Current Events > Judge in Chauvin trial says Rep. Waters comments may be grounds for appeal

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html

The judge overseeing former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd said Monday that Rep. Maxine Waters' comments could be grounds for appealing a verdict in the trial.

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Judge Peter Cahill told defense attorney Eric Nelson on Monday.

---

And? What did they say?

---

Oh boy

---

She should really be impeached for what she said.

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

And? What did they say?

She basically called for violence and riots if they werent happy with the verdict. My opinion is that Chauvin deserves the harshest penalty, but her interference was so great that she really needs to be pressured to step down. Politicians need to know when to speak and when to be quiet.

ohiostate124 posted...

She should really be impeached for what she said.

Nancy said it fine.

---

What has Waters actually done to benefit anyone? It seems like she's just a liability.

ohiostate124 posted...

She should really be impeached for what she said.

She can't be impeached. But I know what you mean. Yes she ahould lose her job over that. Or at least be punished.

---

All it takes is for one juror to say they felt pressured and obligated to vote guilty because Waters said their city would burn if they didn't and Chauvin is getting a new trial.

---

I saw what the judge said. He followed by giving the jury the benefit of the doubt since the law presumes it's being followed unless proven other wise. He continued that one congresswoman's opinion didn't matter much and there was no direct evidence any juror member violated the judge's instructions. He called for recess until the jury has finished deliberating.

---

aren't jurists sequestered? how would they even know the comment was made?

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-admonishes-maxine-waters-comments-on-chauvin-murder-trial-as-abhorrent-221420404.html

Just moments after the jury had exited the courtroom on Monday to begin deliberations in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer charged in the death of George Floyd, Chauvins defense attorney pushed for a mistrial over its coverage.
Now that we have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to the specifics of this specific case, its mind-boggling to me, Eric Nelson, Chauvins attorney, said to the judge.

Well, Ill give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned, Judge Peter Cahill replied.

I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, Cahill said. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so respectfully and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government.

He went on to call Waterss comments abhorrent but not prejudicial to the jury.
They have been told not to watch the news, Cahill said. I trust that they are following those instructions.
A congresswomans opinion doesnt matter a whole lot, he added, denying Nelsons motion for a mistrial.

They've had a couple other instances to call for mistrial, but the defense didn't go for it.

That and Chauvin isn't on the stand makes me think the defense is confident

---

monkmith posted...

aren't jurists sequestered? how would they even know the comment was made?

That was the topic, Nelson talked about how they should have been sequestered from the start, and the judge asked the jurors if any of them read those comments from social media, to which they responded no.
---

They are not sequestered. Funny enough the defense was the one who wanted the jury to be sequestered

Sad_Face posted...

That was the topic, Nelson talked about how they should have been sequestered from the start, and the judge asked the jurors if any of them read those comments from social media, to which they responded no.

When did the judge ask the jury about maxines comments?

Come on already.....99% of the population knows what's going to happen if Chauvin is let off or found not guilty. With or without Walters words. Almost every major city will burn if he's found not guilty.

---

DirkDiggles posted...

Come on already.....99% of the population knows what's going to happen if Chauvin is let off or found not guilty. With or without Walters words. Almost every major city will burn if he's found not guilty.

Yep, you are right.... which is sad.

We are a nation of laws and our judicial system has to be legitimate for our democracy to function properly. For a fucking CONGRESSWOMEN to go out to the streets and come as close as possible to demanding a lynching without trial (but not saying it explicitly) is pretty scary.

ohiostate124 posted...

When did the judge ask the jury about maxines comments?

I didn't hear him say he asked the jury about Maxine's comments specifically, just comments on social media (I am foggy on this because I didn't know what he was referring to and he started venting about Waters without naming her specifically) but this was in the discussion where he denied the request for a mistrial.
---

ohiostate124 posted...

She should really be impeached for what she said.

She should run for President, she has my vote.

---

Sad_Face posted...

I didn't hear him say he asked the jury about Maxine's comments specifically, just comments on social media (I am foggy on this because I didn't know what he was referring to and he started venting about Waters without naming her specifically) but this was in the discussion where he denied the request for a mistrial.

I dont think he mentioned asking the jury about them during that time. The jury wasnt even in there anymore at that point.

All this because Waters said they should keep protesting and be confrontational? I get that that could be taken the wrong way, but the whole civil rights movement was confrontational.

---

ohiostate124 posted...

I dont think he mentioned asking the jury about them during that time. The jury wasnt even in there anymore at that point.

It was in the discussion he said he asked them, not that the event of him asking them took place. My apologies I see my wording is confusing.
---

I mean, things are going to be monumentally bad if the jury comes to the wrong verdict. It might very well permanently divide the nation.

---

Blackstar110 posted...

All this because Waters said they should keep protesting and be confrontational? I get that that could be taken the wrong way, but the whole civil rights movement was confrontational.

Seriously. I mean, if Derek Chauvin is acquitted, that is the system failing, completely and utterly. If the system cannot hold itself accountable, then the people must hold it accountable, and the systems justice be damned.

hockeybub89 posted...

I mean, things are going to be monumentally bad if the jury comes to the wrong verdict. It might very well permanently divide the nation.

Lol I really don't understand these kinds of posts. What does "divide the nation" even mean? At what point was there a lack of division? It's always been a fundamentally divided nation by design.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Seriously. I mean, if Derek Chauvin is acquitted, that is the system failing, completely and utterly. If the system cannot hold itself accountable, then the people must hold it accountable, and the systems justice be damned.

Holding the system accountable in this case will burning things not of the system, and negatively affecting people not of the system.

---

fuming posted...

Lol I really don't understand these kinds of posts. What does "divide the nation" even mean? At what point was there a lack of division? It's always been a fundamentally divided nation by design.

Damn and I thought I had a low opinion of the nation. You make it sound absolutely worthless.

I mean "might as well have multiple governments" kind of division. Shit, maybe we should just make it happen already and end this "United States" crock.

---

shnangyboos posted...

Holding the system accountable in this case will burning things not of the system, and negatively affecting people not of the system.

90% of people who say this absolutely would not support people literally burning down the system and would call them terrorists

---

hockeybub89 posted...

90% of people who say this absolutely would not support people literally burning down the system and would call them terrorists

Yes, that would be terrorism. I know you guys hate it when the meanings of words work against you. But it doesn't matter, because "the system" won't be targeted.

---

---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Seriously. I mean, if Derek Chauvin is acquitted, that is the system failing, completely and utterly.

Did we watch the same trial?
---

And the judge is wrong.