Dissident Veteran For Peace: A Directed Verdict in State v. Chauvin?

Dissident Veteran For Peace

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." —Alexis de Tocquevile. Democracy in America, Book I, Chapter XV.

With a nod to the Most Rev. Dom Helder Camara: When I support Palestinians some call me an 'anti-Semite', when I try to explain why I stand in solidarity with Palestinians they call me a Nazi.

"WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." —Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (ret.)

"... no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end." —character of O'Brien in 1984, part 3, ch. 3 by George Orwell.

"Every prophet has realized that nobody loves you for being the enemy of their illusions. Every prophet has realized that most of us want peace at any price as long as the peace is ours and somebody else pays the price. That is why the prophet Jeremiah said, ' "Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace,' ..." —The Rev. William Sloane Coffin. "Not to Bring Peace, But a Sword."

Sunday, April 11, 2021

A Directed Verdict in State v. Chauvin?

The prosecution in State v. Chauvin has presented, through its witnesses, an incoherent theory as to how Derek Chauvin allegedly killed George Floyd. Except for an opening statement, the defense has not yet presented it case.

Yet, the prosecution's witnesses have repeatedly given testimony that fundamentally undermines the prosecution's case against Chauvin. For instance, some witnesses testified Floyd died of "positional asphyxia" yet the only witness to perform an autopsy on Floyd testified there was no evidence of asphyxia (see also here). If the state cannot settle on how Chauvin supposedly killed Floyd then how can they honestly argue he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Minneapolis Police Dept. Excited
Delirium training slide (cropped)

Judging by the currently available evidence, the Chauvin prosecution is a political show trial orchestrated by corrupt politicians and a corrupt mainstream corporate media. From the point of view of race grifters and their corrupt enablers the trial is a win no matter what happens. If Chauvin is convicted then they will argue that affirms the false narrative of state-sanctioned routine, deadly, racist police violence against Black people. If Chauvin is not convicted or not convicted of the most serious charge(s) then they will claim that proves Black people cannot get justice and you can expect more of the rioting, looting, arson, and violent crimes that we saw last summer and fall.

However, unless there is some smoking gun soon presented by the prosecution Judge Cahill should dismiss the charges "in furtherance of justice" pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 631.21 after the prosecution finishes presenting its case. Since it is extremely unlikely that Cahill, given his past performance, will do this defense counsel Eric Nelson should consider filing a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 18(1)(a).

It's unlikely that Cahill would grant such a motion on any of the three counts but it's not impossible that he might acquit on one or two of the counts against Chauvin and, from my armchair, non-lawyer perch, I don't see that the defense has a lot to lose by filing the motion. The calculus, of course, includes weighing the time and energy involved in preparing the motion and what possible impact a ruling by Cahill might have on the jury. If Cahill acquitted on one of the murder counts would the jury be more inclined to convict on manslaughter?

See also:

Labels: George Floyd, Justice, law, media, police, race