gitgo....as did other freepers posting on the live thread at the time.

Too bad he wasn't adequately supported "by his own lawyers".

Leni